The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Texsox]

When elephants fight it's the grass that gets trampled.

Players becoming free agents  sooner and with larger contracts will benefit teams willing to pay top dollar on long term contracts. The Sox ownership group will pivot from decades of low spending on short term deals and crush the new business model with mega free agent deals. 

[poppysox]

How is the "average" major league player improving his situation under what the union is asking?  What's in it for a guy like Leury?

[Texsox]

27 minutes ago, poppysox said:

How is the "average" major league player improving his situation under what the union is asking?  What's in it for a guy like Leury?

Leury should be earning 8 mil a year. He would have hit free agency sooner. 

[poppysox]

37 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Leury should be earning 8 mil a year. He would have hit free agency sooner. 

Yeah...have I told you about this great bridge I have?

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

How is the "average" major league player improving his situation under what the union is asking?  What's in it for a guy like Leury?

How is the "average" major league player improving his situation under what the owners are offering?  

[Texsox]

23 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Yeah...have I told you about this great bridge I have?

So which players are underpaid? Which Sox players are we wishing had bigger contacts? And how will that make us more competitive?

[poppysox]

13 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

How is the "average" major league player improving his situation under what the owners are offering?  

Never misses a paycheck.

[poppysox]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

So which players are underpaid? Which Sox players are we wishing had bigger contacts? 

The minor leaguers...but these talks have nothing to do with them.  Actually, I would favor a larger "minimum" wage.  The top guys don't seem to need any of our help IMO.

[Tnetennba]

7 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Never misses a paycheck.

The owners locked out the players because they don’t want to share a larger portion of the massive revenues the players generate.  So the players should just concede any leverage to improve their situation to insure no one misses a paycheck?  

[poppysox]

8 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

The owners locked out the players because they don’t want to share a larger portion of the massive revenues the players generate.  So the players should just concede any leverage to improve their situation to insure no one misses a paycheck?  

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

[pcq]

11 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The Players’ share of revenue has declined substantially over the past 10 years. Has this meant raises for all those other people? Big price drops at the ballpark? 

I can think of one other place that money could go.

If the players take too much the owners will go out of business. Hope you guys are happy. No wonder Comiskey made them pay for laundry. 

[Texsox]

27 minutes ago, poppysox said:

The minor leaguers...but these talks have nothing to do with them.  Actually, I would favor a larger "minimum" wage.  The top guys don't seem to need any of our help IMO.

Yet those top guys are the ones who will benefit the most by getting to free agency sooner.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 minutes ago, poppysox said:

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

The players are asking for a split of revenues more in line with other major sports. 

People who say that better wages mean higher costs for everyone are merely parroting talking points of large corporations and the billionaire owners. It's embarrassing, honestly.

Feel sorry for? I feel sorry for you stanning for a bunch of people who provide you with absolutely nothing at a baseball game. Even worse for you for arguing against more fair revenue distributions to labor by using some absurd "players wouldn't be better in some other line of work" line which is embarrassing, even for you.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

22 minutes ago, poppysox said:

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

[Jerksticks]

5 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Dude come on, you are acting like after this CBA that Jerry is gonna have to decide if he has enough money to pave the parking lot.  That's not even sarcasm, you said that 

Somebody at the bottom loses their money or the customer pays more for the product.  You’re saying the parking lot paving isn’t a cost paid for by team revenues?  
 

What am I missing here?  

[Tnetennba]

42 minutes ago, poppysox said:

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

Why aren’t you saying this about ownership?  When is enough enough for the billionaires?  I’m sorry but it’s pretty clear you are anti-player with these stances. 

I personally think the top end salaries are absurd, but that is what the market will pay.  I don’t fault the players for trying to maximize their earnings during a very limited playing career.  The owners are still making money off the players while the players are locked out. A lockout that was entirely unnecessary but voted for unanimously by billionaires who have no interest in negotiating in good faith.  

[pcq]

14 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Somebody at the bottom loses their money or the customer pays more for the product.  You’re saying the parking lot paving isn’t a cost paid for by team revenues?  
 

What am I missing here?  

I am neutral, but the owners are playing a shell game find the money. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

Then don't go. Problem solved.

[poppysox]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Yet those top guys are the ones who will benefit the most by getting to free agency sooner.

They are the only ones who will benefit.

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The players are asking for a split of revenues more in line with other major sports. 

People who say that better wages mean higher costs for everyone are merely parroting talking points of large corporations and the billionaire owners. It's embarrassing, honestly.

Feel sorry for? I feel sorry for you stanning for a bunch of people who provide you with absolutely nothing at a baseball game. Even worse for you for arguing against more fair revenue distributions to labor by using some absurd "players wouldn't be better in some other line of work" line which is embarrassing, even for you.

Are they teaching only Ayn Rand now in high school economics?

It’s like 75-80% of the country “sympathizes” with job creators when only 2-3% in the US own and operate companies with over 100 employers.

Then we look the other way when Zuckerberg, the Walton Family, Bezos and Trump, etc., pay less than 10% in Federal taxes and receive numerous write offs (written into the tax code as a result of lobbying and politicians in their pockets). They’re basically taking advantage of every possible loophole to get the government to pay as much as possible for health care (and retirement) so they’re no longer responsible like in the 1950’s through 80’s. When a venture goes awry, their vendors take a bath while they simultaneously declare bankruptcy.

Read Black Edge about Steve Cohen, Poppysox.  Look at how many SAC Capital Advisers went to jail while he got off scot-free.

It’s like taking the side of the mortgage companies, banks and rating agencies over a decade ago.

Until recently, they even got taxpayer financed public stadiums, or benefitted from TIF and various other abatements and workarounds.  Now that window has closed, at least.

 

Edited December 18, 2021 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Somebody at the bottom loses their money or the customer pays more for the product.  You’re saying the parking lot paving isn’t a cost paid for by team revenues?  
 

What am I missing here?  

Basic economics.

In a competitive market, if I overcharge, a competitor will appear who begins to eat up market share.

But if there’s a barrier to entry, whether it’s Facebook owning every social media app so people don’t need a new one or baseball where it doesn’t matter how much money I have I can’t just found a competitive league, prices are not set by competition with any competition. Prices are instead set by what someone will pay.

That sets up a limited monopoly. In this setup, my costs only matter if I am going bankrupt paying them. It doesn’t matter if my labor cost is 40% or 60%, that doesn’t change the way I price my product because if I raise my prices, no competition undercuts me. In this case, the price is always determined by what maximizes revenue, and the only way labor costs factor in is if they are so high that my business folds.

Note that no baseball teams closed when players received a 33% larger share of profits on average.

[hi8is]

This sucks.

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Basic economics.

In a competitive market, if I overcharge, a competitor will appear who begins to eat up market share.

But if there’s a barrier to entry, whether it’s Facebook owning every social media app so people don’t need a new one or baseball where it doesn’t matter how much money I have I can’t just found a competitive league, prices are not set by competition with any competition. Prices are instead set by what someone will pay.

That sets up a limited monopoly. In this setup, my costs only matter if I am going bankrupt paying them. It doesn’t matter if my labor cost is 40% or 60%, that doesn’t change the way I price my product because if I raise my prices, no competition undercuts me. In this case, the price is always determined by what maximizes revenue, and the only way labor costs factor in is if they are so high that my business folds.

Note that no baseball teams closed when players received a 33% larger share of profits on average.

Baseball has actually done a great job protecting and expanding their revenue streams, especially for a sport where those who list it as their favorite are 57 years old already.   That’s not the ideal target demographic for marketers, to say the least.

Look at all the challengers and challenges.  Minor league baseball…that’s always been there, of course.  The Internet.  Social media.  Netflix.  The rising cost of cable and satellite t.v.  College, high school and NFL football towards the end of a season.  Golf has been a lot more popular since Tiger Woods, NASCAR had its run, mixed martial arts, now the biggest thing around the world is e-sports.  Disney+. Hulu. Home theatre systems and increasingly affordable big screen t.v.’s.  The list goes on and on.   Fewer and fewer African Americans engaging with the sport.  4 1/2 hour games, shifting and bullpen over reliance.  Instant replay.  Cue Greg rant about concessions and souvenir prices for good measure.

If nothing else, 6.8% inflation guarantees rising costs…with everything likely going up at least 10-15% regardless of the lockout.

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

When is enough...enough?  I don't want to pay more than I am already paying for a ticket or a hot dog.  Is there some player you feel sorry for?  I can't think of a single example of some player who would be doing better in some other line of work.

The owners have raised prices on fans by a billion dollars a year over the last ten years in money that isn’t going to the players. Why are you ok with price increases for their pocketbooks?

[poppysox]

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The owners have raised prices on fans by a billion dollars a year over the last ten years in money that isn’t going to the players. Why are you ok with price increases for their pocketbooks?

Because the owners take 100% of the risk of making those decisions.