The MLB lockout is lifted!

[poppysox]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Are you surprised that the owners have a strategy that helps their side? Do you think the union has been sitting around doing nothing? Both sides have a strategy. Spoiler alert - the players want to use you in a PR battle. 

It seems to be working.

 

[Texsox]

10 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's really simple, Rob. Tell your owners to open up the damn checkbook if they want to be competitive. It's not the players fault billionaires want to pinch pennies. 

 

If all the owners "open their checkbook" and increase their payrolls 100%, how will that address the competitive balance? The Mets payroll will still be huge compared to others. For competitive balance each team's payroll should be close to each other. Doesn't that mean having the bigger market teams slow down spending? And remember this isn't going to suddenly lure better players into MLB. Already the greatest players on the planet are playing here. For competitiveness the idea is to move them around from the big market teams like the Sox and to the small market teams like the Pirates. The sooner Roberts is a Pirate the better the game will be. (or so the theory goes)

[poppysox]

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

A cap and floor would also help competitive balance and might help smaller market teams be more attractive to stars and other free agents.  Not sure how that math would work though.  It would also probably cut too deeply into the profits of lower payroll teams for the owners to agree to. 

A cap of $200 million (not wanted by players) and a bottom of $100 million (not wanted by owners) and some form of revenue sharing would go a long way to solving what ails MLB baseball.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

13 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

A cap and floor would also help competitive balance and might help smaller market teams be more attractive to stars and other free agents.  Not sure how that math would work though.  It would also probably cut too deeply into the profits of lower payroll teams for the owners to agree to. 

I think there should be a profit cap.  Cap how much the owners can make off the talents of the players at $25M a year and the rest is distributed to the players and employees.  That would go further to even the playing field than capping how much the players can make.  

Edited January 14, 2022 by Harold's Leg Lift

[Texsox]

13 minutes ago, poppysox said:

It seems to be working.

 

I don't find any of the players ideas bad. They all could work. I hope they dig in and don't compromise. I'd rather see the season cancelled.  I also don't think the game is broken that bad. There will always be bad teams. Injuries, bad draft picks, etc all drag down a team. So if the owners don't want to give in on everything, go for it, dig in. If we don't play in 2022 it won't be the end of the world. 

[poppysox]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I don't find any of the players ideas bad. They all could work. I hope they dig in and don't compromise. I'd rather see the season cancelled.  I also don't think the game is broken that bad. There will always be bad teams. Injuries, bad draft picks, etc all drag down a team. So if the owners don't want to give in on everything, go for it, dig in. If we don't play in 2022 it won't be the end of the world. 

I don't think asking the owners to shorten the time of control over players has any chance of success.  Higher minimum wage, higher minimum team cap, universal DH could all happen but that's about it.

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I don't think asking the owners to shorten the time of control over players has any chance of success.  Higher minimum wage, higher minimum team cap, universal DH could all happen but that's about it.

That's not going to put a dent in the competitive balance. They have to stop the highest payroll teams from outbidding the small market teams thus buying championships. All they are doing with the above is forcing the small market clubs to pay more for the same players. There has to be a way to force superstars to smaller markets for competitive balance. 

[caulfield12]

22 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I don't find any of the players ideas bad. They all could work. I hope they dig in and don't compromise. I'd rather see the season cancelled.  I also don't think the game is broken that bad. There will always be bad teams. Injuries, bad draft picks, etc all drag down a team. So if the owners don't want to give in on everything, go for it, dig in. If we don't play in 2022 it won't be the end of the world. 

Well, except for 2/3 decades when the White Sox had legit World Series aspirations being wiped out…this organization seem to have the most impeccable sense of timing.

Couldn’t manage to have this happen from 2009-2019, of course.

[poppysox]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

That's not going to put a dent in the competitive balance. They have to stop the highest payroll teams from outbidding the small market teams thus buying championships. All they are doing with the above is forcing the small market clubs to pay more for the same players. There has to be a way to force superstars to smaller markets for competitive balance. 

Competitive balance is a noble endeavor but will not be achieved in these negotiations IMO.  Some small improvements will be all that is accomplished.  If the players would give up some room on the team cap more could be given on the lower end but I don't see that happening.  All this macho talk of staying out for as long as it takes loses its appeal when paychecks and ticket sales start to be missed.  A good chunk of ST will probably be lost unless something unexpected happens soon.

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

A cap of $200 million (not wanted by players) and a bottom of $100 million (not wanted by owners) and some form of revenue sharing would go a long way to solving what ails MLB baseball.

Those are the figures I have in my head too.  I'm open to a soft cap with heavy luxury taxes similar to the way the NBA does it as well.  I don't see how any real financial parity and or competitive balance happens without both a cap and floor.

[Tnetennba]

4 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I think there should be a profit cap.  Cap how much the owners can make off the talents of the players at $25M a year and the rest is distributed to the players and employees.  That would go further to even the playing field than capping how much the players can make.  

I am 100% on board with an ownership profit cap.  I firmly believe owners should be limited to a percentage of yearly profits once their initial franchise purchase outlay has been recouped.  The rest spent on the livelihoods of those that make the game run every day.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Tnetennba

[Texsox]

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I think there should be a profit cap.  Cap how much the owners can make off the talents of the players at $25M a year and the rest is distributed to the players and employees.  That would go further to even the playing field than capping how much the players can make.  

Would it? The Mets could make $25 mil with a $300 mil payroll and the Pirates could make $25 mil with a $30 mil payroll? It seems like it would encourage the bigger market teams to spend even more. To be competitive across the league teams have to field a roster based on the economics of the lowest among them or redistribute money from bigger market teams to smaller market, The idea is getting better players from LA, Chicago, and NY to play in Pittsburg and Baltimore. You have to make the big markets less desirable and the small markets more desirable. That only happens when the big market teams spend less and the small market teams spend more. If the big market teams are allowed to increase spending at the same rate as the smaller markets nothing will change. 

[Balta1701]

4 hours ago, Texsox said:

Are you surprised that the owners have a strategy that helps their side? Do you think the union has been sitting around doing nothing? Both sides have a strategy. Spoiler alert - the players want to use you in a PR battle. 

I am not surprised that the owners are pushing a policy that will likely cost the 2022 season. But that's because I think very lowly of the people you are defending.

Spoiler alert - the owners are using you in a PR battle right now. 

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, poppysox said:

Competitive balance is a noble endeavor but will not be achieved in these negotiations IMO.  Some small improvements will be all that is accomplished.  If the players would give up some room on the team cap more could be given on the lower end but I don't see that happening.  All this macho talk of staying out for as long as it takes loses its appeal when paychecks and ticket sales start to be missed.  A good chunk of ST will probably be lost unless something unexpected happens soon.

Are you asking for the players to agree to a lower salary cap?

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I am not surprised that the owners are pushing a policy that will likely cost the 2022 season. But that's because I think very lowly of the people you are defending.

Spoiler alert - the owners are using you in a PR battle right now. 

Is pointing out that both sides have highly trained and paid strategists defending anyone? I am glad you woke up to the fact that both sides are using people for their own gain.  Which is why I really don't care how this is settled. 

[Balta1701]

Just now, Texsox said:

Is pointing out that both sides have highly trained and paid strategists defending anyone? I am glad you woke up to the fact that both sides are using people for their own gain.  Which is why I really don't care how this is settled. 

Are both sides making good faith proposals to try to deal with the labor issues or is one side attempting a "scorched-earth" type program to try to break the other?

[Jack Parkman]

4 hours ago, Texsox said:

If all the owners "open their checkbook" and increase their payrolls 100%, how will that address the competitive balance? The Mets payroll will still be huge compared to others. For competitive balance each team's payroll should be close to each other. Doesn't that mean having the bigger market teams slow down spending? And remember this isn't going to suddenly lure better players into MLB. Already the greatest players on the planet are playing here. For competitiveness the idea is to move them around from the big market teams like the Sox and to the small market teams like the Pirates. The sooner Roberts is a Pirate the better the game will be. (or so the theory goes)

There's still a luxury tax as a de facto cap. 

The lower spending teams raise their payroll. High spending teams stay the same. 

 

[Texsox]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Are you asking for the players to agree to a lower salary cap?

If the goal is moving better players from large payroll teams to small payroll teams wouldn't that lower those payrolls naturally? After all we want to move wins from the Rays and Giants to the Orioles and Pirates so there will be more competition. Why wouldn't the Rays and Giant's payrolls go down? If total wages remain the same the players should be OK with that, after all their #1 concern is competitive balance. So lower the max and raise the min. 

 

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Are both sides making good faith proposals to try to deal with the labor issues or is one side attempting a "scorched-earth" type program to try to break the other?

I don't know. I am not a part of the negotiations nor do I have inside knowledge of the strategies being developed.  What's your opinion? What points are the players willing to compromise on?

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

There's still a luxury tax as a de facto cap. 

The lower spending teams raise their payroll. High spending teams stay the same. 

 

But if the goal is to move better players from the high spending teams to the lower spending teams shouldn't the payrolls drop for the currently high spending teams as their talent level drops towards average? What seems to be the argument is move a few big contracts from the haves and send them to the have nots. Thus raising the payroll at the lower teams and lowering them for the higher teams. 

[Balta1701]

Just now, Texsox said:

I don't know. I am not a part of the negotiations nor do I have inside knowledge of the strategies being developed.  What's your opinion? What points are the players willing to compromise on?

Bargaining in good faith means, under US law, that you are putting forward proposals that are making a sincere effort to come to an agreement. Surficial bargaining, by definition, is one party "going through the motions" with no intention of coming to an agreement.

A party that locks out the other party for 43 days with no real contact, then puts out a proposal that makes no progress, could have been offered prior to the start of the labor dispute, and in fact steps backwards on at least one issue, to my eyes, has clearly demonstrated they have no intention of coming to an agreement and therefore they are not bargaining in good faith.

In that case, it does not matter what the players are actually willing to compromise on because the owners are not bargaining in good faith. 

US Labor law now may be too weak to enforce that standard any more, but it's very obvious by their actions and this proposal that it the owners are not bargaining in good faith by any reasonable standard. 

[Texsox]

So what the owners is doing is illegal? OK. Now I'm as upset as you! What can we do about it?? I'm pissed. 

Seriously, why care? In the end they will both compromise and baseball will be played. Eventually there will be another round of negotiations and the whatever this agreement is will be the worst thing ever. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

But since the players are bargaining in good faith this will be over soon. They will make an offer that the owners will like and it will all be over. Because making an offer that isn't acceptable to the other party is bargaining in bad faith. 

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

So what the owners is doing is illegal? OK. Now I'm as upset as you! What can we do about it?? I'm pissed. 

Seriously, why care? In the end they will both compromise and baseball will be played. Eventually there will be another round of negotiations and the whatever this agreement is will be the worst thing ever. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

If you don't care, even if the season gets canceled, then why are you in this thread? 

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If you don't care, even if the season gets canceled, then why are you in this thread? 

Well, the good news is you told us the players are willing to sit out 5 years if that what it takes, so at least the busting of the union can't happen.

[Balta1701]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

Well, the good news is you told us the players are willing to sit out 5 years if that what it takes, so at least the busting of the union can't happen.

Thank you for providing your additional insight into the offer made yesterday by the union with this detailed and on-subject comment.

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Thank you for providing your additional insight into the offer made yesterday by the union with this detailed and on-subject comment.

There is nothing you can do about it. Don't be bitter.