The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm just trying to understand both sides. I don't have any disagreement in how the union has handled the negotiations, I have disagreements with the owners and how they are negotiating just not as severe as yours. I think what gets lost is within the CBA the union has not been asked to give up anything. Yes, MLB profits have increased faster than expenses, but that isn't something covered in the CBA (but I would hope so in future negotiations). So isn't it a lot easier to negotiate when the only uncertainty is how much you will gain? And isn't it more difficult when the only question is how much you will give up? 

We'll offer you $10,000,000 (I'm not saying that was excessively generous) 

Get lost- We want $110,000,000 (and I'm NOT saying that the owners can't or shouldn't pay the $110,000,000) 

I can see how that leads to an impasse with both sides feeling they are being more than fair.  

My example of the 70% is I'm not certain if splitting the difference is fair or perhaps one side picked a more reasonable number. In this example that could be $90,000,000 or maybe $25,000,000. We could take it issue by issue but I honestly am more interested in a settlement. 

The other reason I can't feel too bad for the union is they are way down the list of where I would like to see those team profits go. MiLB players and staff, communities who footed the bill for stadiums, hourly worker salaries, taxes are all higher on my list than making certain a player earning $6,000,000 will now earn $8,000,000. Do I think some teams place profits over being competitive - yes. Do I think that is bad for baseball? - Yes. Do I want to see players receive more of the profits? Yes. 

First of all, if earnings have not kept up with revenues, then yes it is 100% appropriate for the union to ask for things that would balance that out. That is exactly how labor negotiations usually go. The opposite  can happen to. If...for example, there was something that caused a dramatic decrease in revenues, like a Viral pandemic, and the owners asked players to cancel a portion of the season decided by the owners and cut their pay based on the number of games actually played rather than based on their full contracts, do you think that is something the players would agree to? I bet they would.

Second of all, your statement that the union has not been asked to give up anything was replied to an hour ago with a specific example of the owners asking the players to take a pay cut on the order of tens of millions of dollars per year. Technically I think I've said it twice, the last time was more detailed. Here's the post:

Third, let's say "one side demands 100%, the other side offers 0%. The first side says we will accept 70%, the other side counters again with 0%". One side is trying to split the difference as you say, the other side is not doing so. If you're interested in a settlement, if you're interested in hourly workers having their jobs and all those things, you should also be focusing on the owners as they are the ones refusing to negotiate.

[Tnetennba]

9 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm just trying to understand both sides. I don't have any disagreement in how the union has handled the negotiations, I have disagreements with the owners and how they are negotiating just not as severe as yours. I think what gets lost is within the CBA the union has not been asked to give up anything. Yes, MLB profits have increased faster than expenses, but that isn't something covered in the CBA (but I would hope so in future negotiations). So isn't it a lot easier to negotiate when the only uncertainty is how much you will gain? And isn't it more difficult when the only question is how much you will give up? 

We'll offer you $10,000,000 (I'm not saying that was excessively generous) 

Get lost- We want $110,000,000 (and I'm NOT saying that the owners can't or shouldn't pay the $110,000,000) 

I can see how that leads to an impasse with both sides feeling they are being more than fair.  

My example of the 70% is I'm not certain if splitting the difference is fair or perhaps one side picked a more reasonable number. In this example that could be $90,000,000 or maybe $25,000,000. We could take it issue by issue but I honestly am more interested in a settlement. 

The other reason I can't feel too bad for the union is they are way down the list of where I would like to see those team profits go. MiLB players and staff, communities who footed the bill for stadiums, hourly worker salaries, taxes are all higher on my list than making certain a player earning $6,000,000 will now earn $8,000,000. Do I think some teams place profits over being competitive - yes. Do I think that is bad for baseball? - Yes. Do I want to see players receive more of the profits? Yes. 

I appreciate your search for nuance in both positions as well as completely agreeing with the bolded.  In an ideal world there would be a body advocating for the regular employees that make the game run, and they would see a larger increase in the share they very much deserve.  But alas, that's not the baseball landscape we live in unfortunately.  

[southsider2k5]

8 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm just trying to understand both sides. I don't have any disagreement in how the union has handled the negotiations, I have disagreements with the owners and how they are negotiating just not as severe as yours. I think what gets lost is within the CBA the union has not been asked to give up anything. Yes, MLB profits have increased faster than expenses, but that isn't something covered in the CBA (but I would hope so in future negotiations). So isn't it a lot easier to negotiate when the only uncertainty is how much you will gain? And isn't it more difficult when the only question is how much you will give up? 

We'll offer you $10,000,000 (I'm not saying that was excessively generous) 

Get lost- We want $110,000,000 (and I'm NOT saying that the owners can't or shouldn't pay the $110,000,000) 

I can see how that leads to an impasse with both sides feeling they are being more than fair.  

My example of the 70% is I'm not certain if splitting the difference is fair or perhaps one side picked a more reasonable number. In this example that could be $90,000,000 or maybe $25,000,000. We could take it issue by issue but I honestly am more interested in a settlement. 

The other reason I can't feel too bad for the union is they are way down the list of where I would like to see those team profits go. MiLB players and staff, communities who footed the bill for stadiums, hourly worker salaries, taxes are all higher on my list than making certain a player earning $6,000,000 will now earn $8,000,000. Do I think some teams place profits over being competitive - yes. Do I think that is bad for baseball? - Yes. Do I want to see players receive more of the profits? Yes. 

Again, 20 years ago, players held about 63% of baseball's revenue pie.  Today it is a touch over 47%.  They have lost 16 percentage points or about 25% of the share they once had.  In order to start to make some of that back up to get back to even where they were, it is going to take some revenues flowing their way.  For some perspective, the most recent baseball revenue numbers I saw were $10.7 billion.  So when the players were asking for a $110 million piece for a specific group of underpaid arb qualifiers, you are talking about just a shade over 1% of the pool.  When the dropped their ask to $100 million, it became less than 1%.  The generous owners who proposed this idea and were willing to put $5 million into it are offering players 0.04% of revenues back.

To simply get back to the 52% share the players had a few years back, the ownership would have to move almost $500 million in revenue over to players.  To get back to 63%, it would take about $1.6 billion.

So while the owners and their mouthpieces will try to blow people away with headlines about the players asking for 100 MILLION DOLLARS!, they leave out all perspective of the missing $1.6 BILLION that players would have had if things had remained simply the same for the last 20 years.

[Texsox]

@Balta1701 Here's an example of where your example wouldn't hold true. If the owners demanded a salary cap of $200,000,000 the union should have to make a counter instead of saying no? If the owners demanded a limit on contracts at 7 years and $250,000,000 the union has to counter? I think that would be unfair to the union. 

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

@Balta1701 Here's an example of where your example wouldn't hold true. If the owners demanded a salary cap of $200,000,000 the union should have to make a counter instead of saying no? If the owners demanded a limit on contracts at 7 years and $250,000,000 the union has to counter? I think that would be unfair to the union. 

Yes, the union should make a counter offer that doesn't include that salary cap. That is exactly how negotiations are supposed to work. 

The owners should then counter-offer themselves. If they wanted to hold to a salary cap being included, then they would have to start sweetening their offer elsewhere. If they gave a salary cap offer that included a 60/40 revenue split (as opposed to the current 38/62), the union might not like it, but they'd be fools not to consider it. If the owners held firm to a salary cap and would not give that up nor make any concessions elsewhere...they would be found in violation of federal law regarding collective bargaining, which is exactly what happened in 1995.

The players gave an initial offer that included a shorter path to free agency. The owners highlighted this as their biggest objection and highlighted what it would do to low-revenue teams. The players dropped that from their revised contract ask, and instead adopted the framework from the Owners' offer, with more money to balance out the revenue distribution. That's what negotiations are supposed to be like. 

[Texsox]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Again, 20 years ago, players held about 63% of baseball's revenue pie.  Today it is a touch over 47%.  They have lost 16 percentage points or about 25% of the share they once had.  In order to start to make some of that back up to get back to even where they were, it is going to take some revenues flowing their way.  For some perspective, the most recent baseball revenue numbers I saw were $10.7 billion.  So when the players were asking for a $110 million piece for a specific group of underpaid arb qualifiers, you are talking about just a shade over 1% of the pool.  When the dropped their ask to $100 million, it became less than 1%.  The generous owners who proposed this idea and were willing to put $5 million into it are offering players 0.04% of revenues back.

To simply get back to the 52% share the players had a few years back, the ownership would have to move almost $500 million in revenue over to players.  To get back to 63%, it would take about $1.6 billion.

So while the owners and their mouthpieces will try to blow people away with headlines about the players asking for 100 MILLION DOLLARS!, they leave out all perspective of the missing $1.6 BILLION that players would have had if things had remained simply the same for the last 20 years.

I agree 100%. Let's add that to the CBA a salary minimum based on revenues. And I feel vindicated for defending agents like Boras all these years. Yes, revenues are increasing faster than salaries. With the team profits where they are we should have been screaming that Garcia signed for too little. We should have been livid that Grandall is so poorly paid. But we didn't. Why? We kept hearing things like those big contracts will hold back the team and keep them from making a deal or they overpaid for that guy. Hopefully fans have seen the light and will demand higher contracts for players. The items in the CBA won't come close to closing the gap. Only more agents like Boras willing to really fight for their players can make the really big difference. Hopefully fans will stop bitching when a Boras client signs for mega bucks. 

I have always been a Boras fan. Yes, he seems to only care about getting the biggest contract he can for his clients. 

[Tnetennba]

 

[Tnetennba]

 

[Tnetennba]

 

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes, the union should make a counter offer that doesn't include that salary cap. That is exactly how negotiations are supposed to work. 

The owners should then counter-offer themselves. If they wanted to hold to a salary cap being included, then they would have to start sweetening their offer elsewhere. If they gave a salary cap offer that included a 60/40 revenue split (as opposed to the current 38/62), the union might not like it, but they'd be fools not to consider it. If the owners held firm to a salary cap and would not give that up nor make any concessions elsewhere...they would be found in violation of federal law regarding collective bargaining, which is exactly what happened in 1995.

The players gave an initial offer that included a shorter path to free agency. The owners highlighted this as their biggest objection and highlighted what it would do to low-revenue teams. The players dropped that from their revised contract ask, and instead adopted the framework from the Owners' offer, with more money to balance out the revenue distribution. That's what negotiations are supposed to be like. 

Exactly. 

[Balta1701]

So I asked this earlier, if anyone sees this explained on Twitter or anything I'm happy to learn this. Why would MLBPA reject a request for mediation? What benefit do the owners expect to get from mediation that the players are trying to deny them?

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

Exactly. 

? So you're going to accuse me of twisting your words here again but I have no idea why you'd say this while simultaneously saying the Union did something wrong. The Union made their counteroffer and the Owners won't. 

[Texsox]

7 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So I asked this earlier, if anyone sees this explained on Twitter or anything I'm happy to learn this. Why would MLBPA reject a request for mediation? What benefit do the owners expect to get from mediation that the players are trying to deny them?

Depends on your point of view. The mediator doesn't necessarily know baseball or the business aspect, only the negotiation process. They do not under most situations make a recommendation on specifics points and a compromise. Some would say it is merely a ploy by MLB to force yet another delay putting more pressure on the union.  (I tend to agree and would throw a delay of game flag and penalize the owners). 

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

? So you're going to accuse me of twisting your words here again but I have no idea why you'd say this while simultaneously saying the Union did something wrong. The Union made their counteroffer and the Owners won't. 

I'm not saying the union did anything wrong. I don't believe I ever have. The ball is and always will be in MLB's court. The owners could settle this right now by accepting any offer the union made and they will still have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. You see it as binary - everything MLB has done is evil. I don't agree. That doesn't mean I think the union has done anything wrong. 

[Tnetennba]

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So I asked this earlier, if anyone sees this explained on Twitter or anything I'm happy to learn this. Why would MLBPA reject a request for mediation? What benefit do the owners expect to get from mediation that the players are trying to deny them?

As I see it, and could be off, is that if ownership can get an impasse declared, they can force their last proposal as the new CBA, or something along those lines.  Asking for an outside mediator was a PR ploy, and the PA knows the owners haven't negotiated in good faith to this point so they won't and shouldn't submit to outside mediation.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I'm not saying the union did anything wrong. I don't believe I ever have. The ball is and always will be in MLB's court. The owners could settle this right now by accepting any offer the union made and they will still have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. You see it as binary - everything MLB has done is evil. I don't agree. That doesn't mean I think the union has done anything wrong. 

The owners' first offer was fine for a first offer. It should have been made in November rather than January, but it was an appropriate opening offer for them.

Aside from that, literally everything they've done has been an effort to use the season as a hostage, including all of the other employees.

[Texsox]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

The owners' first offer was fine for a first offer. It should have been made in November rather than January, but it was an appropriate opening offer for them.

Aside from that, literally everything they've done has been an effort to use the season as a hostage, including all of the other employees.

Yes. The owners could end this right now by accepting any of the union offers and still have generational wealth to hand down to their grandchildren's children but choose not to do so. For the most part they are putting their interest and the interest of their future generations above those of the players, their employees, and fans. 

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Yes. The owners could end this right now by accepting any of the union offers and still have generational wealth to hand down to their grandchildren's children but choose not to do so. For the most part they are putting their interest and the interest of their future generations above those of the players, their employees, and fans. 

The owners shouldn't just accept the union offer! They should conduct a fair negotiation and counter-offer!

[southsider2k5]

25 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So I asked this earlier, if anyone sees this explained on Twitter or anything I'm happy to learn this. Why would MLBPA reject a request for mediation? What benefit do the owners expect to get from mediation that the players are trying to deny them?

 

[southsider2k5]

Also this is  a good thread.

 

[Texsox]

18 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The owners shouldn't just accept the union offer! They should conduct a fair negotiation and counter-offer!

The point is MLB could accept and it wouldn't kill their business. They made a counter offer of getting a federal mediator involved which was (rightfully in my mind) rejected. Now the ball is back in their court. 

[Tnetennba]

 

[Tnetennba]

 

[StrangeSox]

6 hours ago, Texsox said:

Of course they can spend an extra ten million. 

But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. 

I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. 

It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this. 

When you're at that level of wealth, it does. You borrow against that for your cash flow. It's not like Bezos or Gates have billions sitting around in cash anywhere, but they have access to essentially unlimited funds if they want them.  Same for MLB owners.

[Texsox]

11 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

When you're at that level of wealth, it does. You borrow against that for your cash flow. It's not like Bezos or Gates have billions sitting around in cash anywhere, but they have access to essentially unlimited funds if they want them.  Same for MLB owners.

Read the line after the part you bolded. Are you suggesting that Microsoft or Amazon routinely borrows funds to meet payroll?

FYI too much debt lowers company values especially if you are borrowing to meet payroll. Again, their revenue and profits will allow them to increase payrolls, there isn't even a need to borrow to meet reoccurring expenses.