MLB Heading To A Lockout

[JRX]

Originally Posted by SearchPatrol

What's the players end game? As of right now, total salaries for all MLB players in 2021 is $3,825,147,026

3.8 Billion. That doesn't include things like cards.

The top 50 players make 33.4% of that money.

The owners won't give the players a Billion more. If that's what they want, there will be a work stoppage.

So what do the players think they will get?

So much of this seems to be problems between the wealth players and minimum pay players.

The players want higher min sal and quicker path to free agency. The current service time system keeps these guys locked up until they're about 30.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[boxbuster7]

If they can have a season in the middle of a pandemic, they can figure it out in 2022

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by pewe

What does “free market share” mean?

If the players got their “free market share” what would look different than today?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

check this out:

Their free market share is the share of money they would have if MLB were a free market.

And I should said, if I were being more specific (and I know I must with you) that the owners have fought against any advancement towards that free market, and have attempted to push back towards more artificial salary control. Since day 1.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Silent George

check this out:

Their free market share is the share of money they would have if MLB were a free market.

And I should said, if I were being more specific (and I know I must with you) that the owners have fought against any advancement towards that free market, and have attempted to push back towards more artificial salary control. Since day 1.

What share of the market do you think they would get if it was a “free market”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldgoldy97]

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by SearchPatrol

What's the players end game? As of right now, total salaries for all MLB players in 2021 is $3,825,147,026

3.8 Billion. That doesn't include things like cards.

The top 50 players make 33.4% of that money.

The owners won't give the players a Billion more. If that's what they want, there will be a work stoppage.

So what do the players think they will get?

So much of this seems to be problems between the wealth players and minimum pay players.

What's funny about this question is that the answer is: whatever an owner will be willing to get them without constraints in place limiting that pay.

so do they want a BILLION MORE DOLLARS? Sure. If that's what a competitive market place yields. It's not like they write the players union one big check.

The players don't want things that constrict money, like salary caps, luxury tax thresholds that increasingly penalize teams that don't get under it, or an arb system that traps players for 6 years and can be easily manipulated by teams, such as in the case of Kris Bryant.

And then with those artificial depressors in place, they want to see what they are worth to a ballclub trying to compete. And then the owner will decide what their payroll is, or what they are willing to spend on an individual. And yeah, that might add up to a billion more dollars if the owners want to do it. Or if the owners don't want to do it, then they risk another team having that talent - or the price of the player comes down.

What do any of you want out of your jobs? arbitrary ceilings on your position salary industry wide just so your company can justify not paying you more? maybe a higher payroll tax, so your company is incentivized to not offer you as much? Or perhaps you'd prefer to work for 6+ years (including the minors) at artificially low wages that incentivize them not to give you a raise after, when they can just give your job to someone else just out of school?

MLB is different. Because league wide health needs to be addressed. So in the good of the league, some things have to be in place to allow small market teams to compete easier. But on balance it's 90% owner driven right now, and they aren't looking to keep things the same. They aren't offering to play on under the same contract. No, the owners are pushing for more.

[mwash1983]

Originally Posted by Saraste

I am one, unfortunately, that thinks there will be a significant delay to the season, if there is a season at all.

Do I think both sides should hammer something out? Of course. There are billions in revenue at stake. However common sense will not prevail because the animosity on both sides has been building for years. That will be extremely difficult to overcome. If the owners said it is raining out, the players would verify it instead of trusting them. I believe the players have been preparing for a lockout for years by putting money aside for the younger players. I hope I am very wrong, but history whispers to me otherwise.

If no season I am out as a big fan, I may casually watch it, but would move on to rather watching soccer, more hockey, or lacrosse.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Silent George

What's funny about this question is that the answer is: whatever an owner will be willing to get them without constraints in place limiting that pay.

so do they want a BILLION MORE DOLLARS? Sure. If that's what a competitive market place yields. It's not like they write the players union one big check.

The players don't want things that constrict money, like salary caps, luxury tax thresholds that increasingly penalize teams that don't get under it, or an arb system that traps players for 6 years and can be easily manipulated by teams, such as in the case of Kris Bryant.

And then with those artificial depressors in place, they want to see what they are worth to a ballclub trying to compete. And then the owner will decide what their payroll is, or what they are willing to spend on an individual. And yeah, that might add up to a billion more dollars if the owners want to do it. Or if the owners don't want to do it, then they risk another team having that talent - or the price of the player comes down.

What do any of you want out of your jobs? arbitrary ceilings on your position salary industry wide just so your company can justify not paying you more? maybe a higher payroll tax, so your company is incentivized to not offer you as much? Or perhaps you'd prefer to work for 6+ years (including the minors) at artificially low wages that incentivize them not to give you a raise after, when they can just give your job to someone else just out of school?

MLB is different. Because league wide health needs to be addressed. So in the good of the league, some things have to be in place to allow small market teams to compete easier. But on balance it's 90% owner driven right now, and they aren't looking to keep things the same. They aren't offering to play on under the same contract. No, the owners are pushing for more.

The only thing that will allow small market teams to compete is revenue sharing and a hard salary cap like the NFL. One small market team has won a WS in the last 30 years.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Silent George

What do any of you want out of your jobs? arbitrary ceilings on your position salary industry wide just so your company can justify not paying you more? maybe a higher payroll tax, so your company is incentivized to not offer you as much? Or perhaps you'd prefer to work for 6+ years (including the minors) at artificially low wages that incentivize them not to give you a raise after, when they can just give your job to someone else just out of school?

How does this differ from finance, law, consulting, architecture, accounting, etc?

What do you find unique about MLB vs. many other high-skill, high-development cost apprenticeship mode industries that have similar Jr vs. mid-level vs. Sr pay structures? Along with significant deferred comp and non-compete clauses?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only thing that will allow small market teams to compete is revenue sharing and a hard salary cap like the NFL. One small market team has won a WS in the last 30 years.

Eh -- the Royals in 2015; Marlins in 2003 and 1997.

St Louis is a smaller-sized market -- Cardinals won in 2006 and 2011.

Indians blew a 3-1 lead to the Cubs in 2016 -- blew the lead in the 9th in game 7 in 1997.

Rays went to the World Series in 2008 and 2020.

Twins can never beat the Yankees in the postseason.

The A's can never reach the LCS even though they've made the playoffs a lot since 2000.

The Reds, Pirates and Orioles are miserable, though.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only thing that will allow small market teams to compete is revenue sharing and a hard salary cap like the NFL. One small market team has won a WS in the last 30 years.

Is winning the World Series the only valid measurement of "competing"?

Because Oakland, Tampa Bay, and to a lesser extent Kansas City, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Minnesota have all be very competitive smaller markets at various points in time.

The biggest impediment to small markets competing is lazy/greedy owners who care primarily about profits and therefore refuse to spend any money (i.e. Pittsburgh, Miami, & Baltimore).

[SearchPatrol]

Originally Posted by JRX

The players want higher min sal and quicker path to free agency. The current service time system keeps these guys locked up until they're about 30.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So the owners would then have less mid-range players. It's no different than how football or basketball work with the salary cap. The owners spend 3.8 billion on player salary. How do the players want that distributed. The owners will always adjust. Shorten time to free agency. Spend less on player development. More players to sign. Less long tern deals. More shorter, high yearly contracts. MLB and other sports Unions are like no others. Everybody is fighting for the same jobs. Somebody else in the union wants your job, or somebody who will soon be in the Union.

To me the Union is fighting for 3 separate groups at once. The high end players - the 50 that are making 1/3 money. The older player who have been in the league and now want to get paid. The young up-and-comer who wants the older player's jobs. Union can't make all 3 happy.

[SearchPatrol]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Is winning the World Series the only valid measurement of "competing"?

Because Oakland, Tampa Bay, and to a lesser extent Kansas City, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Minnesota have all be very competitive smaller markets at various points in time.

The biggest impediment to small markets competing is lazy/greedy owners who care primarily about profits and therefore refuse to spend any money (i.e. Pittsburgh, Miami, & Baltimore).

So now were giving out participation trophy if a small market makes the playoffs?

[JRX]

Originally Posted by SearchPatrol

So the owners would then have less mid-range players. It's no different than how football or basketball work with the salary cap. The owners spend 3.8 billion on player salary. How do the players want that distributed. The owners will always adjust. Shorten time to free agency. Spend less on player development. More players to sign. Less long tern deals. More shorter, high yearly contracts. MLB and other sports Unions are like no others. Everybody is fighting for the same jobs. Somebody else in the union wants your job, or somebody who will soon be in the Union.



To me the Union is fighting for 3 separate groups at once. The high end players - the 50 that are making 1/3 money. The older player who have been in the league and now want to get paid. The young up-and-comer who wants the older player's jobs. Union can't make all 3 happy.

TV contracts have inc in value so theres also increasing that 3.8B. Theres also the more fun thought experiment of "why do you even need owners" initially, they put up capital, but the teams are now run like corporations. Unless the owner is running the team at a loss, they provide no value and only exist because of anti trust exemptions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by SearchPatrol

So now were giving out participation trophy if a small market makes the playoffs?

The Dodgers made the playoffs 9 straight years with a very high payroll and only won one championship in a pandemic-shortened season.

The Yankees have only won one championship in 20 years -- they've consistently had one of the highest payrolls and play in the biggest market.

Market and payroll size is associated with championship winning, but not that much. Mid market teams and occasionally small market teams win championships.

[fabiani12333]

All these comments and no one has mentioned what I think is the number one factor deciding payroll allocation -- analytics.

Analytics has been driving strategy for most of MLB in recent years. It's telling teams where money is best spent and how to be more efficient with payroll.

Young stars and top prospects have been the most valuable commodities in MLB. They also are financially the cheapest and best option for long-term deals.

Teams are doing a lot more platooning and mixing and matching, which hurts the mid-tier market of veteran free agents.

Star veterans are still regularly getting big deals, but I wonder for how long. You dont see the more analytically driven front offices signing them.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

All these comments and no one has mentioned what I think is the number one factor deciding payroll allocation -- analytics.

Analytics has been driving strategy for most of MLB in recent years. It's telling teams where money is best spent and how to be more efficient with payroll.

Young stars and top prospects have been the most valuable commodities in MLB. They also are financially the cheapest and best option for long-term deals.

Teams are doing a lot more platooning and mixing and matching, which hurts the mid-tier market of veteran free agents.

Star veterans are still regularly getting big deals, but I wonder for how long. You dont see the more analytically driven front offices signing them.

The white Sox have tried to beat this by signing key players to long term deals that buy out the arbitration years. Luis Robert made 2 million dollars this year, but in five years is already slated for 20 million.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only thing that will allow small market teams to compete is revenue sharing and a hard salary cap like the NFL. One small market team has won a WS in the last 30 years.

Royals, Marlins (TWICE), Diamondbacks, and Astros have all won WS in the last 30 years.

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by Silent George

check this out:

Their free market share is the share of money they would have if MLB were a free market.

And I should said, if I were being more specific (and I know I must with you) that the owners have fought against any advancement towards that free market, and have attempted to push back towards more artificial salary control. Since day 1.

Actually, the players don't want too many free agents in any given year because that itself will suppress salaries. This is one of the key visions of Marvin Miller. The fewer FA, the higher FA salaries. Teams are taking that money they're saving on team control players and overpaying the very best of the players who make it to free agency.

Originally Posted by Silent George

What's funny about this question is that the answer is: whatever an owner will be willing to get them without constraints in place limiting that pay.

so do they want a BILLION MORE DOLLARS? Sure. If that's what a competitive market place yields. It's not like they write the players union one big check.

The players don't want things that constrict money, like salary caps, luxury tax thresholds that increasingly penalize teams that don't get under it, or an arb system that traps players for 6 years and can be easily manipulated by teams, such as in the case of Kris Bryant.

And then with those artificial depressors in place, they want to see what they are worth to a ballclub trying to compete. And then the owner will decide what their payroll is, or what they are willing to spend on an individual. And yeah, that might add up to a billion more dollars if the owners want to do it. Or if the owners don't want to do it, then they risk another team having that talent - or the price of the player comes down.

What do any of you want out of your jobs? arbitrary ceilings on your position salary industry wide just so your company can justify not paying you more? maybe a higher payroll tax, so your company is incentivized to not offer you as much? Or perhaps you'd prefer to work for 6+ years (including the minors) at artificially low wages that incentivize them not to give you a raise after, when they can just give your job to someone else just out of school?

MLB is different. Because league wide health needs to be addressed. So in the good of the league, some things have to be in place to allow small market teams to compete easier. But on balance it's 90% owner driven right now, and they aren't looking to keep things the same. They aren't offering to play on under the same contract. No, the owners are pushing for more.

There is no doubt the player's share of MLB revenue has decreased, although some of that is offset by better benefits. The players are going to try and get some/most of that back. The main issue right now is team revenue is less tied to winning that it was in the past, so they spend less trying to win. That's what makes the tanking issue an issue.

IMO there is really only one way to get that share of revenue for the players...a massive increase minimum salary (to like $2m/yr). Otherwise they're fighting on the fringe. Of those fringe battles (ie the best way to stop the bleeding), the best move IMO is to change the draft order to create another cost for losing. And FFS get rid of the ridiculous notion of service days and make it service years!

[pewe]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

There is no doubt the player's share of MLB revenue has decreased, although some of that is offset by better benefits. The players are going to try and get some/most of that back. The main issue right now is team revenue is less tied to winning that it was in the past, so they spend less trying to win. That's what makes the tanking issue an issue.

When you say it “decreased”… relative to what?

For the last decade Major League Salaries + Minor League Salaries + Benefits / Bonuses / etc. have stayed right around 55-57% of league revenues. Even while league revenues have increased by 1.5x.

Now I haven’t re-looked at this since 2019 (so the last full year in the data was 2018), and I’m guessing 2020 isn’t worth trying to examine.

But because of various factors I’d be shocked if 2019 (or 2021) would be much out of line.

Or are you saying player portion of revenue cratered in 2019 and 2021 vs. history?

BTW if I remember right you can take this player portion of revenues back like two decades and get a similar number.

FWIW Pre-mid-90s the take was much lower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raleigh504]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

All these comments and no one has mentioned what I think is the number one factor deciding payroll allocation -- analytics.

Analytics has been driving strategy for most of MLB in recent years. It's telling teams where money is best spent and how to be more efficient with payroll.

Young stars and top prospects have been the most valuable commodities in MLB. They also are financially the cheapest and best option for long-term deals.

Teams are doing a lot more platooning and mixing and matching, which hurts the mid-tier market of veteran free agents.

Star veterans are still regularly getting big deals, but I wonder for how long. You dont see the more analytically driven front offices signing them.

To me, the big signings (Harper, Trout, Lindor, etc) are not always about winning, but selling tickets/marketing. When you get one of the players that is the face of MLB, it helps sell tickets or at least raise the ticket costs.

Yes analytics are saying younger cheap players since they don't win games, but I am sure at one point with these star players, the team used them for marketing, increase ticket prices, sold merchandise, etc.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Royals, Marlins (TWICE), Diamondbacks, and Astros have all won WS in the last 30 years.

Only the Royals on that list play in a city in the bottom 50% of all Big 4 sports markets. Houston is 8th, Phoenix 11th, Miami 18th, Royals 33rd out of 42.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by pewe

When you say it “decreased”… relative to what?

For the last decade Major League Salaries + Minor League Salaries + Benefits / Bonuses / etc. have stayed right around 55-57% of league revenues. Even while league revenues have increased by 1.5x.

Now I haven’t re-looked at this since 2019 (so the last full year in the data was 2018), and I’m guessing 2020 isn’t worth trying to examine.

But because of various factors I’d be shocked if 2019 (or 2021) would be much out of line.

Or are you saying player portion of revenue cratered in 2019 and 2021 vs. history?

BTW if I remember right you can take this player portion of revenues back like two decades and get a similar number.

FWIW Pre-mid-90s the take was much lower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think this is the last writeup prior to covid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...h=443b211839d7

[pewe]

Originally Posted by JRX

I think this is the last writeup prior to covid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...h=443b211839d7

Cool - that seems to validate what I posted. That it has been pretty consistent (within ~200 basis points) for 15 years through 2018.

My guess about 2021? That the overall league revenues will be off by >5% from 2018/2019 peak (due to gate receipts being down), while player salaries continued its upward trend. So we might see player take 60% in 2021.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[base set]

If TV contracts are increasing in value, why is Sinclair about $8 Billion in the hole on their purchase of the 22 Regional Sports Networks from Fox? And why do some of the owners of the other 8 want to sell, but can’t?

This coming ‘war’ is a war of public perception. Either side could ‘win’ in their view, but still ultimately lose by driving away the customers. I don’t think the customers care about how the pie is sliced, but the current MLB business model of extracting increased revenue per customer while the number of customers steadily decreases isn’t ultimately sustainable for either side. When regular games cost $2 each just to watch, few will watch them. The people on this forum will, sure. But how many will join them? Lower ratings for increasingly expensive pay-per-view events then bring less advertising revenue which then increases the PPV fee which then brings less viewers…

Selling stadium adjacent condos to the hard core fans will help mask things for a little while longer in some cities. Players insisting on a cut of that as well is just more circling the drain of chasing an older and older fanbase which has disposable income. Until the fan dies.

I don’t think Baseball needs Arena Football like changes to reverse the fan quantity decline. It just needs lower prices for the fans to enjoy the games, and the players don’t want to hear that. They are blinded by Ego of working for someone with more money than they have, while the fans conclude the players have plenty of money and decline to give theirs to the players. Many reading this here will disagree - just try discussing baseball with someone who has to decide between their cable package and a streaming package. Baseball used to be free to watch on TV.