Couple thoughts: Thee most frustrating part of all of this (to me) isn’t how far apart the sides are, or their respective demands, but how this is all happening at the last minute. They should’ve been negotiating this hard months ago, not walking out 10 minutes into a meeting like what happened in December IIRC, or sitting on counter offers for 6 weeks time without responding. Owners know that the fans will come back, but that doesn’t make it any easier or better for us. I do believe they will feel the wrath of angry/upset fans even if it’s just by a small amount…I think fans will still pour in and watch games that matter, like end of season and playoffs…but having such a long season and expanding playoffs will be a double-edged sword for the league with an upset fan base. I could easily see merchandise and ticket sales plunging, especially with inflation and the economy where it is. Baseball is a luxury for a lot of families—sure, they will watch at home, but I could see many fans opting not to shell out $50-$100 that it usually costs to come see the games live. This really is a shame. I think Manfred is being scapegoated a bit…yes, a lot falls on his shoulders clearly, and I do think he needs to be replaced…but he cannot corral 75% of the owners (or whatever % is needed to pass) when a subset of these owners are just crazy and not coming to the table in good faith. Those owners are the ones who deserve the public acorn IMO, but we don’t know who exactly they are. I find myself siding with the players…their requests are not asinine and do seem reasonable. Hopefully things get moving soon because this is inexcusable.
One particularly aggravating thing, at least to me, is that the players do get a big enough slice of the pie. Relative to other leagues the players cut overall is larger. The union (not particularly this group) has fought for years for the pot of gold to maximize overall income instead of fairly distributed income. Whether Correa is guaranteed 200 million or 350 really doesn't f**ing matter to me, they should work towards more players getting paid overall. The owners aren't gonna give away team control, they just aren't, and that's the real issue. they should focus on winning some groud within that structure, and if they give ground on a luxury tax for that to happen so be it. Ultimately like everybody else, I don't give a s**t who "wins", I just want baseball. However they players would have significantly more sympathy if they we're looking out for the bottom 60% instead of the top 5 percent.
I think both sides are stupid, but I'd point out that it's the players that are seeking radical changes to the previous agreement. The owners would be happy to stick with the last agreement and continue. Players want a much higher CBT, higher minimums, earlier arbitration, more money for non-arb players, no draft pick compensation, etc. That said, owners are trying to dramatically raise the penalty for violating the CBT, which is absurd if you're keeping the CBT where it was. And players seem to want it both ways - they want more money as baseball grows (fully understandable), but also don't want any of the risk involved on the downside (for example, when Covid hit, they didn't want to take any pay cuts and nearly tanked the season over that). The other leagues have a built in mechanism to balance the two - there's a salary cap in exchange for guaranteed share of revenues. When covid hit, everyone shared the costs. I think both sides are opposed to a salary cap/floor, but that's the route to labor peace because it aligns both sides' incentives - when the game grows, everyone automatically wins without having to renegotiate anything. Right now, players feel burned because the deal they themselves negotiated didn't work out in their favor. Right now, baseball has to deal with the lack of a salary cap with the CBT, which is really a pretty dumb and crude mechanism. If there was a cap and floor and reasonable revenue sharing, every team would likely be incentivized to spend up to the cap, as they do in football and basketball (basketball has too many loopholes though).
My sympathy and understanding of the players' side and point of view went out the window when the MLBPA rejected to get immediate assistance from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. F'em all.
Baseball does need a salary cap. The way it's set up now isn't really fair to small market teams. MLB is taking a hit again. The longer this continues the worse it will get. Stop supporting them is an option a lot have. Can they continue that thought when and if games start? I can sleep just fine without baseball.
A floor would be more impactful. The small market teams aren't spending anywhere close to what a normal salary cap would be if there was one. The small market teams are also not the ones being adamant or steadfast about the current CBA structure. They do need a better national media rights revenue sharing process that helps with a middle ground.
I listened on the radio and Matt Thomas said it’s all about expanding the playoffs ?? I had a crazy idea . What about shortening the season (or not ) and having 2 , 8 team playoffs . an “A” playoff - traditional 4 team playoffs ; Alds , Alcs , WS . Rings . Etc a “B” playoff - working title “wildcard bonus” , a set of 3 game series to determine 1-2-3-4 . teams get bonuses usable . My idea a 2-3% of cap exemption towards luxury tax . IE you can go 5-6 million over The limit other teams hit . Usable once over a 3 year period or if unused turns into a 4th/5th round pick ... of course the bonuses decrease as your ranking goes down . (7th , 9th ) IMO the salary cap one could be additive . Like if you got 6th place one year and 6th again the next you could go 9-10 million into LT threshold without triggering penalties . But only within the natural timespan of the bonus. adding the draft picks wouldn’t be as good of an idea imo . anyways , that would be a cool way to expand the playoffs and give teams the incentive to play for something ... as well as competition . Make being a good team worth it for a larger pool . 150 games . Imo if you want 162 you need to expand rosters and you need to go back to having a robust minor league system , but there is a lack of interest in minor league baseball for the most part . I think they need to make the draft more exciting . (Like nfl and nba ) . Maybe open up to more international players . I need to refresh on the international system
This is mostly on the owners. Locking players out and then refusing any negotiations for over two months? That was their decision. Manfred is but a puppet. Nobody respects him. Imagine being a stepdown from Bud Selig!
Deadlines force people to work. I think it was quite apparent that the players and owners were really far apart, and that time would not fix the negotiations.
True there was no guarantee they would have gotten agreement if they really started the process quicker, but in that last week they were still nipping an cutting at the minor issues. More prompt responses in the 2 months prior could have allow for them to meet the Owners deadline. It is true that some of the PA requests are too far, but Owners are definitely the ones that strung this out until the last week before a a deadline they imposed on their own.
So much this. I read all the people talking about they should have been negotiating in December but that's just not true. They didn't run out of time, they ran out of will to reach an agreement, and another day, week, month or year wouldn't have helped that- it was always going to get to this point in time b/c the sides have so much antipathy toward each other and it's been 25 years since they did this so they are just going to have to stare each other down and see who blinks. The optics are bad, no doubt, but if they would have gotten after it 6 weeks ago they would have gotten to this point and been like- yeah- what part of final and best do you not understand ****ers? while the players would have been like screw you- we aren't accepting that. And then we wait to see who breaks.
Well sure. Obviously. My point is if both sides would have started negotiating sooner—and in good faith—rather than starting a few days out from the deadline, then it’s possible that they would be closer to an agreement than they are now. Sitting on your ass for 4 months does not help facilitate any deals irrespective of how far apart they are and certainly looks bad from a PR standpoint. If they actually started sooner, I think it’s not unreasonable to think they would be closer than they are today. But what do I know, I just negotiate deals for a living. On one side, yes, if two sides are *so* far apart, then time to hammer out a deal doesn’t matter. Problem is, that’s not where they are. It’s not like a deal isn’t going to get done. They are close to getting a deal done, just not in time for the season to start. It’s not like we’re never going to have MLB again. They should have been working harder from the outset, not sitting on their hands until the week before the deadline.
On the owners knowing fans will come back...yea a lot of us will, personally i'm a diehard and i'll watch games this year and will root hard for the Astros regardless...but I won't be going to any games this year, that's for sure. Yea, I know "most" of the money mlb teams make is on TV, but me and my group of 4-5 going and spending $150 or so each adds up. We usually go to 9-10 games per year so only talking about $6-7,000 overall, not even a drop in the bucket to these guys...but how many others will do the same, and as you say, especially with inflation and the economy already taking a lot of fans out of being able to go. I also think players and teams don't realize that they cause damage with their tweets. Sure, the younger generation likes seeing all of that, but the younger generation is much more into NFL and NBA and even soccer. All the back and forth on social media gets blasted on the TV and the older true baseball fans don't like that sh*t talking back and forth, that will also drive some fans away On Manfred. I can't stand the guy...BUT, people think he is supposed to be there for the fans or for the "good of the game", which isn't really true. Manfred works FOR the owners. They hired him and they are the ones who can fire him. There is zero chance the owners would be upset with him right now. The players accepted a "terrible" deal previous to this negotiation which is driving a lot of the problems now. If you go back to when Manfred was hired to now, he has led the owners to the biggest profits by far in the history of the sport. Manfred is like Boras, most don't like him, but those who hired him do
I negotiate deals as well. Without a motivating factor, there was no way the players were going negotiate in good faith. The owners and players had plenty of time to get deal done as about 6 weeks of negotiating was just player posturing and negotiating through the media. It has only been the past 2 weeks that there has been a semblance of good faith. I fully expect the final deal will be much closer to the MLB's offers in January than to the players' counters three weeks ago (i.e., the owners are being completely honest that their offer is close to what they would agree). I fully expect the MLBPA to prioritize protecting players making over $5M a year over club controlled players. I think owners would be willing to pay young players more than they are currently offering, but I think they think there is very little chance MLBPA would agree to a CBT threshold low enough to counter that pay increase.
The players have been trumpeting this theme for a while now, they have accepted one or two terrible CBA deals in the past. I struggle to accept it; the deal they got was exactly the one they agreed to, and they had professional advisors helping them along the way, so it's not like they misunderstood what they were agreeing to. Anyway, it seems to be just a negotiation tactic, i.e., "we got the raw end of the last deal, now you have to get the raw end of this new deal." Seems like every 20 years or so there is a significant change in the structure of the deal between the owners and players. Free agency and the six year control concept was introduced in the mid 1970s. The luxury tax was introduced in the mid 1990s after the last strike. If they don't reach a deal soon, maybe it's best for the next major change to happen now. I think the next best thing would be a salary floor, but sounds like that's not even on the table now. It would be beyond stupid if we miss half the season (or more) just so the players can get an extra $20M raise in the luxury tax and some additional dollars added to the minimum salary.
There are public books on one team, the Braves. The Braves lost 32 million in 2019. They lost 120 million in 2020 and they made 104 million in 2021. The Braves are a premier (top what- 6 or 8 franchise? The flagship franchise of the confederacy?) franchise, that also books decent revenue from the Battery- their real estate venture, and they’ve lost 50 million over the last 3 years. And the Braves don’t spend large amounts of money checking in at an active payroll at 120 and a payroll for competitive tax balance purposes at 155. And, you know, they won the ****ing Wood series so that’s probably helpful. Analyzing the Braves financials: they are a crown jewel franchise that has a huge regional following throughout the south and the whole country bc of their legacy on TBS They won the entire ****ing World Series They have a pretty profitable side gig going as business/land owners around their ballpark that’s pretty unique to them and counts in their revenue stream that's filed as required by public corporations that dumbass journalists like Passan keep harping on Even with all that they have gone pretty low key on their salaries, What has that gotten them? A combined 50,000,000 loss over the last 3 years. Truly a breathtaking business to own. now, the baseball journalist would say- but Wulaw they made 103 million profit last year. Ok. Cool. So, if you can win the World Series and juice all your revenues that way with a payroll $70,000,000 below the CBT, which everyone expects people to spend to, and generate a ton of revenue as a land owner then you too can squeak out a profit margin slightly less than 20%? Remember- if they’d have spent to the CBT and didn’t have that other revenue they’d have broken even. In a year they won the World Series. So, I’m supposed to believe that the Braves show the average franchise is a gold mine? yeah- no. It’s not. My bet is that a team like the Astros or Cardinals (or Braves if they spend up to the tax this year) is basically breaking even (mid tier market trying to compete by spending up to the CBT). Small markets would lose money if they spend up to the CBT. The CBT restrains big market teams from going crazy ensuring competitive balance. does the CBT need to stay exactly where it is for baseballs survival? No, probably not. Is it in the ballpark of being a reasonable number? Probably so. Is baseball some uniquely profitable business? Not a chance. Do the players have it pretty good compared to labor in all other sports? Yeah, yeah they do. Is it a good thing for the fans if they players set up a system where they suck all the profitability out of the game and get everything leaving the majority of the owners to operate around break even? I wouldn’t think so but your mileage may vary. I come from working class backgrounds. We were on free lunches at school when I grew up and my dad was a bread truck driver (blue collar union) and my mom was a receptionist. Dad became an accountant and then a mortgage guy and mom became a teacher, so about the time I graduated they were doing better. I’ve owned 3 businesses but I’ve also worked for other people too. Sometimes I was in management, sometimes I was in labor. I say this to say I think I have a pretty balanced view if labor and management relationship. The players aren’t getting screwed. The owners aren’t any example of what ownership in a healthy and thriving business should look like. The relationship is toxic. They are limiting what their business could be bc of that toxic relationship and alienating customers. It’s all pretty stupid.
To be fair, the Braves' finances are pretty complex and there's lots of ways to measure it. On an operating basis, they had a $50MM profit in 2019. There's lots of quirky adjustments for depreciation/amortization/etc, but those are also investments that massively increase the value of the franchise. https://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-...iberty-media-says/QJ5UKP3BIJGIBLLU4SXXDGRM3I/ The final score is in on the Braves’ 2020 financial performance, and it’s not pretty. The Braves’ revenue declined by 63%, falling from a franchise-record $476 million in 2019 to $178 million in 2020, as a result of a shortened season played without fans in the stands, according to figures disclosed Friday by team owner Liberty Media. The Braves had an operating loss before depreciation and amortization of $49 million last year, representing a negative swing of $103 million from a profit of $54 million in 2019, the company said. ... Operating profit or loss before depreciation and amortization is the most common metric, along with revenue, for measuring the financial performance of a pro sports franchise. But after subtracting $69 million in depreciation and amortization and $3 million in stock-based compensation, the Braves showed a loss of $121 million for 2020, compared with a loss of $32 million after depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation in 2019, according to Liberty Media’s disclosures.
Braves revenues were also going up pretty consistently prior to 2020 (and skyrocketed in 2021 with the World Series of course): https://www.statista.com/statistics/196635/revenue-of-the-atlanta-braves-since-2006/ Braves revenues when the last CBA was signed (2016): $275MM Braves revenues in 2019: $382MM (There was a new stadium in there, etc) Braves revenues in 2021: $526MM (with a World Series)
This is exactly my point. The motivating factor has *always* been there—it is the resumption of baseball at some point. This motivation is not something that just popped up with the deadline around the corner. This (mutual) goal post has been present from the time the lockout first started and it is obviously still present. The motivating factor for both sides has been the same since day 1, and the “deadline” has likewise remained the same, even if you assume that both sides are willing to lose part of, or even the entire, 2022 season. Again, my only point was that both sides did not negotiate in good faith as early as they should have, and that is disappointing, leaves a bad taste in most mouths, and I believe it’s rational to extrapolate that it plays *some* role in the cancellation of games. It’s also possible that no matter how early they started negotiating, they’d be in the same place. I just don’t entirely believe that given that both sides do share so much common ground/interest. 4 months is a long time to hammer out details, 2 weeks does not leave a lot of time.
I get everything you are saying. And agree it's a bad look. We will never know for sure, but I truly believe there wasn't an amount of time that was going to stop this lockout from happening as I believe both sides have so much animosity built up that they have to engage in brinksmanship and a testing of the other sides resolve, and that always meant games were going to be lost.
