I've been reading the following book the last month or so: Essentially, it's a behind the scenes play by play of labor/management history of MLB and it's fascinating. It really gives you perspective on today's problems and how we got here. It also essentially shows just how stupid ownership was (is?) and how they were their own worst enemies. But it's also hilarious. Highly recommended.
What's even the point of these moves of $5MM at a time? This is pocket change - it seems like it would be an opportunity to generate good will and movement on bigger issues if you agreed to move up a bigger amount. Or at least then force the other side to come back with a real concession. Or propose a trade - we'll agree to $80MM if you agree to X.
That last part is what it's gonna take to get movement. Typically in labor related deals with multiple issues it takes one side saying "we will give you what you want here, in return for...my guess is the owners would give a much much larger pool for the younger players in exchange for not raising the CBT nearly as much as the players want. The problem is for all the talk of wanting younger players paid more earlier, the group of players who are there are mostly through all of those years, so the CBT is what affects them personally not the bottom end guys. That's also where the owners would lose the most money The fact that they are meeting daily this week is huge. Have to think as we get into Thursday-Friday if they are anywhere close on the big issues we get a deal done by Monday. If they meet daily and keep with the $5M at a time movement, we will be in this for a while
I don't think the owners will make an agreement that changes the status quo of 54% to 57% of baseball revenues to players (except in their favor). The players are upset teams/owners make money on non-baseball stuff (some of which may actually be baseball stuff) that they don't get a piece. To help young players get significantly more pay, MLBPA would have to be willing to trade tax level concessions that disproportionately affect rich veteran players. I don't see players willing to make that trade. I don't see owners be willing to actually concede more money as all their offers just look like the same moneywise...just repackaged in ways trying to appease MLBPA without giving up a larger share.
With the way the two sides are negotiating, I don't think there's any chance there's a deal by Monday. I think we're weeks away rather than days. Real negotiations involve each side figuring out what's most important to the other side that's less important to their own side and negotiating on those points. Neither side seems even interested in that at this point, suggesting that no one's really serious yet.
The positive is at least they are talking, unlike the couple of months they basically decided to procrastinate.
Its equally frustrating... they could have been doing this all along. Nothing has changed. When they actually negotiate in good faith and make the effort, they're going to uncover some other issues that may take more time to get sorted out... and now they're going to likely miss games because of like you said, procrastination.
[Premium Post] It will come down to the wire -- we've always known that. The leverage the owners have is for the players to miss game checks. Feb 28th is that deadline... and the reason why the owners instituted a lockout in the first place. We always knew the owners wouldn't agree to a deal prior to that deadline becoming "real". And we are now in that zone. There has not been a reason for the owners to budge up until now. Players are going to feel the heat soon. Everything going according to how I thought it would. And I am an expert negotiator. GOOD DAY
Jeff Passan: THREAD: I’d like to talk about the CBT. Today was the third consecutive day of bargaining, and neither the league nor the union has made a proposal on the competitive-balance tax, which is vital seeing as it is almost certainly going to determine whether opening day is March 31. What indicates that, more than anything, is how deeply the league and the union are digging in. Both sides are waiting for the other to make a “big move.” That big move is on the CBT. Without it, there will be no deal by Monday. That has evolved from presumption to reality. First, let’s define the CBT: It is a luxury-tax apparatus that penalizes baseball teams whose payrolls exceed a threshold agreed upon by MLB and the MLBPA during collective bargaining. Its current form arrived in 2002 as a way to restrain excessive spending. It does much more. Next, some facts: In 2021, the threshold was $210M. The union has asked for it to jump to $245M this year, then $252M, $259M, $266M and $273M in the final year. MLB is offering $214M this year, then $214M, $216M, $218M and $222M. You can see already: The financial gap is massive. There are monetary and non-monetary penalties for exceeding it. Players want to get rid of the loss of draft picks and offered monetary status quo: 20% tax over the threshold, 32% tax $20M-$40M over, 62.5% tax on $40M+. MLB wants to essentially double the tax rates: 50%/75%/100%. The union believes MLB’s offer is worse than the old CBT, which sunset — essentially disappeared — with the expiration of the last deal. The union is correct. A $214M threshold with worse taxes is a step backward. Though it’s not surprising. MLB doesn’t want to pay players more. Now, the league says the CBT is important for competitive-balance reasons, even though from 2011-19, there was no correlation between payroll and wins. (I did the math.) This much is also true: Every World Series winner during that time started the season with a top 11 payroll. So what’s the calculus? For teams, it’s obvious: The CBT serves as a payroll restraint. In 2021, the Dodgers and Padres exceeded the $210M threshold. Behind them? Phillies ($209.4M), Yankees ($208.4M), Mets ($207.7M), Red Sox ($207.6M), Astros ($206.6M). Five teams within $3.4M. The CBT is not a salary cap. It just acts like one. Which is best-case scenario for the league. It gets all the benefits of a cap without elements like a floor or guaranteed revenue split. Not only that, the CBT hasn’t risen anywhere close to commensurate with industry revenues. Which is why the union so insists on a massive bump. Will it get $245M? No. $240M? No. $230M+? Based on revenues it should, but the largest jump from the end of one basic agreement to the beginning of another was from 2006 to 2007: $136.5M to $148M. Players want to exceed that. Much of this goes back to the 2012-2016 agreement: The CBT stayed flat at $178M for the first two years and rose to $189M for the final three. The changes in 2017 weren’t much better: $195M, $197M, $206M, $208M, $210M. Undoing that is tough. MLB does not want to give up gains.‘ MLB’s argument is against greater disparity between the highest and lowest payrolls. In a sports world where a cap is the norm, that line of reasoning plays with plenty. It’s true: Money does provide an advantage. The Rays, Brewers, A’s and others illustrate it can be overcome. MLB made it clear today: No deal Feb. 28, regular-season games are canceled. And if one thing is going to prevent a deal, the CBT is it. Owners are saying they can’t go much above $214M. The union hasn’t made a CBT proposal since the lockout began. It’s a staring contest. Maybe this week, maybe later, one side will blink. When it does, a deal will happen, free agency will flourish, trades will commence, bats will crack, mitts will pop, opening day will arrive. I just don't know when that will be. All that's at stake is the sport's future. -30-
Just pay these athletes whatever they want and get this lockout over with. I need my baseball fix dammit! The hell I’m going to watch come spring/summer?
Luxury tax compromise: Give a break on luxury tax based on how much home grown talent you pay. Maybe 20%. So if you're paying $100M in salary on home grown talent, you get to go over luxury tax by $20M without penalty. This would allow teams to have some advantage to keep their fan favorites. Imagine if we had an extra $20M to offset Correa's price tag?
