Any who dislike the system can always place their franchise for sale.
I assume that those who remain have their reasons.
MLB doesn't have the problem. It's thriving, even in Milwaukee. Pittsburgh has a problem with baseball, and there are reasons.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Owners can speak during meetings and phone calls. I'm sure they speak with each other and vote on issues. We know they speak with other. They colluded.
Any who dislike the system can always place their franchise for sale.
I assume that those who remain have their reasons.
MLB doesn't have the problem. It's thriving, even in Milwaukee. Pittsburgh has a problem with baseball, and there are reasons.
Any who dislike the system can always place their franchise for sale.
I assume that those who remain have their reasons.
MLB doesn't have the problem. It's thriving, even in Milwaukee. Pittsburgh has a problem with baseball, and there are reasons.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
5C444641415647405D5C4A2F0 wrote: Does anyone besides me think the Players and Owners should get their act together, and settle this lockout ? We are probably about two weeks, before pitchers and catchers report to camp. When and if an agreement is reached, a Rule 5 Draft is needed, many Free Agent players remain unsigned, and players like Brian Reynolds still need to agree to a contract, or go to arbitration if that is still a provision under the new CBA. That is a lot to get done with a short window if ST is going to begin on time.
Yes I don't think they should just settle. Its time for the owners to stand their ground and just say no to the Union. [highlight]Unions are nothing but socialism[/highlight] in a capitalistic society. If they don't won't to play so be it. I would let them stay home and let people who want to play play. [highlight]The players like Mookie, Brice, Sherzer, Cole who make $35 million a year just can't work for $10 Million a year[/highlight] need a real reality check. To hell with everyone of these whining jerks.
Of course as some on here have correctly stated both sides are very happy with ripping off the working man while the elites enjoy there spoils. No matter what anyone on here says without the common man blowing 10% of their salary watching these spoiled brats they wouldn't be making these outrageous salaries. Until most of those making $50K to 100K stop attending these games will anything change. You see there are far fewer making $250K a year or more. It's all about the numbers. Baseball popularity will continue to decline if these elites continue abusing the common man.
There's a bit of inconsistency in your argument. You reject socialism when mentioning unions but then you want to restrict the amount of money a player can earn, which sure isn't capitalism.
Actually, pro sports probably work best if operated under socialistic guidelines. If all the franchises were required to spend the same amount of money on payroll it would at least even the playing field in that respect. Then it's up to the GM to build, the manager to lead, and the players to perform. But it would start out on equal footing instead of the way it is now.
I agree, but until we get rid of the free agency crap it's the only way I know of to limit these outrageous contracts. I would rather not have a cap, but free agency has given superstars the ability to blackmail teams which just gets passed on to the public. The judge who ruled on free agency dealt a destructive blow to MLB baseball.
Other workers in other industries have the ability to move into other jobs and other industries (be free agents), and can negotiate for the highest wage they can get. The courts have agreed that baseball players have the same right, regardless of how much money they already make.
Baseball players have unique skills that people are willing to pay a lot of money to watch them use. In turn, those skills earn a lot of money for their employers, which allows the employers to pay them large wages. Because no one is willing to pay to watch us regular guys do our jobs, we don't bring in the large revenues to our employers that baseball players do for theirs. That's why we don't earn wages like ballplayers do, even if we do something far more essential.
That's how the labor market works in a free market like ours. It's not that superstars "blackmail" owners. The owners willingly pay those star's wages knowing they'll earn that money back in increased revenues, whether it comes from ticket sales, a new TV contract, or from social media.
For me, the answer is to require all teams to spend the same amount of dollars in wages. That forces the talent to move to where money is available and thus spreads out that talent. But I don't see either the owners or the players ever agreeing to such a system.
Comparing professional sports players to the common laborer is ridiculous. That’s like comparing a elephant to a ant.
Professional players are offered large contracts before they prove their worth. A common laborer is offered the going rate so the owner can pay him and still make money, the owner knows from past experience what it takes to produce a product the customer will buy. MLB owners take enormous risk when offering a player his original signing contract with no guarantee. Of course, they pass that on to the customer in the price of tickets. The only way I can see to lower these risks is to do away with free agency reducing the owner’s big gamble. That way they can sell the asset/player if someone else wants to pay the price. With free agency after 6 years’ service the owner loses everything unless he unloads the player. The new owners are taking much less a gamble than the original owner as he’s buying a somewhat know asset. Large market owners who have more elites because of their population and location they can charge as much as necessary to cover these astronomical contracts. All of the complicated calculations just add cost which is passed along to the customer.
Without free agency the players still have lots of value as they can attract many fans to come to a game thus, he can and should earn more than the less talented player. If he and the owner cannot agree the owner can shop the player for cash and other player or players. This was common place before the Curt Flood fiasco and baseball was the number one professional sport. It’s obvious this would put smaller market teams better able to compete and keep ticket prices in smaller market teams more affordable. The only one who might have to take a pay cut is the ultra-rich pampered superstar and who really feels sorry for a player whose making $35 million a year.
The CBA agreement is totally one sided with the players and the big market teams in total control. Small market teams should stand up and be counted. Either it needs to be more favorable to small market teams, they should pull out of the agreement and let the Yankee’s, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox’s, play each other and see how that works for those owners and players. They would come to their senses quickly. That’s not going to happen because the greedy owners could care less about these small market communities and MLB. They will continue to offer their communities mediocre baseball and a training ground for these big market communities and pocket a million a year, which is chump change for the Yankees.
All legally employed laborers, regardless of the amount of their wages or in what industry they work, are entitled to the same protections under the law.
While pro athletes are paid large sums before they "prove their worth", they didn't devise that system. The owners are responsible for that. So your anger regarding high salaries is misdirected.
Free agency will never be eliminated. It's every worker's right to move about freely within the labor market. In fact, it's amazing to me that the players don't demand it at the end of each contract, starting with their first one.
You said, "Without free agency the players still have lots of value . . . ". They have far more value because of free agency. Without the ability to sell their services to multiple bidders, they'd never come close to earning what they currently do. Whether you like it or not, every worker in our market system has the right to earn as much money as he/she can. I don't think you'd want to be limited in how much money you can earn.
The superstars are the ones fans come to see play. It's those guys who've enabled the lesser players to receive more money. All of the players know that, which is why the regular players, who make up the vast majority of rosters, never complain about receiving far less pay than the superstars, even though they play the same game, work the same hours, and face the same working conditions. In a regular union, that disparity in wages doesn't exist, but it's acceptable to the members of the MLBPA. If they complained then maybe you'd have a point.
In the same way, the small market teams have benefited greatly because of the revenues brought in by the big market teams. Without them, perhaps a third of the teams wouldn't be able to stay solvent. Pittsburgh would be one of them. If those owners thought the system was so unfair, they'd complain loudly enough. But nary a word is heard.
I don't like the inequality in payroll sizes, either. But until the owners agree to spend the same amount each year, the current situation is going to remain the same. It's on the owners, not the players.
Yes I don't think they should just settle. Its time for the owners to stand their ground and just say no to the Union. [highlight]Unions are nothing but socialism[/highlight] in a capitalistic society. If they don't won't to play so be it. I would let them stay home and let people who want to play play. [highlight]The players like Mookie, Brice, Sherzer, Cole who make $35 million a year just can't work for $10 Million a year[/highlight] need a real reality check. To hell with everyone of these whining jerks.
Of course as some on here have correctly stated both sides are very happy with ripping off the working man while the elites enjoy there spoils. No matter what anyone on here says without the common man blowing 10% of their salary watching these spoiled brats they wouldn't be making these outrageous salaries. Until most of those making $50K to 100K stop attending these games will anything change. You see there are far fewer making $250K a year or more. It's all about the numbers. Baseball popularity will continue to decline if these elites continue abusing the common man.
There's a bit of inconsistency in your argument. You reject socialism when mentioning unions but then you want to restrict the amount of money a player can earn, which sure isn't capitalism.
Actually, pro sports probably work best if operated under socialistic guidelines. If all the franchises were required to spend the same amount of money on payroll it would at least even the playing field in that respect. Then it's up to the GM to build, the manager to lead, and the players to perform. But it would start out on equal footing instead of the way it is now.
I agree, but until we get rid of the free agency crap it's the only way I know of to limit these outrageous contracts. I would rather not have a cap, but free agency has given superstars the ability to blackmail teams which just gets passed on to the public. The judge who ruled on free agency dealt a destructive blow to MLB baseball.
Other workers in other industries have the ability to move into other jobs and other industries (be free agents), and can negotiate for the highest wage they can get. The courts have agreed that baseball players have the same right, regardless of how much money they already make.
Baseball players have unique skills that people are willing to pay a lot of money to watch them use. In turn, those skills earn a lot of money for their employers, which allows the employers to pay them large wages. Because no one is willing to pay to watch us regular guys do our jobs, we don't bring in the large revenues to our employers that baseball players do for theirs. That's why we don't earn wages like ballplayers do, even if we do something far more essential.
That's how the labor market works in a free market like ours. It's not that superstars "blackmail" owners. The owners willingly pay those star's wages knowing they'll earn that money back in increased revenues, whether it comes from ticket sales, a new TV contract, or from social media.
For me, the answer is to require all teams to spend the same amount of dollars in wages. That forces the talent to move to where money is available and thus spreads out that talent. But I don't see either the owners or the players ever agreeing to such a system.
Comparing professional sports players to the common laborer is ridiculous. That’s like comparing a elephant to a ant.
Professional players are offered large contracts before they prove their worth. A common laborer is offered the going rate so the owner can pay him and still make money, the owner knows from past experience what it takes to produce a product the customer will buy. MLB owners take enormous risk when offering a player his original signing contract with no guarantee. Of course, they pass that on to the customer in the price of tickets. The only way I can see to lower these risks is to do away with free agency reducing the owner’s big gamble. That way they can sell the asset/player if someone else wants to pay the price. With free agency after 6 years’ service the owner loses everything unless he unloads the player. The new owners are taking much less a gamble than the original owner as he’s buying a somewhat know asset. Large market owners who have more elites because of their population and location they can charge as much as necessary to cover these astronomical contracts. All of the complicated calculations just add cost which is passed along to the customer.
Without free agency the players still have lots of value as they can attract many fans to come to a game thus, he can and should earn more than the less talented player. If he and the owner cannot agree the owner can shop the player for cash and other player or players. This was common place before the Curt Flood fiasco and baseball was the number one professional sport. It’s obvious this would put smaller market teams better able to compete and keep ticket prices in smaller market teams more affordable. The only one who might have to take a pay cut is the ultra-rich pampered superstar and who really feels sorry for a player whose making $35 million a year.
The CBA agreement is totally one sided with the players and the big market teams in total control. Small market teams should stand up and be counted. Either it needs to be more favorable to small market teams, they should pull out of the agreement and let the Yankee’s, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, White Sox’s, play each other and see how that works for those owners and players. They would come to their senses quickly. That’s not going to happen because the greedy owners could care less about these small market communities and MLB. They will continue to offer their communities mediocre baseball and a training ground for these big market communities and pocket a million a year, which is chump change for the Yankees.
All legally employed laborers, regardless of the amount of their wages or in what industry they work, are entitled to the same protections under the law.
While pro athletes are paid large sums before they "prove their worth", they didn't devise that system. The owners are responsible for that. So your anger regarding high salaries is misdirected.
Free agency will never be eliminated. It's every worker's right to move about freely within the labor market. In fact, it's amazing to me that the players don't demand it at the end of each contract, starting with their first one.
You said, "Without free agency the players still have lots of value . . . ". They have far more value because of free agency. Without the ability to sell their services to multiple bidders, they'd never come close to earning what they currently do. Whether you like it or not, every worker in our market system has the right to earn as much money as he/she can. I don't think you'd want to be limited in how much money you can earn.
The superstars are the ones fans come to see play. It's those guys who've enabled the lesser players to receive more money. All of the players know that, which is why the regular players, who make up the vast majority of rosters, never complain about receiving far less pay than the superstars, even though they play the same game, work the same hours, and face the same working conditions. In a regular union, that disparity in wages doesn't exist, but it's acceptable to the members of the MLBPA. If they complained then maybe you'd have a point.
In the same way, the small market teams have benefited greatly because of the revenues brought in by the big market teams. Without them, perhaps a third of the teams wouldn't be able to stay solvent. Pittsburgh would be one of them. If those owners thought the system was so unfair, they'd complain loudly enough. But nary a word is heard.
I don't like the inequality in payroll sizes, either. But until the owners agree to spend the same amount each year, the current situation is going to remain the same. It's on the owners, not the players.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
I remember the expansion draft that brought in the Expos and Padres. A couple years later free agency came about and it was going to destroy baseball. 24 teams then, 30 now.
Also in the 1970's, title 9 was enacted and it was going to destroy college sports. More college sports than ever now.
A little later professionals were going to destroy the Olympics. Avery Brundage is still setting speed records for the rolling in the grave event.
Also in the 1970's, title 9 was enacted and it was going to destroy college sports. More college sports than ever now.
A little later professionals were going to destroy the Olympics. Avery Brundage is still setting speed records for the rolling in the grave event.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
MLB has requested Federal Mediation to assist with the labor negotiations. I am not sure, but the Players group has to agree to a mediator as well, or else the Owners request is a moot point.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
416766716777040 wrote: I remember the expansion draft that brought in the Expos and Padres. A couple years later free agency came about and it was going to destroy baseball. 24 teams then, 30 now.
Also in the 1970's, title 9 was enacted and it was going to destroy college sports. More college sports than ever now.
A little later professionals were going to destroy the Olympics. Avery Brundage is still setting speed records for the rolling in the grave event.
Fast Forward to 2022! If we listen to some people, the NIL is going to ruin college sports.
Also in the 1970's, title 9 was enacted and it was going to destroy college sports. More college sports than ever now.
A little later professionals were going to destroy the Olympics. Avery Brundage is still setting speed records for the rolling in the grave event.
Fast Forward to 2022! If we listen to some people, the NIL is going to ruin college sports.
-
GermanTownship
The next CBA and the future of MLB
I have been saying this forever. Until there is a true max and a base for salary, the game will continue to be a joke. To fix it. Shut the game down for a year, or possibly longer, until the players agree to this. No revenue sharing. No lottery draft. Just like the NFL and NHL.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Neither the owners nor the players will agree to it.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
-
WildwoodDave2
The next CBA and the future of MLB
7A4F5858536A58585354583D0 wrote: Neither the owners nor the players will agree to it.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
Just in the MLBPA has rejected the MLB request for a Federal Arbitrator.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
Just in the MLBPA has rejected the MLB request for a Federal Arbitrator.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3490
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
112F2A22312929220227302374460 wrote: Neither the owners nor the players will agree to it.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
Just in the MLBPA has rejected the MLB request for a Federal Arbitrator.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
Neither side is looking at the fans side. In my opinion Manfred, and Tony Clark have very large egos. I know the owners pay Manfred, but, it is time for him to go. Both sides should have a leader who has the fans view in this lockout. The casual fan is going to kick baseball to the curb if this lockout extends into the season. I believe many of those who post on this site are true baseball fans like myself, and MLB may not lose many folks like ourselves once an agreement is reached, but those who don’t really follow the sport will become disgusted with the Players and Owners fighting over a labor agreement. It is time for someone on both sides to wake up and tell their group it is time to get to the bargaining table and hammer out an agreement. No couple hour meeting, but one that takes as long as the parties can settle on a new CBA.
The owners want to offer the payroll of their choice, and they've already agreed to the threshold penalty. That's not a player's issue.
Just in the MLBPA has rejected the MLB request for a Federal Arbitrator.
With billions of dollars on the table, it's not a joke. It's serious business.
If you're looking for change, it will only come from paying customers. Seeing as that's not likely to occur, the wait is probably going to be a long one.
Canceling a World Series didn't do it.
Neither side is looking at the fans side. In my opinion Manfred, and Tony Clark have very large egos. I know the owners pay Manfred, but, it is time for him to go. Both sides should have a leader who has the fans view in this lockout. The casual fan is going to kick baseball to the curb if this lockout extends into the season. I believe many of those who post on this site are true baseball fans like myself, and MLB may not lose many folks like ourselves once an agreement is reached, but those who don’t really follow the sport will become disgusted with the Players and Owners fighting over a labor agreement. It is time for someone on both sides to wake up and tell their group it is time to get to the bargaining table and hammer out an agreement. No couple hour meeting, but one that takes as long as the parties can settle on a new CBA.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Doc: All legally employed laborers, regardless of the amount of their wages or in what industry they work, are entitled to the same protections under the law.
Skinny: I agree and that’s part of the problem Professional Sports salaries are not treated like regular folks’ salary, see all of the below for proof.
Doc: While pro athletes are paid large sums before they "prove their worth", they didn't devise that system. The owners are responsible for that. So your anger regarding high salaries is misdirected.
Skinny: I’m ok with this but I would negotiate teams being able to keep control of these players longer. Of course, players will object and the big market owners will also, stand your ground small market owners.
Doc: Free agency will never be eliminated. It's every worker's right to move about freely within the labor market. In fact, it's amazing to me that the players don't demand it at the end of each contract, starting with their first one.
Skinny: It needs to be modified to protect small market teams from being ripped off by super star players and big market owners, here’s where small market owners need to take a stand.
You said, "Without free agency the players still have lots of value . . . ". They have far more value because of free agency. Without the ability to sell their services to multiple bidders, they'd never come close to earning what they currently do. Whether you like it or not, every worker in our market system has the right to earn as much money as he/she can. I don't think you'd want to be limited in how much money you can earn.
Skinny: You’re making my point here, that’s part of the problem, players have the leverage here, that needs to change. Super Stars are still going to make big money, just not as much with the changes I'm advocation.
Doc: The superstars are the ones fans come to see play. It's those guys who've enabled the lesser players to receive more money. All of the players know that, which is why the regular players, who make up the vast majority of rosters, never complain about receiving far less pay than the superstars, even though they play the same game, work the same hours, and face the same working conditions. In a regular union, that disparity in wages doesn't exist, but it's acceptable to the members of the MLBPA. If they complained then maybe you'd have a point.
Skinny: You’re over your ski’s here, we simply don’t know that regular players don’t complain about these super star salaries, I suspect they do just not publicly. Most folks go to see the team not just one super star. You’re just wrong on this.
Doc: In the same way, the small market teams have benefited greatly because of the revenues brought in by the big market teams. Without them, perhaps a third of the teams wouldn't be able to stay solvent. Pittsburgh would be one of them. If those owners thought the system was so unfair, they'd complain loudly enough. But nary a word is heard.
Skinny: Ditto same as above you have no idea what you’re talking about here. Pretty sure you’re not in the negotiations. Once again wrong answer.
Doc: I don't like the inequality in payroll sizes, either. But until the owners agree to spend the same amount each year, the current situation is going to remain the same. It's on the owners, not the players.
Skinny: Once again I disagree. It takes two to tango the players and the owner’s bare responsibility. Both are greedy at the expense of the fans. The losers in this are the small market communities. Small market teams have a strong position here but they let the Yankee’s, Dodgers, owners and players dictate the rules. The reason is because these small market owners settle for a lesser profit but still big bucks to regular folks, with smaller market communities getting the shaft. Thus, small market teams develop super stars only to lose them to Yankee’s, Dodgers. That needs to be corrected in this negotiation. The same thing is happening in Big business, CEO's are make ridiculous salaries while the workers get peanuts, it's just wrong.
Skinny: The big market owners and Super Star athletes are harming MLB in my opinion. It is pure greed and all I’m advocating for is bringing back some sanity to ML baseball. $35 million for a player is insanity and the same for what ever these large markets owners are making. The only way it will change is a dramatic shift in attendance and interest in baseball. Somewhere there is breaking point and I’m advocating for cooler heads to prevail here and not destroy the game I love.