303C3D666F666E63647B61560 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.
A. Neither side is considering the fan's perspective? That depends on your frame of reference. Some of the negotiations have to do with reducing tanking and increasing the number of teams that qualify for post-season play. While the motives can be debated, it can also be debated that fans benefit by them, as well.
We can argue until the cows come home. 29 clubs are not going to agree to a change that benefits one owner, two owners, three owners, or even five owners. Those five are seen as drains and the sport can do just as well with them- or without them. That's the harsh reality. If an owner gets so mad about things that they want to get out, there are ready,
willing, and able interested people who will make them a reasonable offer.
B: Few businesses focus their attention on their "casual" customer. They focus on what they consider their "best" customer. That's who keeps the lights on. In professional sports, MLB is by far- by far- the best value. It's not even close. Even if that was a question (It isn't) the "best" sports customers aren't individuals like you and me. The "best" customer to them is the business owner who buys a bunch of tickets or boxes for business purposes- wining and dining clients or giving to employees for perks. That's true in the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, professional tennis and golf, and every such sport. It's true with collegiate sports, as well. Wealthy boosters and donors are who get the focus, not the "casual" fan. Frankly, that's the way it should be, IMO. They have the most money "invested." It's not just baseball. Telling me that Yinzers can't afford Pirates games tells me to begin looking at other locations tomorrow.
There is a danger element in singing the blues when the cost is reasonable by most standards. Should a team be in that market when there could be other more lucrative markets to consider?
This lockout probably won't affect corporate accounts much. It's a write-off, and the true purpose is for business, one way or the other.
C. Why bellyache about the inability to keep up with the Dodgers and Yankees? We play them very little. Your ire should be focusing on why we aren't keeping up with two teams in our own division- the Reds and Brewers. That's inexcusable. And, that's internal.
Most likely, the harm's not caused by 29 owners in other markets. It's caused by the one we have in our own market. It's also caused by a market that has two other major league franchises that it supports. That's a demand on the fans' entertainment budget. One may waver as the ebb and flow of "winning" tends to go.
I agree that the sides should come together, but both seem pretty dug in. The game will survive regardless of what's agreed to or the date that it is.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
596C7B7B70497B7B70777B1E0 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.
A. Neither side is considering the fan's perspective? That depends on your frame of reference. Some of the negotiations have to do with reducing tanking and increasing the number of teams that qualify for post-season play. While the motives can be debated, it can also be debated that fans benefit by them, as well.
We can argue until the cows come home. 29 clubs are not going to agree to a change that benefits one owner, two owners, three owners, or even five owners. Those five are seen as drains and the sport can do just as well with them- or without them. That's the harsh reality. If an owner gets so mad about things that they want to get out, there are ready,
willing, and able interested people who will make them a reasonable offer.
B: Few businesses focus their attention on their "casual" customer. They focus on what they consider their "best" customer. That's who keeps the lights on. In professional sports, MLB is by far- by far- the best value. It's not even close. Even if that was a question (It isn't) the "best" sports customers aren't individuals like you and me. The "best" customer to them is the business owner who buys a bunch of tickets or boxes for business purposes- wining and dining clients or giving to employees for perks. That's true in the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, professional tennis and golf, and every such sport. It's true with collegiate sports, as well. Wealthy boosters and donors are who get the focus, not the "casual" fan. Frankly, that's the way it should be, IMO. They have the most money "invested." It's not just baseball. Telling me that Yinzers can't afford Pirates games tells me to begin looking at other locations tomorrow.
There is a danger element in singing the blues when the cost is reasonable by most standards. Should a team be in that market when there could be other more lucrative markets to consider?
This lockout probably won't affect corporate accounts much. It's a write-off, and the true purpose is for business, one way or the other.
C. Why bellyache about the inability to keep up with the Dodgers and Yankees? We play them very little. Your ire should be focusing on why we aren't keeping up with two teams in our own division- the Reds and Brewers. That's inexcusable. And, that's internal.
Most likely, the harm's not caused by 29 owners in other markets. It's caused by the one we have in our own market. It's also caused by a market that has two other major league franchises that it supports. That's a demand on the fans' entertainment budget. One may waver as the ebb and flow of "winning" tends to go.
I agree that the sides should come together, but both seem pretty dug in. The game will survive regardless of what's agreed to or the date that it is.
Some excellent points, especially regarding the other sports in the Burg. It may be time to get interested in college baseball. There is only so much fans can endure, for me letting the big market franchises and the Super stars continue to reap all the rewards cannot to continue. There is a point where the whole thing collapses.
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.
A. Neither side is considering the fan's perspective? That depends on your frame of reference. Some of the negotiations have to do with reducing tanking and increasing the number of teams that qualify for post-season play. While the motives can be debated, it can also be debated that fans benefit by them, as well.
We can argue until the cows come home. 29 clubs are not going to agree to a change that benefits one owner, two owners, three owners, or even five owners. Those five are seen as drains and the sport can do just as well with them- or without them. That's the harsh reality. If an owner gets so mad about things that they want to get out, there are ready,
willing, and able interested people who will make them a reasonable offer.
B: Few businesses focus their attention on their "casual" customer. They focus on what they consider their "best" customer. That's who keeps the lights on. In professional sports, MLB is by far- by far- the best value. It's not even close. Even if that was a question (It isn't) the "best" sports customers aren't individuals like you and me. The "best" customer to them is the business owner who buys a bunch of tickets or boxes for business purposes- wining and dining clients or giving to employees for perks. That's true in the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, professional tennis and golf, and every such sport. It's true with collegiate sports, as well. Wealthy boosters and donors are who get the focus, not the "casual" fan. Frankly, that's the way it should be, IMO. They have the most money "invested." It's not just baseball. Telling me that Yinzers can't afford Pirates games tells me to begin looking at other locations tomorrow.
There is a danger element in singing the blues when the cost is reasonable by most standards. Should a team be in that market when there could be other more lucrative markets to consider?
This lockout probably won't affect corporate accounts much. It's a write-off, and the true purpose is for business, one way or the other.
C. Why bellyache about the inability to keep up with the Dodgers and Yankees? We play them very little. Your ire should be focusing on why we aren't keeping up with two teams in our own division- the Reds and Brewers. That's inexcusable. And, that's internal.
Most likely, the harm's not caused by 29 owners in other markets. It's caused by the one we have in our own market. It's also caused by a market that has two other major league franchises that it supports. That's a demand on the fans' entertainment budget. One may waver as the ebb and flow of "winning" tends to go.
I agree that the sides should come together, but both seem pretty dug in. The game will survive regardless of what's agreed to or the date that it is.
Some excellent points, especially regarding the other sports in the Burg. It may be time to get interested in college baseball. There is only so much fans can endure, for me letting the big market franchises and the Super stars continue to reap all the rewards cannot to continue. There is a point where the whole thing collapses.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
I know many on here feel like MLB is doing just fine but below is a reality check. Maybe these 12 owners can get some concessions from these outrageous contracts and greedy large market owners.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
485052555542535449485E3B0 wrote: I know many on here feel like MLB is doing just fine but below is a reality check. Maybe these 12 owners can get some concessions from these outrageous contracts and greedy large market owners.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
is there any evidence that a small market owner is less greedy than a big market owner? Or even that a minimum salary player is less greedy than say Max Scherzer?
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
is there any evidence that a small market owner is less greedy than a big market owner? Or even that a minimum salary player is less greedy than say Max Scherzer?
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
775150475141320 wrote: I know many on here feel like MLB is doing just fine but below is a reality check. Maybe these 12 owners can get some concessions from these outrageous contracts and greedy large market owners.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
why do you think the large market owners are as greedy or more greedy than small market owners?
It's just a wild guess. Kind of like i'm guessing the CEO of Ford Motors makes more than the CEO of Yamaha Motors.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
why do you think the large market owners are as greedy or more greedy than small market owners?
It's just a wild guess. Kind of like i'm guessing the CEO of Ford Motors makes more than the CEO of Yamaha Motors.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
5B434146465140475A5B4D280 wrote: I know many on here feel like MLB is doing just fine but below is a reality check. Maybe these 12 owners can get some concessions from these outrageous contracts and greedy large market owners.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
Domestic or International?
Big money comes from outside our borders. There are parts of the globe that are absolutely baseball crazy. I could be wrong, but wasn't it just a few years ago where every club received a $50 million windfall from Disney for some international internet arrangement? I think it wasn't limited to just one year, either. Somehow, that ton of money seems to get overlooked. These franchises are not hurting for money. If they were, there would be a For Sale sign hanging in windows.
And, would that TV viewership include streaming services? I'm not up on these things, so I dnk whether folks who watch online can be tracked in the same way.
Regardless.....I heard something about ESPN signing a TV deal with MLB for $4 billion. I doubt that ESPN would pay that kind of scratch if they were concerned about a lack of an audience or advertisers to support it.
What is ($4 billion less MLB administrative expenses) divided by 30? Whatever the number is, it's probably quite a bit.
While viewership is up compared to the 2020 season, MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewerships across households.
Domestic or International?
Big money comes from outside our borders. There are parts of the globe that are absolutely baseball crazy. I could be wrong, but wasn't it just a few years ago where every club received a $50 million windfall from Disney for some international internet arrangement? I think it wasn't limited to just one year, either. Somehow, that ton of money seems to get overlooked. These franchises are not hurting for money. If they were, there would be a For Sale sign hanging in windows.
And, would that TV viewership include streaming services? I'm not up on these things, so I dnk whether folks who watch online can be tracked in the same way.
Regardless.....I heard something about ESPN signing a TV deal with MLB for $4 billion. I doubt that ESPN would pay that kind of scratch if they were concerned about a lack of an audience or advertisers to support it.
What is ($4 billion less MLB administrative expenses) divided by 30? Whatever the number is, it's probably quite a bit.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
3B232126263120273A3B2D480 wrote:
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, [highlight]stand your ground small market owners.[/highlight]
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 [highlight]small market teams from being ripped off by super star players[/highlight] 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. [highlight]Super Stars are still going to make big money, just not as much[/highlight] 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, [highlight]we simply don’t know that regular players don’t complain about these super star salaries[/highlight], 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. [highlight]Pretty sure you’re not in the negotiations.[/highlight] [highlight]Once again wrong answer.[/highlight]
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. [highlight]$35 million for a player is insanity and the same for what ever these large markets owners are making.[/highlight] 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.
The small market owners have little impact on what's decided. They survive because the big market teams have agreed to share revenues with them. Threatening to walk away and form their own league carries no weight because doing so would mean they'd become a Quad A league, enjoying none of the benefits of being a major league. They'd receive the same attention from the fans and media that the other minor leagues receive. The revenues they'd earn/receive would be reduced substantially. Not one small market owner would be in favor of such a move.
Super star players don't "rip off" anyone. It's the owners who offer or agree to their high wages. They're not required to do so. They do it willingly.
If free agency were to be taken away, every single player, most especially the super stars, would see their incomes decrease dramatically. With the elimination of competition for their services, owners would have no incentive to offer the players anymore than a modest increase in pay. If you don't remember what it was like prior to free agency, you need to read up on it. If the owners attempted to strike free agency from the game, the players would sue and the owners would lose in every court in the land, and would likely have to pay billions to the players in a settlement.
We do know that the regular players don't complain because we don't hear about it. At least one of them would've complained to the media by now. The regular players are fine with the system as it is because the super stars' high wages make the regular players' wages higher, too. Besides, some younger regular players turn into super stars. They want that super star money one day, too.
I don't have to be in on the negotiations to see that the small market owners wouldn't enjoy life as they know it without the big market owners helping them. And just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make it so.
You want more equity in pay among the players by reducing the sizes of the large contracts, but you disagree with my idea of all teams having the same payroll size?
A $35 million salary is insanity when compared with wages in other industries. Enough baseball owners think it's perfectly sane in their industry to pay that much. And the amount of money large market owners are making is perfectly sane within the baseball industry otherwise they wouldn't be earning it. You're relating the money in baseball to the money in other industries. They're not the same thing.
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, [highlight]stand your ground small market owners.[/highlight]
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 [highlight]small market teams from being ripped off by super star players[/highlight] 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. [highlight]Super Stars are still going to make big money, just not as much[/highlight] 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, [highlight]we simply don’t know that regular players don’t complain about these super star salaries[/highlight], 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. [highlight]Pretty sure you’re not in the negotiations.[/highlight] [highlight]Once again wrong answer.[/highlight]
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. [highlight]$35 million for a player is insanity and the same for what ever these large markets owners are making.[/highlight] 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.
The small market owners have little impact on what's decided. They survive because the big market teams have agreed to share revenues with them. Threatening to walk away and form their own league carries no weight because doing so would mean they'd become a Quad A league, enjoying none of the benefits of being a major league. They'd receive the same attention from the fans and media that the other minor leagues receive. The revenues they'd earn/receive would be reduced substantially. Not one small market owner would be in favor of such a move.
Super star players don't "rip off" anyone. It's the owners who offer or agree to their high wages. They're not required to do so. They do it willingly.
If free agency were to be taken away, every single player, most especially the super stars, would see their incomes decrease dramatically. With the elimination of competition for their services, owners would have no incentive to offer the players anymore than a modest increase in pay. If you don't remember what it was like prior to free agency, you need to read up on it. If the owners attempted to strike free agency from the game, the players would sue and the owners would lose in every court in the land, and would likely have to pay billions to the players in a settlement.
We do know that the regular players don't complain because we don't hear about it. At least one of them would've complained to the media by now. The regular players are fine with the system as it is because the super stars' high wages make the regular players' wages higher, too. Besides, some younger regular players turn into super stars. They want that super star money one day, too.
I don't have to be in on the negotiations to see that the small market owners wouldn't enjoy life as they know it without the big market owners helping them. And just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make it so.
You want more equity in pay among the players by reducing the sizes of the large contracts, but you disagree with my idea of all teams having the same payroll size?
A $35 million salary is insanity when compared with wages in other industries. Enough baseball owners think it's perfectly sane in their industry to pay that much. And the amount of money large market owners are making is perfectly sane within the baseball industry otherwise they wouldn't be earning it. You're relating the money in baseball to the money in other industries. They're not the same thing.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
The players rejected mediation.
Teams are going about business as usual. For the first time, I am very upset with my ticket rep because he clearly just treated me in such robotic fashion.
He had reached out in an email about renting a suite I was interested in. I told him I was putting those plans on hold until I knew for sure there was going to be a game on August 20th with Skyblast.
He said there certainly is a game scheduled that day with skyblast, and sent me links to the pirates schedule.
Talk about being tone deaf. He couldn't have been that clueless as to what I was referring. During the last two seasons, any conversation regarding the season due to the covid restrictions he conversed with me about how the seating was going to work, and what they were implementing as contingencies for various scenarios.
Now, he's acting like there's nothing going on at all.
Teams are going about business as usual. For the first time, I am very upset with my ticket rep because he clearly just treated me in such robotic fashion.
He had reached out in an email about renting a suite I was interested in. I told him I was putting those plans on hold until I knew for sure there was going to be a game on August 20th with Skyblast.
He said there certainly is a game scheduled that day with skyblast, and sent me links to the pirates schedule.
Talk about being tone deaf. He couldn't have been that clueless as to what I was referring. During the last two seasons, any conversation regarding the season due to the covid restrictions he conversed with me about how the seating was going to work, and what they were implementing as contingencies for various scenarios.
Now, he's acting like there's nothing going on at all.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
[highlight]The players rejected mediation. [/highlight]
Roseanne Rosanna Danna, Pirates fan:
"What??? The players injected medication? Say it isn't so.
Roseanne Rosanna Danna, Pirates fan:
"What??? The players injected medication? Say it isn't so.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Doc: The small market owners have little impact on what's decided. They survive because the big market teams have agreed to share revenues with them.
Skinny: Wow, you talk about aristocracy, this is how the elites think and talk. Trouble is there are a lot more of us than they are the ultra-rich. I’m sure that’s how some of the Super Star players feel about the other players. Stand your ground smaller market teams and players you are a lot more powerful than the elites think.
Doc: Super star players don't "rip off" anyone. It's the owners who offer or agree to their high wages. They're not required to do so. They do it willingly.
Skinny: How Many Super Stars that haven’t reached free agency do the Pirates, Rays, Athletics, Orioles, Royals, Twins, Marlins, Tigers, Indians, Nationals have. If any have, they are the lower tier free agents. There’s a reason, they don’t have the fan base to support these exorbitant salaries. Which makes my point, the fans of these franchises are the wealthier fans.
Skinny: Viewership last season is up compared to the 2020 season; MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewership’s across households. This spells trouble for MLB and it’s time the Owners and the Players recognize it and do something to stop this trend. The reasonable thing to do would be to reduce ticket prices and TV contracts so more fans would have access to the game. That of course would require Owners and players especially Super Star players to agree to a few less millions in income. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to devastate eithers life styles.
Skinny: Wow, you talk about aristocracy, this is how the elites think and talk. Trouble is there are a lot more of us than they are the ultra-rich. I’m sure that’s how some of the Super Star players feel about the other players. Stand your ground smaller market teams and players you are a lot more powerful than the elites think.
Doc: Super star players don't "rip off" anyone. It's the owners who offer or agree to their high wages. They're not required to do so. They do it willingly.
Skinny: How Many Super Stars that haven’t reached free agency do the Pirates, Rays, Athletics, Orioles, Royals, Twins, Marlins, Tigers, Indians, Nationals have. If any have, they are the lower tier free agents. There’s a reason, they don’t have the fan base to support these exorbitant salaries. Which makes my point, the fans of these franchises are the wealthier fans.
Skinny: Viewership last season is up compared to the 2020 season; MLB has seen its league-wide household average fall 12% when comparing the 2021 and 2019 seasons. Of the 29 markets, 12 saw drops in TV viewership’s across households. This spells trouble for MLB and it’s time the Owners and the Players recognize it and do something to stop this trend. The reasonable thing to do would be to reduce ticket prices and TV contracts so more fans would have access to the game. That of course would require Owners and players especially Super Star players to agree to a few less millions in income. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to devastate eithers life styles.