Will there be a 2022 season?

[mvp 78]

Per USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2022/01/13/mlb-lockout-news-players-union-not-impressed-thursday-proposals/6515436001/

 

Am I violating any copyright laws, etc by posting this link here?

 

Go straight to jail. Do not pass go.

[S5Dewey]

Go straight to jail. Do not pass go.

 

Damn. I suppose I don't get the $200 either.

[sk7326]

Per USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2022/01/13/mlb-lockout-news-players-union-not-impressed-thursday-proposals/6515436001/

 

Am I violating any copyright laws, etc by posting this link here?

 

No - violating is posting a paywalled article in its entirety.

[mvp 78]

No - violating is posting a paywalled article in its entirety.

 

Just leave out the last period and you're good to go.

[mvp 78]

According to Blum, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich, ESPN’s Jeff Passan and Jesse Rogers, and other reporters, here are some of the proposals floated by the league in today’s talks…

 

In regards to the top pick in the amateur draft, the teams with the three worst records would be involved in a lottery, with the winner receiving the first overall pick. This is similar to a previous league proposal, except this time, MLB added that a team wouldn’t be allowed to take part in the lottery for three consecutive seasons (to help address tanking). The MLBPA has also wanted a draft lottery, except a larger process involving the eight teams with the worst records.

A draft for international players, as opposed to the current “July 2” international signing window and bonus pool system.

The elimination of the “Super Two” arbitration system, as players who would count as Super Two-eligible in the future would have salaries determined by a formula. The league’s proposal offers some leeway, as players with even one day of MLB current service time would have the option of taking part in this new system or opting to remain in the old system. Regardless of this grandfather clause for current union members, the MLBPA isn’t keen on the idea of any statistical-based calculation tied to salary, such as the league’s prior proposal to entirely eliminate the salary arbitration process.

If a team has a top 100-ranked prospect on its Opening Day roster, and that player finishes in the top five in voting for a major award (the MVP, Cy Young, or Rookie Of The Year) during one of his arbitration-eligible seasons, the team would receive a bonus draft pick. The idea is to provide a benefit for teams so they won’t hold back top prospects for service-time reasons, as extra playing time might help a player earn an award like the ROY as soon as possible. According to Passan/Rogers, players have some reservations about this idea, including concerns over how the list of “top prospects” eligible would be determined. (MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes is more bullish on the concept, as outlined in this Twitter thread.)

An expanded playoff bracket, with 14 teams reaching the postseason. The players have expressed an openness for a 12-team postseason in the past, though as Sportsnet’s Ben Nicholson-Smith notes, an expanded playoff is “arguably players’ biggest bargaining chip” given how much the league and the owners want that extra postseason TV revenue.

The use of the DH in both the American and National Leagues. The universal DH has widely been expected to be part of this CBA, and Susan Slusser of The San Francisco Chronicle writes that the players union seems agreeable to the idea as long as the universal DH isn’t “tied to something else as a bargaining chip.”

[mvp 78]

Sticking point for players is luxury tax threshold (artificially deflates player salaries) and reduction in arbitration years (players want to reach FA sooner). Those are the two biggest things the players want to negotiate about.

[Bellhorn04]

The timing for this is great, huh? We just had to endure a 60 game season, and we're all still dealing with COVID. What a perfect time for another disruption!

[mvp 78]

The timing for this is great, huh? We just had to endure a 60 game season, and we're all still dealing with COVID. What a perfect time for another disruption!

 

The 60 game season would have been worse for Sox fans if it was actually 162 games long.

[Bellhorn04]

The 60 game season would have been worse for Sox fans if it was actually 162 games long.

 

A true but tangential point.

[notin]

So thought?

 

Think a solution similar to NBA free agency is going to be the answer here?

 

Something like after 4 years a player becomes a restricted free agent where hits most recent team can match any offer, and then after 5 or 6 years the player enters unrestricted free agency? If we eliminate the arbitration system as well, does it help or hurt both sides?

 

I know this is a massive oversimplification of NBA free agency, which, along with their salary cap, turns into something more complicated than nuclear physics…

[moonslav59]

So thought?

 

Think a solution similar to NBA free agency is going to be the answer here?

 

Something like after 4 years a player becomes a restricted free agent where hits most recent team can match any offer, and then after 5 or 6 years the player enters unrestricted free agency? If we eliminate the arbitration system as well, does it help or hurt both sides?

 

I know this is a massive oversimplification of NBA free agency, which, along with their salary cap, turns into something more complicated than nuclear physics…

 

Sounds reasonable, so it can never fly.

[mvp 78]

So thought?

 

Think a solution similar to NBA free agency is going to be the answer here?

 

Something like after 4 years a player becomes a restricted free agent where hits most recent team can match any offer, and then after 5 or 6 years the player enters unrestricted free agency? If we eliminate the arbitration system as well, does it help or hurt both sides?

 

I know this is a massive oversimplification of NBA free agency, which, along with their salary cap, turns into something more complicated than nuclear physics…

 

I really don't think ownership will budge off the 6 year FA piece. The restricted free agent aspect is tougher than NBA, because in NBA there is a "cap." If there were restricted FA's, the big market teams would just go after every A's/Rays/Pirates/etc guy knowing that those ownerships couldn't possibly match the dollar amount. I wonder if you'd have to give up draft pick compensation if you signed a RFA.

[moonslav59]

I really don't think ownership will budge off the 6 year FA piece. The restricted free agent aspect is tougher than NBA, because in NBA there is a "cap." If there were restricted FA's, the big market teams would just go after every A's/Rays/Pirates/etc guy knowing that those ownerships couldn't possibly match the dollar amount. I wonder if you'd have to give up draft pick compensation if you signed a RFA.

 

They'll probably compromise by starting the arb system a year earlier, but I agree on them fighting tooth and nail on keeping team control for 6 years.

 

The owners could also add a roster slot and force lower budget teams to spend more or lose revenue sharing.

 

There are several ways the players could make significant gains without becoming FAs earlier.

[notin]

I really don't think ownership will budge off the 6 year FA piece. The restricted free agent aspect is tougher than NBA, because in NBA there is a "cap." If there were restricted FA's, the big market teams would just go after every A's/Rays/Pirates/etc guy knowing that those ownerships couldn't possibly match the dollar amount. I wonder if you'd have to give up draft pick compensation if you signed a RFA.

 

 

There is one advantage for owners if they budge off the 6 year free agent rule - they get younger free agents, which means potential for fewer “bad investment” years at the end of contracts. Sure, some players might get longer deals, but even some really long ones now might look better. If I’m giving a player 7 years, I’d rather he be 28 than 29 or 30…

[Bellhorn04]

There is one advantage for owners if they budge off the 6 year free agent rule - they get younger free agents, which means potential for fewer “bad investment” years at the end of contracts. Sure, some players might get longer deals, but even some really long ones now might look better. If I’m giving a player 7 years, I’d rather he be 28 than 29 or 30…

 

Any such advantage is wiped out by the loss of the year or years of control.

 

Maybe you could go for "partial negation."

[S5Dewey]

In listening to whatever sources I can find in regards to the 2022 season I'm not certain which of the issues are about the money and how many are about the principle, i.e. something the players and the owners can afford but don't want to give up, and that concerns me.

 

During my working days I was on the negotiating committee for my local union. During one negotiations we had reached an impasse with the deadline looming just a few days away. A strike vote had already been taken and management "brought in the big guns" - the V.P. of operations from the home office - and he said something that has always stuck with me:

 

"Gentlemen, I am here from [Home office city] to bring you this message. We do not want a strike in your plant and we're very concerned about what's going on here. We seem to be close to agreement on the monetary issues but there are some remaining issues of principle that we are stuck on. I've been negotiating contracts for 25 years and it's been my experience that disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time."

 

I'm concerned about the 2022 season because there appears to be enough money in MLB to settle any monetary disputes. IOW the owners can afford to pay whatever they need to pay as long as it doesn't disrupt the way things are done now, while the players want to make procedural changes. If the two sides can't strike compromises to agree on some of these issues of principle this could be a lengthy dispute.

[moonslav59]

In listening to whatever sources I can find in regards to the 2022 season I'm not certain which of the issues are about the money and how many are about the principle, i.e. something the players and the owners can afford but don't want to give up, and that concerns me.

 

During my working days I was on the negotiating committee for my local union. During one negotiations we had reached an impasse with the deadline looming just a few days away. A strike vote had already been taken and management "brought in the big guns" - the V.P. of operations from the home office - and he said something that has always stuck with me:

 

"Gentlemen, I am here from [Home office city] to bring you this message. We do not want a strike in your plant and we're very concerned about what's going on here. We seem to be close to agreement on the monetary issues but there are some remaining issues of principle that we are stuck on. I've been negotiating contracts for 25 years and it's been my experience that disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time."

 

I'm concerned about the 2022 season because there appears to be enough money in MLB to settle any monetary disputes. IOW the owners can afford to pay whatever they need to pay as long as it doesn't disrupt the way things are done now, while the players want to make procedural changes. If the two sides can't strike compromises to agree on some of these issues of principle this could be a lengthy dispute.

 

The "principle" about 6 years of team control is ultimately about money, though.

[Old Red]

The "principle" about 6 years of team control is ultimately about money, though.

 

Always about money, but time does matter. Would you rather have Raffy under control for 2 more years, or 1 more year?

[Bellhorn04]

The "principle" about 6 years of team control is ultimately about money, though.

 

Although final year arb awards have gotten very close to free agent prices. Such as Mookie getting $27 mill.

[moonslav59]

Always about money, but time does matter. Would you rather have Raffy under control for 2 more years, or 1 more year?

 

I'd like 10 years, but to be fair, I think players should be FAs earlier.

[moonslav59]

Adding an arb year but keeping 6 years of team control is what I think ends up being the "compromise."

 

I also think raising the min wage by a lot would be a big get by the players and would not add much to the team bottom lines.

[Old Red]

Adding an arb year but keeping 6 years of team control is what I think ends up being the "compromise."

 

I also think raising the min wage by a lot would be a big get by the players and would not add much to the team bottom lines.

 

I’ve always thought there should be a hard cap with a top on how much a team could spend, and a bottom on how much a team has to spend. Maybe the owners, and players should switch sides for a while to see what the other side sees.either way when all is said, and done, and even if the season doesn’t start on time the fans will forgive, and pay whatever the going rate is.

[moonslav59]

I’ve always thought there should be a hard cap with a top on how much a team could spend, and a bottom on how much a team has to spend. Maybe the owners, and players should switch sides for a while to see what the other side sees.either way when all is said, and done, and even if the season doesn’t start on time the fans will forgive, and pay whatever the going rate is.

 

I'm not a big fan of hard caps, but it does seem to level the playing field in other sports.

[Old Red]

I'm not a big fan of hard caps, but it does seem to level the playing field in other sports.

 

That should be the main objective in all sports to level the playing field.

[S5Dewey]

The "principle" about 6 years of team control is ultimately about money, though.

 

Does it, when tv revenue is up and there's little to no indication from fans that they are going to stay away regardless of the cost?

 

I just have a general mistrust of management who comes to the bargaining table asking for concessions when their business appears to be thriving.

[Bellhorn04]

It's depressingly habitual for baseball to get itself into these CBA cliffhangers-especially when a number of the cliffhangers have ended up so badly.

 

Maybe they need to make the negotiation window a lot longer or something.

[jad]

In listening to whatever sources I can find in regards to the 2022 season I'm not certain which of the issues are about the money and how many are about the principle, i.e. something the players and the owners can afford but don't want to give up, and that concerns me.

 

During my working days I was on the negotiating committee for my local union. During one negotiations we had reached an impasse with the deadline looming just a few days away. A strike vote had already been taken and management "brought in the big guns" - the V.P. of operations from the home office - and he said something that has always stuck with me:

 

"Gentlemen, I am here from [Home office city] to bring you this message. We do not want a strike in your plant and we're very concerned about what's going on here. We seem to be close to agreement on the monetary issues but there are some remaining issues of principle that we are stuck on. I've been negotiating contracts for 25 years and it's been my experience that disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time."

 

I'm concerned about the 2022 season because there appears to be enough money in MLB to settle any monetary disputes. IOW the owners can afford to pay whatever they need to pay as long as it doesn't disrupt the way things are done now, while the players want to make procedural changes. If the two sides can't strike compromises to agree on some of these issues of principle this could be a lengthy dispute.

 

Excellent excellent point!!! (We had a saying in my business: who would you rather deal with? a man of principle? or a scoundrel? The answer is: a scoundrel. A scoundrel will deal, and 'dealing' is what is necessary in any collective organization.). (I, btw, always styled myself as 'principled' and thus was completely ineffective in ever getting anything done. and I don't say this a self-praise. I needed to channel my 'inner-scoundrel' ,who is certainly there and shows up often, in order to deal with other humans.)

[Bellhorn04]

That should be the main objective in all sports to level the playing field.

 

I'm a little more cynical than that, I'm afraid. Most big-time sports, professional and college, have never been anything like that. And frankly I'm not sure big-time sports would be as interesting if everything was all nice and equal. I'm certainly not complaining about the Red Sox utilizing their payroll advantage the way they have. Also, I think Red Sox fans have an argument that they deserve higher payrolls because they're the ones pumping all the money into the team's accounts.

[Bellhorn04]

Excellent excellent point!!! (We had a saying in my business: who would you rather deal with? a man of principle? or a scoundrel? The answer is: a scoundrel. A scoundrel will deal, and 'dealing' is what is necessary in any collective organization.). (I, btw, always styled myself as 'principled' and thus was completely ineffective in ever getting anything done. and I don't say this a self-praise. I needed to channel my 'inner-scoundrel' ,who is certainly there and shows up often, in order to deal with other humans.)

 

Whoa, now that's really cynical.

[moonslav59]

Does it, when tv revenue is up and there's little to no indication from fans that they are going to stay away regardless of the cost?

 

I just have a general mistrust of management who comes to the bargaining table asking for concessions when their business appears to be thriving.

 

I'm with you 100%.

 

I'm just saying the 6 year control thing is ultimately about money, especially to teams that can't afford or pretend like they can't afford to keep their stars.