Will there be a 2022 season?

[jad]

Whoa, now that's really cynical.

 

I don't see it that way. Dewey is right. If the issue is money, you can negotiate and come to an agreement. But if you stick to your principles (e.g., "We players are what fans come to see". vs. "We are owners of the business and without us, there is no league") or if you look at money, not as a material but as a sign of inner worth, nothing will get done.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't see it that way. Dewey is right. If the issue is money, you can negotiate and come to an agreement. But if you stick to your principles (e.g., "We players are what fans come to see". vs. "We are owners of the business and without us, there is no league") or if you look at money, not as a material but as a sign of inner worth, nothing will get done.

 

Yeah, I get what you two are saying. It was just another cheap joke by me LOL

 

As moon alluded to on the years of control thing, it can be difficult to separate issues of money from issues of principle.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

The problem is that MLB doesn't want owners to be forced into a minimum threshold.

 

In 2021, the lowest payroll was the O's at $42M. The highest payroll was the Dodgers at $271M, which is over 5 times the amount the O's spent. In the NFL, the lowest team payroll was the Seahawks at $173M and the highest was the Cowboys at $205M. In the NFL and NBA, there just isn't that wide gulf of what teams have for payroll.

 

What would even be an appropriate upper and lower threshold? 100M - 200M? 12 teams didn't pay their teams 100M last year.

[mvp 78]

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

 

The players want each team to be competitive. They would love to increase payrolls for the bottom 10 teams. I just don't see the owners doing it though.

[mvp 78]

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.

 

In this situation, there is also a long history of management acting illegally (collusion).

[mvp 78]

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.

 

They should have just negotiated in good faith and said they'd start the new season under the old deal, but that a new deal would have to be done by 12/31/22.

[mvp 78]

Yeah, I get what you two are saying. It was just another cheap joke by me LOL

 

As moon alluded to on the years of control thing, it can be difficult to separate issues of money from issues of principle.

 

Years of control has everything to do with player salaries though.

[Hugh2]

I think if we really thought about it, this is completely predictable. That nothing has happened for over a month now. I suspect life to be just as boring over the next couple weeks. When we start to get to a time frame where pitchers and catchers are supposed to report I think talks will heat up fast and we will go from 0-60 in 1 day.

 

This doesn't get a deal done, but I think both sides absolutely do NOT want to repeat 1994. I still think it's more probable than not that there is a full season.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

 

In 2021, the lowest payroll was the O's at $42M.

 

Isn't that about what the Mets agreed to pay Scherzer in 2022?

 

It's a free country, yea U.S., and power to the Moneyball bargain basement architects... but the union has a point about wanting all clubs to be competitive -- in trying to win in the standings, and thus, for their services (and on the payroll).

 

If an owner is still turning profits with a loser, he's still a successful businessman. But other sports have minimum spending rules; what makes baseball special?

[mvp 78]

I think if we really thought about it, this is completely predictable. That nothing has happened for over a month now. I suspect life to be just as boring over the next couple weeks. When we start to get to a time frame where pitchers and catchers are supposed to report I think talks will heat up fast and we will go from 0-60 in 1 day.

 

This doesn't get a deal done, but I think both sides absolutely do NOT want to repeat 1994. I still think it's more probable than not that there is a full season.

 

I agree. Right now they are in a lull period of the offseason. Pitchers and catchers are supposed to report sometime the week of Valentine's Day. Talks should probably heat up the first few weeks of February. They should have a deal done within 30 days of that point.

[mvp 78]

Isn't that about what the Mets agreed to pay Scherzer in 2022?

 

It's a free country, yea U.S., and power to the Moneyball bargain basement architects... but the union has a point about wanting all clubs to be competitive -- in trying to win in the standings, and thus, for their services (and on the payroll).

 

If an owner is still turning profits with a loser, he's still a successful businessman. But other sports have minimum spending rules; what makes baseball special?

 

If he's still turning profits, it's probably in part due to revenue sharing. Hard to say without actually seeing financials.

[jad]

Yeah, I get what you two are saying. It was just another cheap joke by me LOL

 

As moon alluded to on the years of control thing, it can be difficult to separate issues of money from issues of principle.

 

Ah, I get it now. I don't see why 'years of control' should be a major issue. Since the real issue is 'how much money you spend' not 'who gets it.' or do owners think this is the way cheap-ass teams can remain competitive?

[mvp 78]

Ah, I get it now. I don't see why 'years of control' should be a major issue. Since the real issue is 'how much money you spend' not 'who gets it.' or do owners think this is the way cheap-ass teams can remain competitive?

 

Yes, cheap teams will either keep arb players as long as possible. Extra years on the back end allow for them to either give below market salaries or trade the player with additional remaining years of control that increases trade value.

[Bellhorn04]

I think if we really thought about it, this is completely predictable. That nothing has happened for over a month now. I suspect life to be just as boring over the next couple weeks. When we start to get to a time frame where pitchers and catchers are supposed to report I think talks will heat up fast and we will go from 0-60 in 1 day.

 

This doesn't get a deal done, but I think both sides absolutely do NOT want to repeat 1994. I still think it's more probable than not that there is a full season.

 

Don't underestimate the potential for stupidity.

[moonslav59]

Yes, cheap teams will either keep arb players as long as possible. Extra years on the back end allow for them to either give below market salaries or trade the player with additional remaining years of control that increases trade value.

 

While longer team control does help the lower budget teams keep their better players longer, they still never win it all and rarely even compete for the playoffs, unless it is TBR or OAK.

 

I really think they need to set a min player salary budget for teams.

[moonslav59]

Don't underestimate the potential for stupidity.

 

So true.

[mvp 78]

Don't underestimate the potential for stupidity.

 

1. I don't trust Tony Clark because he f'd up last CBA.

 

2. I don't trust the owners because of their history of bad management.

[moonslav59]

1. I don't trust Tony Clark because he f'd up last CBA.

 

2. I don't trust the owners because of their history of bad management.

 

So, neither one partially negates the other one.

[S5Dewey]

In this situation, there is also a long history of management acting illegally (collusion).

 

...in collusion with Congress. Saying that MLB isn't Interstate Commerce is a joke.

[S5Dewey]

I still think it's more probable than not that there is a full season.

 

Again from personal experience (and this is not an original thought):

"In negotiations more gets accomplished in the last three hours than has been done in the last three months."

[mvp 78]

...in collusion with Congress. Saying that MLB isn't Interstate Commerce is a joke.

 

^^^

[notin]

^^^

 

 

Ok you’re losing me.

 

How would fans benefit if MLB did not have anti-trust exemption? Especially when you consider the longevity of those few leagues that challenged the NFL and NBA…

Edited January 18, 2022 by notin

[mvp 78]

Ok you’re losing me.

 

How would fans benefit if MLB did not have anti-trust exemption? Especially when you consider the longevity of those few leagues that challenged the NFL and NBA…

 

It's not about a second league coming in for competition. Getting rid of the exemption would allow bargaining power to MiLB players and it would be easier for teams to move to a more lucrative market (the A's for example).

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

...in collusion with Congress.

 

The lawfakers who won't pass any changes? Looks like baseball is doomed...

[mvp 78]

The lawfakers who won't pass any changes? Looks like baseball is doomed...

 

The parallels between Congress and MLB Owners:

universally reviled

can't budget

need to be saved from themselves

laws don't apply to them

move slower than molasses

love saber rattling

take the general public for granted

[moonslav59]

The lawfakers who won't pass any changes? Looks like baseball is doomed...

 

It's survived for over a century.

 

It will be okay.

[dgalehouse]

Everybody wants the bigger slice of the pie. There are no good guys and bad guys here. Just some rich and richer folks fighting over how to glom and divvy up even more money from their loyal customers, (fans ) , ( marks) , ( suckers). But we do need our entertainment. So, it will be resolved before long.

[S5Dewey]

Everybody wants the bigger slice of the pie. There are no good guys and bad guys here. Just some rich and richer folks fighting over how to glom and divvy up even more money from their loyal customers, (fans ) , ( marks) , ( suckers). But we do need our entertainment. So, it will be resolved before long.

 

Yes, and for all the wrong reasons.

[jad]

Ok you’re losing me.

 

How would fans benefit if MLB did not have anti-trust exemption? Especially when you consider the longevity of those few leagues that challenged the NFL and NBA…

 

The AFL did pretty well, no?

[notin]

It's not about a second league coming in for competition. Getting rid of the exemption would allow bargaining power to MiLB players and it would be easier for teams to move to a more lucrative market (the A's for example).

 

Ok I’m still lost.

 

Can you briefly explain how anti-trust exemption complicates moving teams to more lucrative markets? And explain it like you were talking to a 4 year old…