moonslav59

They don't have to. They are a tiny minority of the player vote.

Well, just about every country or company has a minimum salary. To me, those who worked their way all the way up to the majors and play a full season, deserve a bigger piece of the mega pie that $550K. Even $1M seems low in this context. I said just $1M, because I think that's the highest the owners might accept. Just my opinion. My general point has been that even the players should look at giving up something at the top to greatly enhance the lower and mid-range players, who happen to make up the vast majority of MLB players. MLB is not like a normal union shop where seniority a pay are based on years of service and job assignments. I was in a union, once, that was facing a tough negotiation. The company had grown by so much, they were hemorrhaging profits. Ownership sought to divide and conquer. They knew the majority of workers had less than 3 years of seniority, and the previous contract had 7 step raises based on 7 years of service, so they offered a bone to just the newbies and just a minor raise to the 7 year+ workers. They offered a 3 year step raise to top pay, thereby giving the newer workers what amounted to 7 raises in 3 years. I had been with the company for 3 years, so I saw the biggest raise possible- nearly a 60% raise in one year! I voted no, because I planned on retiring with this company and felt like raising the top pay was most important. MLB is not like this. Hardly anyone reaches "top pay," and they don't work until they are 65 years old. That's why I am thinking the lower guys need the attention. I realize it is my point of view, and others have very different views, too.

Yes, one way of looking at it.

Not to me. It's not even comical to suggest a min salary of $1M for a 162 game season + ST'ing.

That's one way of looking at it.. How long would MLB as a business lasted had they continued with scab players year after year?

Does soxprospects.com even have an archive of the previous #21-60 rankings?

It’s 65% over 3 years. I actually got that raise when part of a union. (I voted no.)

Why shouldn’t players try to make as much money as possible? It’s what a hell of a lot of people try to do. With so many careers just an injury or DFA away, grab what you can, while it lasts. True, some players are spoiled, as are many owners, but spoiled rotten people are everywhere.

I've been messing up math quite a bit lately. You guys seem to enjoy it. Still, a $1.05M raise over 3 years combined is still about a 65% raise of $1.65M/3 years. It's significant. I'm not sure why the players don't as for more than what they have on the min salary.

#49 Jeisson Rosario: https://soxprospects.com/players/rosario-jeisson.htm?fbclid=IwAR2meP0sVoUmOZwhpjOUwqSLVcYzmnhqqKNDcGZ70qTinabgvoHu_0CcS-E I had higher hopes for him at the time of the trade.

They should be asking for more than $775K flat.

I agree. I'm just saying expanded playoffs are not really a "gimmick." It's always about the money. To me, baseball plays 162 games for a reason, and letting half the teams make the playoffs cheapens that long struggle of 162 games.

...and there are a hundred plus Arauzes.

I hope they don't either, but it is a money-maker. It would go to 32 not 36.

A lot of players never make it to arb or when they do, make not much more than $1M a year. My idea also included lessening the arb years by 1, which further helps the lower paid players. BTW, someone make $550K x 3 years is $1.65M. My plan, they make $$2.7M. That's a $2M gain and over a 100% raise.

I'm not sure "gimmick" is the right word, but it's always about money. Every other league lets in nearly half to more than half the teams make the playoffs. To me, it's more about shortening the 162 game season to lengthen the playoffs or not. Cutting 5 games off the schedule is actually cutting 75 games in totality and 150 cable TV games market money-makers. Can they start a 162 game season 2-3 days earlier and extend it by 2-3 games to keep 162 AND expand the playoffs? (Maybe not have so many off days during the playoffs?) Do they add doubleheaders? I doubt they shorten the season.

The players will sign quickly. Some, who take longer to sign, might need more time to get ready, but I doubt it will be a major factor in effing up the season.

It's a huge difference, because of the amount of players it affects, and I was thinking more like min wage gets bumped up to $800K in 2022, $900 K in 2023 and $1M in 2024. That would be an enormous gain for many players- more noticeable, too.

Shortening the number of games played seems like the most realistic way to allow for expanded playoffs. I don't think you can lessen the days off during the season or playoffs. If a significant increase in doubleheaders were to be a greed upon, increasing the roster to 27 players might balance it, and maybe even 28 on the actual double header days. I hate the 7 inning idea, but it is an option.

I'm not saying teams don't make money off ST'ing, but my point was it's probably not enough to make owners more likely to agree to a new CBA to avoid losing those profits. I also think the amount they make might not be as much as we think due to the massive expenses ST'ing must be, and that some teams might make much less than others.

Not just the fans, but the lower paid players, too. That was kind of the point I was aiming for with this theoretical talk. The lower paid players, who are the vast majority, should not automatically shoot down caps and limits, if the give back by owners raises their salaries by a significant amount. Only a select few get those mega deals, yet everything seems to be geared towards allowing theose few to keep making more and more-at the expense of the fans and minimum to lower paid players.

Dude, I'm not championing this idea. Settle down!

I know, that's why I said in theory. Think of it this way, forget about the "structure" element of my point: which top pay outcome, even under a completely free bidding structure, would most players hope happened?

The majority of the biggest/longest deals in MLB history have been between horrific and meh for the team signing them. Yet, they persist.

That's the big get for owners- they don't! Top players actually go to the city they want to play for not based on money, unless just one team offers them the most possible. Again, I am not championing this idea, just exploring it.