Nick

Watched Moneyball for millionth time. John Henry says to Billy Yankees just spent $1.4M per win and the A's $275K (?) per win. Maybe the owners are watching Moneyball. They all dream of winning a championship with $100M payroll.

Of course not. But Yankees will pay someone less, at some point to make up the difference in their payroll budget. You know that. They still have Cole's obligation of 7 years at $36M and Stanton for 7 years at $25M. Aaron Judge will become FA in 2023. He's anticipated to earn $17.5M in his year 3 of arbitration. They will need to cut back. They will need to take money away from player B, C, D to pay for Judge's new contract. Just not sure if one union can represent all these players equally. Only issue for these three players is the luxury tax limit. It has to be big enough to accommodate mega contracts.

My main point was NOT having guys making $20M+ representing a team on players' side. Ultimately each team has a player payroll budget. As an example, if we sign Devers to a $30M contract, something else will have to give. In essence JD's $22M will cover that increase in Dever's contract. That means next DH will have to make much less. I more or less anticipate Sox's payroll budget to be near the luxury tax thresh hold. It's about choices in how to spend $220M-$230M. Only way the Sox payroll will increase is if the team's top line, ie revenue can increase. I believe over the past several years, many franchises benefitted from bigger local TV deals. Can we expect that to continue? I'm not sure. I've stated on many occasions that mlb baseball package is relatively inexpensive for me. They can double it and I will still buy it. I'd say $300 is about where I would start thinking about not subscribing. How many fans feel the same way? My experience dealing with business owners is that they will CONSIDER SHARING LARGER % OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM WITH WORKERS. But they will NO WAY IN HELL TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM THEMSELVES AND PAY THE EMPLOYEES on current revenue stream.

Lets think about this further. One can argue that it's exactly these long term mega deals that's killing the apatite of many owners from spending more on 'average' baseball players. In essence, players have the responsibility of preventing owners from themselves. If I'm a union member, I'd tell Cole's of the world to f*** off. He has absolutely no interest in the majority of union members. Each team should select as its player rep the player that's earning the median salary for that team. What's better for baseball players? One guy earning $30M versus 3 players earning $10M apiece? Who puts better product on the field? I'd argue that WINNING trumps any star power. On a winning team, a star will rise. Betts who? The Dodgers won the most meaningless world series championship in history of baseball.

I noticed only 6 AL DH's 'qualified' during 2021, meaning they had enough at bats at the position of DH. I realize we are going to universal DH in 2022, owners touting additional 15 'openings'. Is that a reality? Will the teams use that position to rotate regulars, giving them day off in the field? I'm just skeptical that an older player will prolong his career. Usually they end their career when they quit hitting, no?

Very reasonable. I realize D Hern has options remaining, but is Davis that much of an upgrade over D Hern?

If the players union really want to force issues, then they have to be willing to force a shutdown. That's the only way to hurt the owners. The problem is is G Cole willing to forego his $30M+ salary? What about younger guys with family? Can they survive without $500K? Mortgage payments? This is why the owners will always have the upper hand. They are the casino owners and players are the players. Casino always wins in the end.

Do you know what athletes have most guts? Golfers....each week they are paid for their performance. Sure there are endorsement deals after success and pay for play exhibition rounds. What if we tie player pay to WAR? To be paid out of singular MLB compensation pool? Would the players go for that? Would Betts? Would Cole? I doubt it. They just want the upside. They have no guts. They won't take a pay cut for a down year. Owners take risks. Please don't paint the players as saints.

Universal DH will bring additional high paying jobs for 15 veteran players. That should not be discounted. No compensation pick attached to FA signing will benefit the players. Talk of raising minimum wage and a bonus pool for 0-3 year players will benefit the players. Looks to me like owners are making concessions.

Estimated lowest payroll in 2021 Miami $32M Orioles $42M Pirates $49M Guardians $49M Rangers $55M Rays $63M Seattle $64M Players should be bitching at these teams.

As a player my thoughts would be following... Instead of penalizing big spenders, I'd want mlb to place a minimum payroll standards. If a team can't meet it, then the mlb should force that owner to sell, go even as far as 'buying' it while a buyer can be found. In essence, MLB operates similar to franchisees. There are typically minimum standards. If say the Reds can't meet it, force them to sell. Quit penalizing Sox for ineptitude of lesser teams. I would go far as reducing the number of teams.

My participation fee is $125 per year for the MLB package. Absolutely the best bargain on planet. Not sure how I can follow my beloved Red Sox without it. Let me know how I can get THAT down to zero.

For both sides it's about money. It's okay to say it. This is America. There's a difference between me saying it's okay to 'strike' over money and me also saying fans probably won't sympathize with the players making league minimum of $500K. I have no sympathy for either side. I just want to watch baseball without increasing my participation fee.

Sure wasted Pedro's incredible 1999 season. He won the only game by the Sox vs Yankees in ALC.

Dice K was a bargain based on dollars per pitches. He wanted to get through a game without ever throwing a strike.

Concessions I'm willing to make as an owner... New CBA should benefit the majority of players. 1 Keep same accounting of service time but start arbitration in year 3 and players become FA in year 6. Teams can simply wait until May 15th or wherever the cutoff is before bringing up a player. So instead of 6+ years of control, owners will still have 5+ years of control. I think this is a major concession. It potentially benefits all incoming major leaugers. 2 Raise the minimum wage to $1M. It will cost each team around $15M per annum. 3 I would have the reverse of luxury tax penalties for non spending teams. So, each year if a team stays below a minimum spending requirement, that team is penalized for a percentage of underspending. That % would also increase annually as does the luxury tax. A team must go over the minimum spending limit to reset the penalty %, just as luxury taxes are calculated now. Question is coming up with the minimum amount. $100M? Thoughts?

Athttps://www.masslive.com/redsox/2022/01/boston-red-sox-prospect-triston-casas-knows-mlb-debut-could-come-in-2022-hopefully-ill-get-a-one-way-ticket.html Good read on Casas..... It's amazing to me he's ready for major league just looking at his stats, especially looking at the number of games of he has played professionally... He graduated from high school in 2018, his high school stats weren't all that unworldly (not gaudy). Scouts must have been impressed by his physical attributes....and his travel seasons. He played 2 games that summer, which appears to be the norm for Sox draftees. He had extensive season in 2019, appearing in 120 games. 2020 season was cancelled. He then appeared in 77 games for Portland and 9 for Worcester in between participating in the Olympics in 2021. He finished the year playing in Arizona Fall League. I don't know about anyone else but just based on games played, he's on a fast track. It's always fun watching young kids develop.

Who would've have predicted that I never could spell Nostradamus.

Something was up when Sox traded Renfroe.

I'm rooting for him to stick with Sox He maybe moved to another position with Casas coming in.

1B has been a problem for Sox lately. After OPS of .810 and .843, Youk followed up with stellar years beginning 2008, .959, .961 and .975. Gonzo followed with .958 and .818. Napoli dropped from .842 in 2013 to .789 and miserable .693. Ramirez posted a respectable .866 but then Moreland put up pedestrian numbers, .769, .758 and .835. Dalbec's .792 last year was better than 2005, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018. This is a hitter's position. Dalbec has to produce in 2022.

Completely Out of Question Tying players' salary pool to percentage of revenue. Nada, zero chance. If I'm an owner things I might give up A player must spend 100 days to earn his first full year of major league tenure. After that, current rules apply. Increase the minimum wage to $1M.

Absolutely Not and that's not where I was going. I just think the owners can outlast the players. When the median pay is over $1M, how much incentive do the players have to strike and for how long?

Addendum. I've has this constant argument with my friends. I bring up college basketball. I have a group of friend that believe players should be paid. They claim players are the stars. My counter argument is that players are simply caricature in a great play. It's the colleges that have joined together to provide great entertainment for its audience. Players turnover every year. But the success of college basketball continues. Why? There's always ready supply of talented basketball players. You put a marquee jersey on them, the play continues. There will always be another Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan etc. I think it's same in baseball. There are 16, 14 and 12 year olds readying themselves to be the next Trout. I can't ever fathom a situation where I would say what the hell, where are all the talent in major league baseball? As long as there are youths dreaming to become a major leaguer, there will be players that will play for million bucks. How is players' union going to fight that? Are 832 players ready to forego entire year's salary? For what gain?

CBA ultimately is about "show me the money" from players' perspective. Average major league payroll is $4.17M while the median payroll is $1.15M. There are 20 players earning over $25M per annum while over 100 players make $10M or more. Obviously this skews the average payroll, which is much higher than the median payroll. I guess if 50% of the players make $1.15M or more, question becomes how sympathetic are YOU to the plight of these players? Many Americans don't earn that amount in their lifetime. You say that their careers are short? Who cares? They can go get a job like anyone else. It's little different than football. Their heads are not getting bashed in every Sunday. Yeah there are exceptions but most walk away and get old like everybody else. Many here despise the owners. I don't. My answer is why don't you become wealthy and buy a major league team? Then you can give away all of your money to the players. Without laying blames, is the real issue paying someone like Trout $37M per year? I just bring this up because the players union can not stand for all the players. There's too much disparity in pay among 832 players. I have no problems with Trout making $37M per. And I'm not going to get upset if Angels pay other players the league minimum to counter Trout's contract. Season will happen. Something has to give. Players can only get better wages if the PIE gets bigger. The PIE gets bigger primarily through local television deals. Smart owners DO NOT take wealth from their successful ventures to subsidize their baseball teams. They got there by making each business stand on its own merit. If the PIE hasn't gotten bigger, players union is in a bad spot.