Nick

I'm bit dumbfounded by the strong stance the owners are taking in respect to Luxury tax limit amount. No matter what the limit, they control their spending, no? Or is it the case of 25 owners knowing that few owners can't help themselves and getting their payroll up to $240M, thus making more apparent to the fanbase of 25 teams their unwillingness to spend money to improve their teams?

$30M for 8 years of Xander is way too much for my taste. I rather go all in on Devers at $32M, IF given the choice. Suzuki probably is better alternative to shore up our offense if we lose Xander and replace him with a defensive shortstop. If Paxton shows promise in September (maybe a wishful thinking in my part), then maybe we can move away from Eovaldi and add $17M to the 'pot'. I can live with outfield of Verdugo, Kike and say Suzuki. Or we can go Schwarber, Kike and Verdugo for one year before moving Schwarber to DH. Whitlock is the ultimate team player but he has stated his preference for an opportunity to start not long ago. Bloom still has couple of major moves before 2022 and that may reveal what direction the organization is headed.

Not sure what kind of money Xander and Devers are looking...... Per Cot's....selected final year contracts $22.0M JD $16.0M David Price $12.0M JBJ $07.0M Vaz $07.0M Wacha $05.0M Hill $01.5M Sawamura $70.5M Total coming off 2023 payroll (Moon, any 'penalty' for options not picked up ie JBJ as an example will be charged off to 2022 season). We will need a catcher, DH, outfield depth, three starters to be replaced (Eovaldi, Wacha and Hill). I think we'll extend Eovaldi, his current tax payroll is $17M, so that may go up to say $22M, or delta of $5M, leaves us with $65M. I will assume that Paxton will return 100% heathy for 2023, thus only one starter needs to be replaced.....this is the critical area, someone within the organization has to step up and take a starter's role, and I don't think it's asking too much...no additional money needed We'll need a DH, best case scenario is for Casas and Dalbec to step in to play 1B/DH. We can spend $10M for a OF/1B/DH, leaving us with $55M. We can budget for $5M for Vaz replacement...doable. Thus we have a war chest of $50M+ to keep Xander in Boston (I doubt we'll pay $10M, more likely $25M (delta of $5) and couple of more years added). I think we'll keep Kike, it may cost us say $12.5M for 2 years, delta of another $5M, we still have $40M+ for Devers' extension. Based on Dever's expected pay of $11M for 2022 season, even at $30M extension, that's delta of say $20M. Sox still has $20M+ to pay for arbitration raises for 2023 and some bullpen additions. Key will be a starting pitcher or two emerging within the system and both Casas and Dalbec becoming a 'major' league talent. We have extended Kike for additional $5M, acquired a catcher for $5M, acquired outfielder/1B/DH veteran for $10M, Eovaldi extended for additional $5M, Xander extended at $25M and Devers signed to a $30M contract. I doubt Sale opts out, just to cover all the basis. Bloom's biggest signing maybe Devers. I'm sure Bloom is reading this as I type.

yet no one complains about increase in price of gas.

The union and owners remain distant on several important issues, including a pre-arbitration bonus pool. The owners increased their offer on a bonus pool from $15 million to $20 million for 30 pre-arbitration players, The Athletic’s Evan Drellich reported. But the players want a $115 million pool for 150 players, according to Drellich. Not sure why it's a big deal for the owners.....$4M per team?

That makes sense..... You know there was a time when Jim Kaat/Ron Guidry games would last little over two hours.......

One of my best baseball moment was when the Sox visited White Sox for a 4 game weekend series. I believe it was the year before the White Sox moved to their new baseball stadium across the street. I drank and ate a lot that weekend. Fun times.

Let's again cut to the chase. The problem is not the spending of Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox. I will come back to them later. The problem is teams that spend little but make enough profit to keep the money train going. Those are the teams that the union needs to address. There has to be a minimum payroll total for these teams. If they won't spend minimum money on payroll, then the major league, ie other owners, must be willing to kick them out. Force a sale. My guess is there are many wealthy individuals willing to own a baseball franchise. They would know the commitment money wise before buying a franchise. You raise the payroll starting with lowest spending teams. Period. Now if you are somehow able to tie each team's payroll to their revenue, you may end up with the Yankees being able to spend $300M. But is that good for baseball? Absolutely not. But if you are able to bring in a third team to New York with 90% owners' vote? Mets and the Yankees won't go for it but it sure would be good for baseball. A third team in New York can generate more money than bottom third of MLB teams I bet. Now that would be a game changer. I ask you, what more can the Yankess, Dodgers and Red Sox give to the players?

How about expansion? Isn't it the best way to increase pay for current fringe players? 30 to 36 teams, essentially a 5 team divisions. 6 x 26 = 156 additional players. Can we find 6 expansion teams? Expand into Mexico?

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?