|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 7, 2021 9:34:01 GMT -5
MLB is about to lock out over money. (What else?) How about solving baseball’s real problems instead? | Klapisch
Updated: Nov. 07, 2021, 8:46 a.m. | Published: Nov. 07, 2021, 8:00 a.m.
By Bob Klapisch | For NJ Advance Media
You’re going to be reading a lot about MLB’s labor issues in the next few weeks, so here’s an early suggestion: Find a comfortable seat on the sidelines. Make like Switzerland, be neutral. There’s no one to root for as the players and owners begin ripping each other’s throats out over the last dollar.
We already know where this is headed. A month of rhetoric and empty negotiating that’ll yield nothing but hot air, right up to Dec. 1. That’s when the Collective Bargaining Agreement expires. The higher-ups in the industry say there’s a 99-percent chance the owners will enact a lock-out, putting the game into a deep freeze until someone comes to their senses.
The bright side? It’s unlikely a stoppage will last until Opening Day. I’m actually betting camps open on time in February. The huffing and puffing will go on until the moment the Players Association risks forfeiting salary. Presto, this absurd exercise will be over.
Maybe this time the moderates in both camps will understand baseball is fighting not for financial superiority but its very soul. Look, the game is flush with wealth. Both sides are practically printing money. Total revenues exceeded $11 billion in 2021, a record.
Next year marks the beginning of Fox’ new TV deal, which will pay $5.1 billion for World Series rights through 2028. That’s a 21 percent bump from the last contract. Naturally, the players want a bigger piece of the pie, but they’ve never had it this good. This hardly qualifies as class warfare. Union chief Tony Clark doesn’t have a single grievance worthy of a strike.
Want more Yankees coverage? Get exclusive news, behind-the-scenes observations and the ability to text directly with beat writers
What should be on the table, however, is how to reverse baseball’s downward trend lines in attendance, TV ratings and overall fan enthusiasm. Eventually, that Fox money will dry up, especially if viewership keeps shrinking.
If you think the Braves-Astros World Series was a must-watch, think again. Aside from last year’s pandemic series, the 2021 Classic was the least-watched since total-viewer tallies became available in the early 1970s.
Ballpark attendance isn’t doing much better. Again, setting aside the 2020 figures, which were skewed by COVID-19, ticket sales have been declining steadily since 2015. The number of people aged 7 to 17 playing what used to be the national pastime has plunged to 4.9 million, down from 6.3 million in 2005 and 10 million in 1995, according to data from the National Sporting Goods Association.
What’s going on here, you ask? I think you know. The games are slow and boring: too many strikeouts, too many defensive shifts, too little action due to the suffocating dominance of pitching and defense. While it’s true the athletes are bigger, stronger and better-conditioned than ever, the final product is now governed by analytical efficiency, not entertainment.
We could devote an entire symposium on the pros and cons of Ivy Leaguers turning front offices into think tanks. The game’s IQ has increased exponentially. But clearly something is wrong if fewer fans are tuning in and a diminishing number of them feel like making the trek to the stadium. That’s what the players and owners should be discussing — not how to cut up the pie, but how to save the pie itself.
Something has to be done about tanking, which has turned into an industry-wide obsession. It worked in its original form – the Astros own the patent on manipulating the draft to ultimately win a championship. (Of course, stealing signs was a big part of that). But the problem is that so many teams start racing for the bottom immediately after the trade deadline.
Come August and September, suddenly there are 8-9 meaningless games on the schedule every night. They’re no match for the NFL on Sundays. Or Monday nights. Or Thursday nights. And forget about Saturday afternoons – they belong to college football unless you root for one of the still-contending teams.
Too few clubs are left in the middle, looking to profit off tankers no longer concerned with winning. The A’s are one of the Davids willing to take on the Goliaths. They’ve historically surged in the second half because, despite their relative poverty, they make smart trades and go for it.
True, the A’s haven’t won a championship since 1989. And it looks like another rebuild is unfolding, too. But A’s vice president Billy Beane has a spot-on suggestion on how to stop teams from surrendering midway through: Stop giving the worst clubs the highest draft picks.
“I don’t think you should have any benefit from losing games,” Beane said. “Take away all incentives from losing and then, at that point, everyone will try to win.”
I wonder if commissioner Rob Manfred understands how much MLB suffers from having two of its legacy franchises – the Orioles and Pirates – turned into junkyard scavengers. Nor does he seem to be aware that shrinking the minor leagues robbed so many communities of their pipeline to baseball.
Bud Selig was a flawed commissioner — he was part of the owners’ collusion scandal against the players in the 80s, I get that — but I also felt he really loved baseball. Manfred? I’m not so sure. He’s an Ivy League-educated labor lawyer who just happened to land in the commissioner’s office.
But the players are not blameless either. They’ve ceded too much power to super agents like Scott Boras. Policy is dictated by zealots who take the bruising negotiations with Manfred personally.
The good news is the influence of reasonable thinkers like Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole on the Association’s executive sub-committee. I’m hoping he can steer talks in the right direction between now and spring training. Baseball could use the reality check.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrappyunderdog on Nov 7, 2021 10:06:54 GMT -5
MLBPA Makes Second Core Economics Proposal To MLBBy Anthony Franco | November 5, 2021 at 8:08pm CDT Last week, the MLB Players Association made its second proposal on core economics in collective bargaining discussions with the league, report Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of the Athletic. The new proposal contained only minor adjustments compared to the PA’s first offer, which was made back in May. Drellich and Rosenthal reported in August that the MLBPA’s first offer included an emphasis on earlier arbitration for young players, but other details on their vision remained sparse. The Athletic now shines more light on that initial offer, suggesting that an alteration to the draft order, a higher league minimum salary, elevated luxury tax thresholds, alterations to the revenue sharing system, and an unspecified change in how service time is calculated were all included in that opening proposal. The union’s initial proposal also included scenarios where certain players could qualify for free agency without reaching a full six years of major league service. Whether all of those goals remained in the union’s second offer is not clear. Major League Baseball made one counteroffer in August — a radically different setup that would’ve included lowered luxury tax thresholds with an accompanying salary floor, an age-based system in which players first reach free agency at 29.5 years old, and a revenue-based pool system to replace the current arbitration structure. Given the massive differences in what’s publicly known about each side’s offers, it’s no surprise the MLBPA reportedly considered the league’s offer a non-starter.Drellich and Rosenthal also shed a bit more light on MLB’s first proposal. The league’s proposed salary floor, which was to be set at $100MM, was a “soft” floor, featuring unspecified penalties for teams that don’t reach that mark in annual payroll rather than a firm mandate to do so. To address players’ concerns about rebuilding teams, MLB’s offer included a provision that would prevent teams from picking in the top five of the amateur draft in three consecutive seasons.MLB’s proposal also included a provision to overhaul the system for teams to acquire international amateur prospects, per Drellich and Rosenthal. Currently, teams are annually allotted a hard-capped bonus pool to sign amateur players from outside of the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. While deals can’t formally be signed until the player turns 16 years old, teams and player representatives often come to verbal agreements a year or more in advance. According to the Athletic, MLB proposed to replace the current system with an international draft, the details of which remain unclear. The potential for a collectively bargained international draft has long been bandied about. Were it to come to fruition, it’s generally expected that draft would be a separate entity from the current Rule 4 draft for acquiring domestic amateur talent. An international draft would foreclose the potential for advance verbal agreements for incredibly young players, but it’d also obviously restrict those players’ abilities to choose their preferred destination. It’s clear that MLB and the MLBPA remain far apart on core economic concepts, but Drellich and Rosenthal report that the sides have made progress in ancillary bargaining areas and are slated for in-person talks at next week’s general managers meetings. The current CBA expires on December 1, and Drellich wrote earlier this week it’s expected that failure to agree on a new CBA by then would result in a lockout and accompanying transactions freeze. Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA executive director Tony Clark have continued to express hope they’ll reach agreement before that point, but the general tenor on the situation has seemed to skew more pessimistic. Not knowing all the details, it's hard to know for sure, but based off of what I've read here, it sounds to me like ownership is not bending very much. I usually tend to lean more toward ownership's side, a 'soft floor' of $100M and players first reaching FA at an age of 29.5 doesn't do anything for me. Both sides have more than enough money. Stop being so greedy and start making some concessions to appease the other side. The Floor, which would have to be defined better, is not bad. Right now, just going by Cots for 2021, a soft floor would add about $300M to the players side. A ceiling at $180M would reduce that by maybe $190M. According to Cot's there are 12 teams below $100M. The problem with rejecting a floor outright is that they might not be able to get it later. The 29.5 age looks heavily tilted towards the owners. But it is still something worth adding at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 10, 2021 17:54:16 GMT -5
Jon Heyman
@jonheyman
·
8m
MLB and the union are engaged in CBA talks today. Not a ton of hope on either side for a quick resolution as the Dec. 1 expiration date approaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimmi on Nov 11, 2021 7:49:43 GMT -5
Not knowing all the details, it's hard to know for sure, but based off of what I've read here, it sounds to me like ownership is not bending very much. I usually tend to lean more toward ownership's side, a 'soft floor' of $100M and players first reaching FA at an age of 29.5 doesn't do anything for me. Both sides have more than enough money. Stop being so greedy and start making some concessions to appease the other side. The Floor, which would have to be defined better, is not bad. Right now, just going by Cots for 2021, a soft floor would add about $300M to the players side. A ceiling at $180M would reduce that by maybe $190M. According to Cot's there are 12 teams below $100M. The problem with rejecting a floor outright is that they might not be able to get it later. The 29.5 age looks heavily tilted towards the owners. But it is still something worth adding at some point. What I don't like is the ambiguity of the term "soft floor". What kind of penalties would be imposed on teams that don't reach it? I don't have any problems with teams going through rebuilding years and wanting to spend less during that time, but I do have a problem with some teams who never seem willing to spend to field a competitive team. $100M is really nothing in today's baseball market, even if you're fielding a lot of home grown players. I just can't get on board with the 29.5 age requirement for reaching FA. Players are technically past their prime by that point. Some players are major league players by the age of 22 or even earlier. That's a long time for them to be under team control. Personally, I like the way the system is now. Six years of team control may seem too long to some people, but players are paid very well during those 3 arb years. It just dawned on me that perhaps I am misreading the age requirement thing. |
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 12, 2021 2:23:42 GMT -5
MLB Proposes Replacing Arbitration With Salaries Based Off Player WAR Totals
By Anthony Franco | November 11, 2021 at 10:50pm CDT
In August, Major League Baseball made its first core economics proposal to the MLB Players Association. That would’ve involved a radical restructuring of the game’s economic system, first granting players free agency at age 29 1/2 (as opposed to after six years of MLB service) and replacing the current arbitration structure with a pool-based system attached to revenues.
This week, the league proposed an unexpected wrinkle in CBA talks. While the new proposal contains the same age threshold for free agency qualification, Evan Drellich, Ken Rosenthal and Eno Sarris of the Athletic report that this offer would tie pre-free agency pay directly to a player’s Wins Above Replacement tally. Under this structure, a player’s service time and career WAR marks (weighted to emphasize the most recent seasons more heavily) would set the player’s salary. While multiple websites calculate WAR totals in different ways, MLB’s proposal would base salaries on FanGraphs’ WAR tabulations.
Earlier this afternoon, Ben Nicholson-Smith of Sportsnet reported (on Twitter) that MLB had offered to replace the arbitration system with salaries based on an algorithm. Nicholson-Smith added that the MLBPA was not enamored with that idea, and the Athletic trio quotes one player representative as saying that such an offer has “zero chance” of being approved.
That’s not at all surprising. MLB’s proposal to set free agency at 29 1/2 years has always looked to be a non-starter for the players. The league’s top prospects typically reach the majors in their early-mid 20’s. Those who live up to their promise will often pass six years of service and hit free agency in advance of their age-28 or age-29 seasons. Marketing as many prime-aged seasons as possible is what often allows players to land contracts that push free agency forward, and the league’s proposal could tether that elite group to their original teams for longer than the current system does. (For example, neither of this offseason’s top two free agents — Carlos Correa and Corey Seager — would be eligible for free agency were the age set at 29 1/2).
Certainly, the age threshold would impact some players positively as well. Players like Aaron Judge and Willson Contreras would’ve reached free agency this winter as opposed to going into their final year of arbitration. A late bloomer like Cubs third baseman Patrick Wisdom would’ve been on the open market instead of making the league minimum salary, and he’d have likely made a few million dollars in 2022 coming off a 28-homer showing over just 375 plate appearances. Overall, though, the union likely sees the 29 1/2 year age threshold as too old to be more desirable than the current service structure.
Fixing player salaries to a statistical formula comes with its own challenges. Past performance will, of course, always be relevant to player pay. The existing arbitration system awards players salaries based on their combination of service time and prior salaries of statistically-comparable players. There’s a case to be made that MLB’s proposal would modernize that process.
Arbitration can lean a little more heavily than most modern teams do on traditional box score statistics like pitcher wins, saves, and hitters’ home runs and RBI totals. While arbitrators will also consider newer, WAR-like metrics, their comparative reliance on old-school stats has led to arb salaries for closers and defensively-limited sluggers tending to skew higher than teams have been willing to pay. On the other hand, arbitrators haven’t generally placed as much value as clubs have on glove-first players and high-leverage setup relievers. Basing pre-free agency salaries off WAR would probably help to close that gap.
That said, the MLBPA seems likely to take issue with tying salaries to WAR directly. As the Athletic scribes write, using that metric is particularly challenging with regards to relievers. Both the free agent and arbitration markets have valued bullpen arms more highly than WAR totals typically do. Advanced defensive metrics — a key component in WAR calculations — can be unstable on a yearly basis. Over the long run, those metrics tend to align with general evaluations of a player’s defensive acumen. Fixing salaries weighted heavily on single-season defensive metrics, though, seems suboptimal.
WAR naturally involves making imprecise adjustments for different parks, which could pose problems when teams adjust playing field dimensions. And WAR metrics differ on how to separate a pitcher’s contributions from those of his defense; FanGraphs, upon which MLB’s proposal would be based, evaluates pitchers essentially off their strikeout, walk and home run rates. That strips out ball in play luck but also creates some seemingly odd results. For instance, Aaron Nola — who threw 180 2/3 innings of 4.63 ERA/3.37 FIP ball — had a higher 2021 fWAR than Robbie Ray, who tossed 193 1/3 frames of 2.84 ERA/3.69 FIP pitching.
None of this is meant as an indictment of WAR models generally or of FanGraphs’ choices specifically. Most or all MLB teams rely on similar calculations in making player evaluations. That’s with good reason, since advanced metrics of that nature can offer insights into players not found by typical box score stats. Still, these limitations highlight the potential pitfalls of tying player salaries directly to this one statistic.
MLB’s proposal looks unlikely to make much headway ultimately, and both sides will continue negotiations as we near the expiration of the current CBA on December 1. Nicholson-Smith reports that the two sides are scheduled to meet next on Monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 12, 2021 2:56:22 GMT -5
Lou Merloni
@loumerloni
·
5h
Typical move by the owners. Make early proposals that are so ridiculous in an attempt to create a starting point for negotiations. Imagine agreeing to making a kid who enters The Big Leagues at 21 to have wait until he’s 29 1/2 before he can be a free agent? Dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 12, 2021 12:21:12 GMT -5
Jeff Passan
@jeffpassan
·
2h
Also included, full details of MLB’s proposal to replace arbitration with a WAR-based system, how players would get paid, why the negative reaction was so strong in some quarters and the operative word of the entire week: Posturing. www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/32612663/why-mlb-seems-headed-lockout-how-thatll-create-free-agent-frenzyIn an unexpected turn, shortstop Corey Seager and infielder Marcus Semien are among the players whose markets have accelerated to the point they could sign before the expected Dec. 1 lockout, sources tell ESPN. Knowledge at ESPN+:
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 13, 2021 7:57:48 GMT -5
Mastrodonato: MLB delusional to think sport will improve by paying players based on FanGraphs calculations
By Jason Mastrodonato | jason.mastrodonato@bostonherald.com | Boston Herald
November 13, 2021 at 5:38 a.m.
Imagine the FOX broadcast with Joe Buck and John Smoltz, who spent so much of the MLB postseason talking about prop bets, watching a shortstop call off a center fielder for a mid-range pop-up and immediately analyzing the UZR rating and how much money the shortstop just made himself in salary arbitration.
A joke, this is not.
After a month-long postseason in which MLB sent a loud message to the country that it would rather spend what must’ve been at least 10% of the game promoting gambling than showcasing the sport itself, the league took another sadistic jump this week when it proposed to the players’ union that free agency shouldn’t start until a player is six months from 30, and that arbitration salaries would be determined entirely based on FanGraphs’ WAR calculation.
It would actually be laugh-out-loud funny if the sport hadn’t already made a habit of taking sharp objects and jamming them into its abdomen.
We’ve annihilated situational baseball by teaching young players that launch angle and spin rate are the fastest ways to the big leagues. Let’s take it one step further and tell the players that baseball instincts are worthless compared to your ability to impress a computer.
Maybe this column is just another old man yelling at a cloud, but the league deserves a mouthful after this one.
This new payment structure, which should be rejected by the players’ union faster than Rob Manfred could lock in a prop bet on the number of days this looming lockout will last, is undoubtedly a farce. It must be MLB’s way of holding up a big red balloon and saying, ‘LOOK OVER HERE!’ while it crafts an actual strategy behind the scenes.
Because if this is the offer MLB is choosing to take to the players’ union just three weeks before the collective bargaining agreement is set to expire, a lockout is coming.
Why MLB thinks this is a good idea is beyond reason, particularly coming off a year in which it hired Theo Epstein to help make the game more watchable for young audiences. Epstein’s message was simple: let’s tone back the analytics-driven game and try to make this a more instinctual and athletic game designed to showcase the incredible talent of the modern player.
The modern player is slimmer, faster and more agile than MLB players have been in a long time, if not ever. Stolen bases are down, but that’s not because of a lack of speed. It’s because the numbers say if you aren’t stealing bases at an 80% clip, a remarkably difficult thing to do, it’s actually hurting a team’s chances of winning.
Defense has never been more valuable. Diving catches and Poppeye-strength throws are not out of the ordinary.
Unfortunately, putting balls in play is an act that’s going extinct. And if MLB thinks paying its players based on WAR will change that, the league is delusional.
WAR loves the three true outcomes — walks, strikeouts and home runs — which eliminate all the gray area of what happens when a baseball gets put into play, an act that scrambles the computer’s brain.
WAR doesn’t love pitchers who are masterful at their craft and rely on instincts and intellect over pure stuff. It doesn’t love hitters with Dustin Pedroia’s ability to read a situation and poke the ball in the direction it needs to go to advance a runner 90 feet. It doesn’t love timely sacrifices or knowing when to take a strike or paying attention to baserunners.
The finer details of the game aren’t calculable. And even the big ones are often calculated with bias.
Coaches of young players in high school or college are often obsessed with getting their hands on a TrackMan machine so they can measure their players the same way big league front offices do. It’s attractive for the kids to see how they stack up. It’s also imbecilic to think it’ll help them learn how to play the game situationally, instinctually and with the team’s result in mind.
Players like Pedroia could soon become extinct. Smart catchers who make a living off durability, framing and pitch-calling might lose their jobs.
Look at the Red Sox, for example. Second baseman Jose Iglesias, who was claimed off waivers in September and played 23 games, in which the Sox went 13-10, was worth 0.6 WAR.
Christian Vazquez, who managed a pitching staff that over-performed, ranked third in MLB in innings caught and played 138 games in which the Sox went 78-60, was worth 0.5 WAR.
If both players were arbitration-eligible and being paid by WAR, Iglesias would go home with a fatter paycheck than Vazquez.
How about Kiké Hernandez? He had a nice season, playing 134 games while hitting .250 with 20 homers and playing great defense in center field. He was worth 4.0 WAR, or more than double that of Alex Verdugo (2.0 WAR) and Hunter Renfroe (1.8 WAR), who each had more hits, total bases and games played than Hernandez.
At least right now, teams and players can negotiate salaries with a panel of arbitrators who can go back and forth on which statistics are more valuable. Teams can use their eyeballs, players can tout their instincts and both sides can argue it out.
Trading in people for computers to decide on player salaries is not the answer.
MLB has to know this, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by scrappyunderdog on Nov 13, 2021 19:08:29 GMT -5
The Floor, which would have to be defined better, is not bad. Right now, just going by Cots for 2021, a soft floor would add about $300M to the players side. A ceiling at $180M would reduce that by maybe $190M. According to Cot's there are 12 teams below $100M. The problem with rejecting a floor outright is that they might not be able to get it later. The 29.5 age looks heavily tilted towards the owners. But it is still something worth adding at some point. What I don't like is the ambiguity of the term "soft floor". What kind of penalties would be imposed on teams that don't reach it? I don't have any problems with teams going through rebuilding years and wanting to spend less during that time, but I do have a problem with some teams who never seem willing to spend to field a competitive team. $100M is really nothing in today's baseball market, even if you're fielding a lot of home grown players. I just can't get on board with the 29.5 age requirement for reaching FA. Players are technically past their prime by that point. Some players are major league players by the age of 22 or even earlier. That's a long time for them to be under team control. Personally, I like the way the system is now. Six years of team control may seem too long to some people, but players are paid very well during those 3 arb years. It just dawned on me that perhaps I am misreading the age requirement thing. I would call it a floating floor. Having a floor of $100M is a waste of money for teams like Baltimore. What they should do is to make every team 'average' $100M over, say a six year period. So you stink, so maybe your payroll is only $60M. You still are forced to spend $100M by virtue of sending MLB $40M, or having MLB withhold $40M worth of shared revenue. So, over three years of rebuilding, you've banked $40M, $20M, and $10M. Over the next three years, when you are ready to win, you have to spend that $70M or lose it. You could do the same with a $210M cap. You can exceed the cap by any amount you want, so long as you go under the cap in future years. That's an impetus for teams with a couple of bad contracts to continue to exceed the cap. I'm thinking of the RS with Pedrioa & Price. They want to stay under, so they can only spend $185M on the rest of the team. Let them spend $220M without a penalty, and it would still allow them a door around the tax, if they can make it back to $200M after those contracts expire. |
|
|
|
Post by scrappyunderdog on Nov 13, 2021 19:11:33 GMT -5
Lou Merloni
@loumerloni
·
5h
Typical move by the owners. Make early proposals that are so ridiculous in an attempt to create a starting point for negotiations. Imagine agreeing to making a kid who enters The Big Leagues at 21 to have wait until he’s 29 1/2 before he can be a free agent? Dumb. I agree with Lou. I think the cap of 29.5 is an excellent idea for the PA to pursue, so long as the floor is lower, say 27. There won't be many players penalized at that age, and a lot of the late bloomers will rightfully get paid off. And this will incent team to promote kids earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 18, 2021 16:13:17 GMT -5
Evan Drellich
@evandrellich
·
1h
“The pitch timer experiment in the Cal League was one that the owners remain very interested in.” — Rob Manfred in his opening remarks as quarterly owner meetings wrap up
Rob Manfred, when asked whether owners would lock out the players if no deal is done by CBA expiration: "We did not make today and will not make a decision as to what’s next. We’re focused on making an agreement prior to Dec. 1."
Rob Manfred on hypothetical of a lockout: "We locked out in 89, 90. ... I don’t think 94 worked out too great for anybody. I think when you look at other sports the pattern has become to control the timing of the labor dispute. … It’s about avoiding doing damage to the season."
Rob Manfred: "An offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games."
Rob Manfred on a new ball: “We actually have a couple of options in terms of tackier balls… We could be in a position to use a new ball next year. Maybe it's going to be ’23 instead, but we're continuing to work on it.” There will be testing this winter and in spring training
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 18, 2021 16:15:52 GMT -5
Michael Silverman
@mikesilvermanbb
·
1h
Manfred speaking as owners meetings break up.
Owners interested in pitch clock.
Renewed focus on DEI.
Nothing on labor yet.
Manfred on labor:
“Time is becoming an issue.”
Manfred: No decision made on lockout. Focused on making agreement before Dec 1.
Manfred on early flurry of contracts: “I don’t make much of it.”
Manfred on benefit of potential lockout: “We’ve been down this path…it’s about avoiding doing damage to season.”
Manfred: “Truly isn’t helpful” to get into specifics on labor discussions so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 18, 2021 19:26:08 GMT -5
A baseball lockout would be better now than during the season, says commissioner Rob Manfred
By Michael Silverman Globe Staff,Updated November 18, 2021, 1 hour ago
CHICAGO — With less than two weeks before Major League Baseball’s collective bargaining agreement expires, the odds of team owners imposing a lockout on players are only increasing.
If it should happen, said commissioner Rob Manfred Thursday, he believes that fans will recognize the gambit as necessary for the good of the game, since the intent is to preserve all of the 2022 season.
“I can’t believe there’s a single fan in the world who doesn’t understand that an offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games,” said Manfred at the conclusion of the owners’ quarterly meetings. “[Fans] don’t want a labor dispute, and that’s our No. 1 priority, is to make a deal.”
The calendar, however, is beginning to conflict with hopes.
“We understand, I understand, that time is becoming an issue — that’s a challenge,” said Manfred about the approaching expiration at 11:59 p.m. Dec. 1.
The owners did not decide to impose a lockout at these meetings, and they “will not make a decision as to what’s next,” said Manfred. “We’re focused on making an agreement prior to Dec. 1.”
The reaction among fans will hinge on whether or not the lockout strategy — getting the players to negotiate with more urgency — spurs actual progress that leads to a deal or sparks a heated standoff that affects spring training and the regular season.
Negotiations have picked up in frequency and intensity, with Zoom meetings held Wednesday and more talks scheduled for Friday.
In response to players’ concerns such as younger players getting paid more and a draft structure that incentivizes losing, owners have made proposals ranging from establishing free agency for players reaching 29½ years of age, a salary floor for teams that comes with a lower competitive-balance tax threshold, and draft pick limitations for consistently losing teams.
The initial reaction from the players has been less than tepid, and indications from both sides are that negotiations to date have yielded little common ground on core economic issues.
Manfred said it is “not accurate” that the players have made two core economic proposals and the owners have made only one.
While declining to get into any specifics, Manfred emphasized that the owners are focused only on getting to yes before Dec. 1. Should it happen, however, it is not a declaration that a 26-year span of no work stoppages in baseball has come to an end.
“When you look at other sports, the pattern has become to control the timing of the labor dispute and try to minimize the prospect of actual disruption of the season,” said Manfred. “That’s what it’s about. It’s avoiding doing damage to the season.”
Manfred deflected questions about the tenor of the talks, especially compared with the summer of 2020, when each side issued barbed communiques over the duration and timing of the shortened season during the height of the pandemic.
“Honestly, I find the focus on 2020, I think, has been excessive,” said Manfred. “One sort of midterm negotiation in the middle of a crisis, a pandemic, I just don’t put that much weight on it.”
On the non-labor front, Manfred said the presentation about change-of-game ideas made to the competition committee from a group that included MLB consultant Theo Epstein was “really, really impressive.”
Among the topics that Manfred covered:
▪ Owners remain “very interested” in the kind of pitch clock that was used in the Low A West league this past summer and is being used in the Arizona League now.
▪ MLB is moving closer to using baseballs that come pre-loaded with “sticky stuff” to avoid the hullabaloo when Spider Tack was banned to lessen the edge pitchers had on batters. Further testing will occur this winter, and the balls could be used by next season or 2023.
▪ There is a “renewed focus” on diversity, equity, and inclusion in baseball, and Manfred singled out the contributions two Black former general managers, Mike Hill and Tony Reagins.
▪ No conclusions have been reached on the Tampa Bay Rays’ desire to share a home base with Montreal.
▪ He lauded the dual-track efforts of Oakland A’s ownership to pursue a new stadium in the Bay Area while also exploring a move to Las Vegas.
▪ With fans back in the stands, the league’s financial performance in 2020 was “much better than what we were projecting.” Final numbers are not in yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 19, 2021 3:53:04 GMT -5
Rob Manfred Discusses Possibility Of A Lockout
By Anthony Franco | November 18, 2021 at 7:46pm CDT
The current collective bargaining agreement expires in less than two weeks, with the possibility of an offseason freeze looming. If a new deal isn’t agreed upon when the current one wraps up at 11:59 pm EST on December 1, the general expectation within the industry is that owners will lock the players out — resulting in a ban on transactions until another agreement is reached.
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred addressed the state of the labor situation when speaking with reporters (including Evan Drellich of the Athletic and Jeff Passan of ESPN) this afternoon. The commissioner stopped short of calling a lockout an inevitability, but he certainly seemed to suggest that course of action was on the table. Manfred drew a distinction between the impact a winter transactions freeze would have on the sport versus that of a work stoppage that lingers into next season.
“I can’t believe there’s a single fan in the world who doesn’t understand that an offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games,” he said. As to whether the sides still had hope of hammering out a new CBA before December 1, Manfred said the league was “committed to continuing to offer proposals and suggestions in an effort to get to an agreement before” that date, but acknowledged that “time is becoming an issue.”
Technically, the expiration of the CBA wouldn’t necessitate a lockout. As MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes explored in August, the sides continued to conduct offseason business during the last winters (1993-94 and 94-95) that proceeded without a CBA in place. The players went on strike when no agreement was reached during the 1994 season, and that year’s World Series was eventually cancelled.
Manfred implied the league wouldn’t want to run the risk of negotiating without an agreement this time around, pointing to the ’94 strike and trends in other professional sports leagues as justification. “I don’t think ’94 worked out too great for anybody,” Manfred said. “I think when you look at other sports, the pattern has become to control the timing of the labor dispute and try to minimize the prospect of actual disruption of the season. That’s what it’s about: It’s avoiding doing damage to the season.”
The commissioner’s comments come amidst a background of a very slow back-and-forth between the league and Players Association. The MLBPA has made two core economics proposals over the past six months; the league has made just one, although it made an alteration to its August offer last week. It doesn’t seem there’s been much progress on economics issues, with the MLBPA pursuing such goals as raised luxury tax thresholds and earlier arbitration eligibility. The league, meanwhile, has pushed for lowered luxury tax markers and an age-based system for free agency eligibility that could delay the path to the open market for the game’s brightest stars, among other things.
While much of Manfred’s focus was unsurprisingly on the core economic structure of the game, he also touched on a few other topics. The commissioner expressed optimism about the league’s ongoing testing of pre-tacked baseballs, suggesting they hoped to test the prototype in Spring Training 2022. Manfred didn’t rule out the possibility of using a pre-tacked ball in regular season games at some point next season. He also voiced support for the possibility of a pitch clock being implemented in upcoming CBA talks, saying that “owners remain very interested in” introducing a clock at the major league level after testing it in minor league games for years.
Manfred also addressed the respective stadium situations in Tampa Bay and Oakland. He again suggested Las Vegas could be a viable landing spot for the A’s if they’re unable to work out a deal in the Bay Area. Manfred confirmed that the Rays have made a proposal to the league’s executive committee regarding the franchise’s hopes for splitting home games between Tampa and Montreal. (John Romano of The Tampa Bay Times explored the issue at greater length earlier in the week). The executive committee has yet to weigh in on the topic, Manfred said this afternoon.
Finally, the league announced the previously-reported decision to provide housing for minor league players in 2022. Josh Norris of Baseball America shed some light on the details, reporting that teams will now be responsible for leases and utility agreements for players on minor league contracts who make less than $20K per month. Norris adds further details on the base amenities (including utilities, electricity and WiFi) that acceptable residences must include. His full piece is a worthwhile read for those interested in the specifics of the new policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Nov 19, 2021 4:02:05 GMT -5
Rob Manfred talking like there will be an MLB lockout
By Ken Davidoff
November 19, 2021 1:25am
CHICAGO — Free advice to Billy Eppler:
Don’t worry for a second about a manager, not for a millisecond about coaches, once you officially take over the Mets’ baseball operations. The Hot Stove League is cooking and the Mets need players as badly as Bonnie Tyler needs a hero.
Most important, this feeding frenzy features a likely expiration date of Dec. 1, at which point Eppler should have more than enough time to determine his field staff.
Commissioner Rob Manfred spoke Thursday at the conclusion of the Major League Baseball owners’ meetings, and he made clear that while his owners would love to sign off on a new collective bargaining agreement by the end of the current deal (11:59 p.m. on Dec. 1) and haven’t made any official decisions, they also view a lockout of the players as a viable path to avoiding the sort of work stoppage that really stings, that being an actual stoppage of work during the scheduled season.
“Honestly I can’t believe there’s a single fan in the world who doesn’t understand that an offseason lockout that moves the process forward is different than a labor dispute that costs games,” said Manfred, who might be overestimating the species.
The phrase “moves the process forward” reflects the owners’ thinking on this: If they can’t find common ground in time, then perhaps the best avenue to a 162-game season involves shutting down the sport — putting the squeeze, realistically, not only on the unemployed free agents and signed players who don’t want to lose 2022 pay but also on owners anxious about ticket sales and ancillary revenue. Especially when all sides took a gigantic hit during the COVID-shortened 2020 schedule and the teams, while faring better last season than they feared thanks to an expedited return of full-capacity attendance, still suffered through those early contests with limited crowds.
Manfred acknowledged, “We understand, I understand, that time is becoming an issue,” and while bargaining sessions between MLB and the MLB Players Association occur regularly, you won’t find a soul in the industry who thinks that the two sides will meet the deadline. The players, who turned sour on the previous Basic Agreement (signed five years ago) roughly 12 hours after ratifying it, want to eradicate service-time manipulation, increase pay for younger players if older players find themselves actuaried out of the game and de-incentivize losing for teams by restructuring the amateur draft, all noble goals. They might have to prioritize at some juncture.
The owners’ desire for change tends to focus more on the game itself; Manfred again touted the success of the 15-second pitch clock that currently governs the Arizona Fall League. This, too, is noble, although the owners don’t seem to adore such time-savers so much as to horse-trade economic concessions for them.
The biggest concern surrounding these talks might be the clear animosity between the two sides that turned quite public last year. Manfred, however, asserted, “The focus on 2020, I think, has been excessive” and “We never let personalities or what has happened in the past affect our pursuit of the fundamental goal. That is to make an agreement.” Asked whether he held concerns about the MLBPA’s competence, Manfred said, “No. I have great respect for players. I assume the players selected people they believe are competent to represent them in the negotiations.”
What do you think? Be the first to comment.
The big early paydays for the likes of Eduardo Rodriguez, Noah Syndergaard and Justin Verlander hardly portray a sport in peril. The two sides just have to figure this all out in time to hold a 162-game season next season, which probably means by around Feb. 15 (spring training could be curtailed). If that doesn’t happen? Keep an eye on the 140-game benchmark, a generally recognized pressure point.
No one would mind a Mets managerial search amid a lockout to fill the news void. It sure makes for more compelling reading (and reporting) than incremental progress or lack thereof in the labor talks. So start shopping, Billy (and Steve, naturally). It’s Black Friday in the baseball world, and soon it will likely just go dark.
|
|
