|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 16, 2021 4:02:16 GMT -5
MLB, MLBPA Not Expected To Discuss Core Economics Until January
By Anthony Franco | December 15, 2021 at 10:59pm CDT
Since Major League Baseball instituted a lockout in the early morning hours of December 2, there’s been little known back-and-forth between the league and the MLB Players Association. Evan Drellich of the Athletic reports this evening that the sides aren’t expected to discuss the game’s core economic structure until sometime in January. The parties have, however, been in contact about other issues and are expected to meet in-person tomorrow to discuss issues outside of core economics.
Disagreements related to core economics figure to be the most important, contentious issues to hammer out. Such topics as the service time structure, playoff expansion and the competitive balance tax are among the areas of import for both sides that could be difficult to iron out. Agreeing on the core economics structure figures to take ample bargaining time, and that the sides won’t even address the issues again until January is the latest confirmation that the lockout figures to drag on for quite some time.
In the aftermath of the lockout, both Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA lead negotiator Bruce Meyer publicly expressed a willingness to continue negotiating. Yet Drellich hears that neither side has initiated talks regarding core economics in the nearly two weeks since then, even as they’ve engaged on less contentious matters.
There doesn’t seem to be much belief that meetings regarding core economics before January would serve much of a purpose, though. Drellich hears from individuals on both sides of talks who suggest that a sit-down within the coming days or weeks would likely have only resulted in negotiators “saying the same things to each other over and over.”
As Drellich points out, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of urgency for either side to move off their initial demands at this point on the calendar. During the winter months, owners aren’t losing gate revenues while players aren’t forfeiting game checks. Major league transactions are frozen, but that alone doesn’t seem to be enough of a motivator for either side to alter their bargaining positions.
The league’s owners are clearly content to wait through a transactions freeze, having voted to lock the players out unanimously as the previous collective bargaining agreement expired. MLBPA executive director Tony Clark, meanwhile, suggested to reporters on December 2 that the freeze wouldn’t affect the players’ negotiating resolve. “Players consider (the lockout) unnecessary and provocative,” Clark said at the time. “The lockout won’t pressure or intimidate players into a deal they don’t believe is fair.”
It’s possible both sides will begin to feel more pressure to move closer to an agreement as the scheduled start of Spring Training nears. As things currently stand, the first exhibition games are scheduled to begin on February 26, 2022. Of course, there’ll need to be some time for players to report and to get into game shape before jumping right into game play. In the immediate aftermath of the lockout, Bob Nightengale of USA Today suggested the sides viewed February 1 as a “soft deadline” for a deal getting done to avoid interruptions to Spring Training.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 19, 2021 19:52:46 GMT -5
MLB, MLBPA Not Expected To Discuss Core Economics Until January
By Anthony Franco | December 19, 2021 at 3:25pm CDT
TODAY: Thursday’s discussions involved such topics as PED policies, the joint domestic violence/sexual assault/child abuse policy, special events, procedures for filing grievances, and scheduling, ESPN.com’s Jesse Rogers writes.
DEC. 15: Since Major League Baseball instituted a lockout in the early morning hours of December 2, there’s been little known back-and-forth between the league and the MLB Players Association. Evan Drellich of the Athletic reports this evening that the sides aren’t expected to discuss the game’s core economic structure until sometime in January. The parties have, however, been in contact about other issues and are expected to meet in-person tomorrow to discuss issues outside of core economics.
Disagreements related to core economics figure to be the most important, contentious issues to hammer out. Such topics as the service time structure, playoff expansion and the competitive balance tax are among the areas of import for both sides that could be difficult to iron out. Agreeing on the core economics structure figures to take ample bargaining time, and that the sides won’t even address the issues again until January is the latest confirmation that the lockout figures to drag on for quite some time.
In the aftermath of the lockout, both Commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA lead negotiator Bruce Meyer publicly expressed a willingness to continue negotiating. Yet Drellich hears that neither side has initiated talks regarding core economics in the nearly two weeks since then, even as they’ve engaged on less contentious matters.
There doesn’t seem to be much belief that meetings regarding core economics before January would serve much of a purpose, though. Drellich hears from individuals on both sides of talks who suggest that a sit-down within the coming days or weeks would likely have only resulted in negotiators “saying the same things to each other over and over.”
As Drellich points out, there doesn’t seem to be a ton of urgency for either side to move off their initial demands at this point on the calendar. During the winter months, owners aren’t losing gate revenues while players aren’t forfeiting game checks. Major league transactions are frozen, but that alone doesn’t seem to be enough of a motivator for either side to alter their bargaining positions.
The league’s owners are clearly content to wait through a transactions freeze, having voted to lock the players out unanimously as the previous collective bargaining agreement expired. MLBPA executive director Tony Clark, meanwhile, suggested to reporters on December 2 that the freeze wouldn’t affect the players’ negotiating resolve. “Players consider (the lockout) unnecessary and provocative,” Clark said at the time. “The lockout won’t pressure or intimidate players into a deal they don’t believe is fair.”
It’s possible both sides will begin to feel more pressure to move closer to an agreement as the scheduled start of Spring Training nears. As things currently stand, the first exhibition games are scheduled to begin on February 26, 2022. Of course, there’ll need to be some time for players to report and to get into game shape before jumping right into game play. In the immediate aftermath of the lockout, Bob Nightengale of USA Today suggested the sides viewed February 1 as a “soft deadline” for a deal getting done to avoid interruptions to Spring Training.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 20, 2021 8:05:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 23, 2021 4:51:50 GMT -5
2021 Leaguewide Player Payroll Reportedly Down 4% Relative To 2019
By Anthony Franco and Sean Bavazzano | December 22, 2021 at 5:57pm CDT
According to a report from the Associated Press, major league teams spent approximately $4.05 billion on player payrolls in 2021. The AP indicates that’s a 4% drop relative to 2019 — the most recent 162-game season — and the lowest full-season tally since 2015’s $3.9 billion. In raw dollars, there was a $167.69MM drop in spending on players between 2019 and 2021, writes Maury Brown of Forbes.
It’s not surprising to see team spending dip. The 2020 season was played with essentially no fan attendance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A few ownership groups publicly lamented the loss of gate revenues last year, and free agent spending was chilled a bit last offseason. The value of the qualifying offer — calculated as the average of the 125 highest salaries around the league — also dipped from $18.9MM to $18.4MM between 2020 and 2021, suggesting that spending at the top of the market took a slight step back.
That said, attributing the spending downturn entirely to the pandemic feels a bit simplistic. According to the AP, the league record for player payrolls (a bit less than $4.25 billion) was set in 2017. The league saw slight reductions in spending on players in each of 2018 and 2019, although it had been slated for a new all-time high in 2020 before the season was shortened and player pay was prorated.
However much one wants to attribute the 2020-21 decrease in spending to the pandemic, those figures will no doubt be of interest to the player’s union. While spending at the top of the market took a small step back last year, there’s been a more dramatic decrease for the average player (from a salary perspective) over the past few seasons. In April, the Associated Press found that the median salary of Major League players has fallen 18% since 2019 and 30% since 2015.
That’s largely a reflection of how many teams have approached roster construction over the past few years. By and large, clubs have continued to pay big money for elite talent, but they’ve become more reluctant to invest in players with closer to average production. Star players have continued to set richer precedents and free agency was quite strong in the weeks leading up to the lockout, but the gap has widened between top-of-the-market stars and mid-tier veterans and young players. Recognizing that a roster can be built most cost-effectively by leaning on young talent, front offices in recent years have spent more heavily on premier players, knowing that they can rely on pre-arb players and non-star veterans making lower salaries to provide adequate value on the rest of the roster.
As Chelsea Janes of The Washington Post writes in a piece that’s worth checking out in full, the disconnect between stars, mid-tier veterans and young players presents a challenge in collective bargaining. The league has pointed to the top-end salaries as evidence of a robust economic system. In the letter he penned to fans following the lockout announcement, Commissioner Rob Manfred wrote “Baseball’s players have no salary cap and are not subjected to a maximum length or dollar amount on contracts. In fact, only MLB has guaranteed contracts that run 10 or more years, and in excess of $300MM.”
MLB’s proposal of a salary floor in collective bargaining discussions suggests some willingness on the league’s part to incentivize spending on mid-tier players. That was contingent on drastically reduced luxury tax thresholds that’d limit spending on top-end players, though. Rather than merely redistributing salaries, the MLBPA has focused on raising the players’ overall share of revenues. “MLB’s negotiators are open to changing the way younger players are compensated but do not necessarily believe players need to receive a broader share of the revenue pie to rectify those disparities,” Janes writes. “The union, meanwhile, wants to change the way players are compensated in large part by injecting a greater percentage of revenue back into player compensation — helping those at the bottom without costing those at the top.”
Union members could have differing interests based on their financial status. Yet as Janes notes, a number of key player representatives within the MLBPA reside squarely on the top end. Gerrit Cole, Marcus Semien, and Max Scherzer are among the sport’s premier athletes advocating for a market that is kinder to their youngest and oldest peers. This advocacy isn’t lost on others on the union side, including retired reliever and self-proclaimed “middle-of-the-pack guy,” Jerry Blevins. The former big league southpaw tells Janes having players with nine-figure salaries trying to push forward salaries for lower-tier vets “makes a big difference because they represent us, the normal guy, even though at the same time they’re benefiting from the system as it’s set up.”
The AP and Forbes each provide additional data on team spending habits. According to the AP, ten teams ended the season with a payroll under $100MM, a figure not seen since 13 teams ducked under that mark in 2014. The Pirates checked in with the lowest end-of-year payroll at $50MM, the lowest figure for any team since 2013. The Dodgers and Yankees were the only teams to exceed $200MM in actual payroll; the Dodgers and Padres, meanwhile, were the two clubs whose commitments exceeded the luxury tax threshold. (CBT calculations are based on deals’ average annual values as opposed to year-by-year payouts, explaining why the Padres paid the tax while the Yankees didn’t in spite of New York having the higher actual payroll).
Eleven teams raised their payrolls between 2019 and 2021, according to Forbes. The Padres’ 77% jump from around $104MM to approximately $184MM was easily the biggest. The Guardians had the biggest decline over that stretch, dipping from $123MM in 2019 to $53MM this past season. Forbes provides the exact payrolls of all thirty teams in 2019 and 2021 for those interested.
|
|
|
Post by scrappyunderdog on Dec 23, 2021 10:22:15 GMT -5
2021 Leaguewide Player Payroll Reportedly Down 4% Relative To 2019By Anthony Franco and Sean Bavazzano | December 22, 2021 at 5:57pm CDT It’s not surprising to see team spending dip. The 2020 season was played with essentially no fan attendance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. A few ownership groups publicly lamented the loss of gate revenues last year, and free agent spending was chilled a bit last offseason. The value of the qualifying offer — calculated as the average of the 125 highest salaries around the league — also dipped from $18.9MM to $18.4MM between 2020 and 2021, suggesting that spending at the top of the market took a slight step back. That said, attributing the spending downturn entirely to the pandemic feels a bit simplistic. . I'm not sure it is simplistic at all. My estimate on the loss of ticket sales is ~ $1.15B. Most salary numbers are locked in, but a loss of $149M seems rather tame compared to the loss in attendance-related revenue. And, as we can see from recent events, this might not be over. Hockey has already had a set-back.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 23, 2021 14:10:58 GMT -5
Jeff Passan @jeffpassan · 39m While I'm here:
1) Yes, I'm alive.
2) Miss you guys, too.
3) No, there has been no progress on the labor front. Don't anticipate there will be for a while. Talks will restart in early January. Not much else there.
4) Stay safe and healthy and have a wonderful holiday season
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 28, 2021 4:18:07 GMT -5
Britton, Giolito And Semien Discuss Lockout
By Anthony Franco | December 27, 2021 at 7:04pm CDT
The MLB lockout has been ongoing for nearly a month, with the accompanying transactions freeze halting essentially all major league activity. The league and the MLB Players Association aren’t expected to discuss the game’s core economics issues — the most contentious in collective bargaining — until sometime after the New Year.
A few prominent players — each of whom assumes an active role within the MLBPA — recently appeared on the Chris Rose Rotation (YouTube link via Jomboy Media) to discuss the current state of talks (or lack thereof). Yankees reliever Zack Britton, Rangers middle infielder Marcus Semien and White Sox starter Lucas Giolito all expressed some frustration with the lack of progress to date.
Not surprisingly, the players argued MLB has yet to seriously engage in negotiations. “We feel like we’ve offered some good proposals,” Britton said. “And really we didn’t get anything from their end in Dallas (in negotiations during the final few days of November).”
Semien and Giolito largely echoed that sentiment. The former pointed out that MLB could’ve continued to negotiate rather than locking the players out upon the expiration of the previous collective bargaining agreement. The latter plainly stated that the MLBPA was hoping to return to the table as soon as possible. “We’re here, we’re ready to negotiate,” Giolito told Rose. “We’re pretty much waiting on MLB. We’ve made our proposals, we’ve made multiple proposals right before they decided to lock us out. They said no, they weren’t interested at the time. … We’re not going to negotiate against ourselves. It takes two to tango.”
Of course, there’s been similar rhetoric on the part of MLB. At the time the league locked the players out, commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters that MLB “candidly … didn’t feel that sense of pressure on the other side” and added it was the league’s desire to “get back to the table as quickly as we can.” Very little has happened in the nearly four weeks since, although it’s not clear whether continued discussions on core economics would’ve done much regardless. Evan Drellich of the Athletic wrote a few weeks ago that December negotiations would have likely entailed the parties “saying the same things to each other over and over.”
The most pressing issues in talks — the competitive balance tax, the service time structure, salaries for early-career players, etc. — have been discussed ad nauseam in recent weeks. While speaking with Rose, each of Britton, Semien and Giolito argued that the union was more concerned than the league is with competitive balance. “We want every team to be trying to win year-in and year-out,” Britton said. “We think that’s fair to the fanbases and that’s what we want. We’re going to continue to send that message.” Giolito took a similar tack, alluding to clubs that have slashed their MLB payrolls during rebuilds. “We want thirty teams competing, trying to field the best possible players so that the game is more competitive. That’s kind of what we are stressing with our proposals: let’s make the game better for everybody, number one being the fans.”
Some lower-payroll clubs have of course managed to consistently remain successful in spite of budgetary limitations. Yet it’s clear that the players took issue with clubs that have largely chosen to sit out free agency while orchestrating massive organizational overhauls. Britton pointed to his former team, the Orioles, as one such club of concern, although he cautioned that the Baltimore franchise was merely one of a few examples of what the players feel to be a widespread problem.
Given the lack of movement to date, is it still possible for a new deal to be reached without games being interrupted? Semien expressed optimism on the union’s behalf about avoiding interruptions to Spring Training, although he unsurprisingly noted that “January is a huge month.” That said, all three players reiterated they didn’t feel any time pressure to meaningfully move off their current goals.
Britton and Giolito each pointed to last year’s pandemic freeze as a potential strengthening factor for the union. That wasn’t technically a work stoppage, as the game was paused due to national emergency. Yet the return-to-play discussions proved contentious, with the MLBPA eventually filing a grievance alleging that MLB didn’t negotiate in good faith to play as many games as possible last year during a season with essentially zero gate revenue.
“(Waiting it out) is part of the process right now,” Giolito said. “ Going through the pandemic year, kind of fighting for what we wanted as players, really coming together, communicating well, that puts us in a good position now. … Even if things are delayed a little bit, we’re here, we’re ready to negotiate. We’re going to keep pushing for getting a season going as soon as possible.“
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 29, 2021 12:52:38 GMT -5
MLB Owners’ Net Worth
By Darragh McDonald | December 29, 2021 at 11:16am CDT
Whenever a baseball player agrees to a contract, the financials of the deal are quickly reported by various media outlets, including here at MLBTR. What gets discussed much less often, however, are the financial details of the people paying those paychecks. Here is each team’s primary owner, along with their net worth, with source links provided. (Quick caveat that financial numbers of this nature are fluid and subject to change.)
Angels: Arturo Moreno – $3.6 billion. (Forbes link) Astros: Jim Crane – $1.4 billion. (Forbes link) Athletics: John Fisher – $2.6 billion. (Forbes link) Blue Jays: Rogers Communications, chairman Edward Rogers III – $11.5 billion. (L.A. Times link) Braves: Liberty Media, chairman John Malone – $8 billion. (Forbes link) Brewers: Mark Attanasio – $700MM. (L.A. Times link) Cardinals: William DeWitt Jr. – $4 billion. (L.A. Times link) Cubs: Ricketts family – $4.5 billion (Forbes link) Diamondbacks: Ken Kendrick – $600 million. (L.A. Times link) Dodgers: Guggenheim Baseball Management, controlling partner Mark Walter – $5 billion. (Forbes link) Giants: Charles B. Johnson – $5.8 billion. (Forbes link) Guardians: Dolan family – $5.5 billion. (Forbes link) Mariners: John Stanton – $1.1 billion. (L.A. Times link) Marlins: Bruce Sherman – $500MM. (L.A. Times link) Mets: Steve Cohen – $15.9 billion. (Forbes link) Nationals: Lerner family – $4.9 billion. (Forbes link) Orioles: Peter Angelos – $2 billion (L.A. Times link) Padres: Ron Fowler – $500MM (L.A. Times link) Phillies: John Middleton – $3.4 billion. (Forbes link) Pirates: Bob Nutting – $1.1 billion. (L.A. Times link) Rangers: Ray Davis (co-chairman with Bob R. Simpson) – $2.2 billion. (Forbes link) Rays: Stuart Sternberg – $800MM. (L.A. Times link) Red Sox: John Henry – $3.6 billion (Forbes link) Reds: Robert H. Castellini – $400MM. (L.A. Times link) Rockies: Richard L. Monfort – $700MM. (L.A. Times link) Royals: John Sherman – $1.25 billion. (L.A. Times link) Tigers: Ilitch Holdings – $3.8 billion (L.A. Times link) Twins: Pohlad family – $3.8 billion (Forbes link) White Sox: Jerry Reinsdorf – $1.7 billion (Forbes link) Yankees: Steinbrenner family – $3.8 billion (Forbes link)
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 31, 2021 3:27:05 GMT -5
Collective Bargaining Issues: Competitive Balance TaxBy Anthony Franco | December 30, 2021 at 6:52pm CDT Few of the game’s core economic features figures to be as impactful in upcoming collective bargaining negotiations as the luxury tax (or competitive balance tax, as it’s officially known). Where to set the tax thresholds and what penalties should be in place for teams that exceed them are key points of issue for the league’s owners and the MLB Players Association. As a brief primer, the luxury tax was first introduced for the 1997 season. The provision’s purpose is to deter spending among big-market franchises by penalizing teams that exceed certain player expenditures. (MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes covered the year-by-year progression of the luxury tax in a post earlier this month). Teams that surpass certain thresholds will be faced with financial penalties and potential draft choice/international signing bonus forfeitures, which become more significant for teams that exceed the threshold by particularly high margins and/or surpass the mark in multiple consecutive seasons. Teams’ CBT figures are calculated by summing the average annual values of their commitments and accounting for certain player benefits, not by looking at clubs’ actual payrolls in any given year. For the 2021 season, the first luxury tax marker was set at $210MM. Only the Dodgers and Padres exceeded that figure. Five teams, meanwhile, curtailed their spending between $205MM and $210MM, seemingly treating the CBT threshold as some form of cap. The three clubs that exceeded the threshold in 2020 (the Yankees, Astros and Cubs) all ducked underneath in 2021. That’s in continuation with a fairly common pattern for teams to “reset” their tax bracket after a year or two above the threshold, thereby avoiding the escalating penalties for exceeding in consecutive years. It’s not only resetters that stayed below the threshold though. The Phillies, Mets and Red Sox — none of whom exceeded the tax in 2020 — were within $5MM of the mark but decided against surpassing $210MM. MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes explored teams’ increasing reluctance to go over the tax threshold in February. Even for teams that didn’t have firm organizational mandates to stay below the mark, many were reluctant to take on any sort of penalty unless they were in position to blow by those markers, as both Mets owner Steve Cohen and Astros general manager James Click explained over the summer. The fees for exceeding the various thresholds under the 2016-21 CBA were as follows: With certain high-payroll teams at least planning their budget with the luxury tax in mind — if not treating it as a firm cap altogether — pushing the thresholds up figures to be a point of emphasis for the players. After all, higher thresholds should lead to more willingness about the league’s top teams to spend. In collective bargaining talks before the lockout, the MLBPA proposed a $245MM threshold that would eliminate the escalating penalties for repeat payors, according to Gabe Lacques and Bob Nightengale of USA Today. The league, predictably, hasn’t been as keen on increasing penalty-free spending capacity. MLB’s first core economics proposal actually called for the first tax threshold to be reduced to $180MM, as Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of the Athletic reported in August. That came attached to a $100MM salary floor designed to incentivize spending among lower-payroll clubs, but the significantly lowered CBT thresholds always looked to be a non-starter for the union. After the MLBPA rejected the $180MM possibility, the league offered to raise the tax thresholds above the $210MM level from 2021, albeit nowhere near the MLBPA’s target area. Shortly after the beginning of the lockout, Drellich reported the league was willing to push the first tax marker up to $214MM in the early years of a possible CBA, maxing out at $220MM by the end of the deal. That’s more in line with the gradual increases that have been in place in recent collective bargaining agreements than with the MLBPA’s push for a marked uptick. There are a few different aspects for the league and union to agree upon regarding the competitive balance tax. Identifying a mutually-agreeable base number is the most obvious, but whether to reduce or eliminate penalties for repeat payors could be a point of contention. So too may be how the parties want to handle the escalating fees for clubs that exceed the marker by greater amounts. Indeed, the league’s initial proposal (the one which would’ve included a $180MM base tax threshold) also would’ve involved the creation of a fourth tier of penalization. Ironing out the finer details of the luxury tax will be a challenge. Back-and-forth regarding the specifics of the CBT figures to be a recurring theme once the parties reinitiate discussions regarding core economics next month.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 31, 2021 8:38:29 GMT -5
MLB lockout roundtable: What rule change do you want to see in baseball's new CBA? Let's propose some rule changes, shall we? Mike Axisa By Mike Axisa
The Atlanta Braves are World Series champions and now baseball is in the middle of its first work stoppage since the 1994-95 strike. MLB and the MLBPA were unable to agree to a new collective bargaining agreement prior to the Dec. 1 deadline, so the owners locked out the players, and the hot stove has been put on hold for the foreseeable future.
Throughout the offseason the CBS Sports MLB scribes will bring you a weekly roundtable breaking down pretty much anything. The latest news, a historical question, thoughts about the future of baseball, all sorts of stuff. Last week we handed out some holiday gifts. This week we're going to propose a few rule changes. What rule change do you want to see in the new CBA?
Dayn Perry: I'll have to say the universal DH. I don't enjoy watching pitchers hit because they are almost universally terrible at it, and no once-in-a-generation Bartolo Colon home run can make up for the pathetic remainder of the sub-genre. Almost every other level of organized baseball uses the DH, and civilization carries on. The 2020 season gave us a glimpse of what the universal DH would look and feel like, and the hand-wringing over the loss of tradition ceased pretty quickly. Pull off the band-aid and make the NL game more watchable.
R.J. Anderson: I agree with Dayn on the universal DH. For the sake of variety, I'll say that I'd like to see bigger bases installed at the big-league level. That's one of the few rules changes MLB made in the Atlantic League that seemed beloved by the players. Why? Because the players believed it reduced the chances of injury. As an added benefit: it should encourage teams to embrace the stolen base again. I'm a sucker for the running game -- I find it to be one of the most exciting, fascinating parts of baseball -- so I think both of those aspects are worth pursuing.
Matt Snyder: I'm on board with both the universal DH and the bigger bases and I'll also keep the line moving with another addition to the list. Gimme the pitch clock. No one needs to sit there watching a pitcher stand on the rubber for upward of 30 seconds. It adds absolutely nothing but dead air to the game. Anyone who has been to the minors in recent seasons has seen it in action. It's barely noticeable unless you are looking for it, but the pace is considerably better than in the majors, specifically in the playoffs -- when we are looking for our biggest hook into a national audience. This might not be something the players want, but they can adjust. I'm on their side when it comes to the financial arguments, so I'll point out that they can't get everything they want.
Mike Axisa: The universal DH and pitch clock are no-brainers. Ditto trading draft picks. Can't believe that isn't allowed yet. For my answer, I'll go with an 11-pitcher roster limit. Starting pitchers are the closest thing this game has to a main character and they are falling out of style because of openers and bullpen games. I fully understand and appreciate the opener and bullpen game strategies (they're brilliant and they work), but they make for a poor viewing experience, and this is the entertainment business. I'd like to return starting pitchers to prominence and the easiest way to do that is limiting the number of relievers a team has available in any given game. We'd have to put in safeguards against teams shuttling fresh relievers in every day, but that's doable. Basically, I'm in favor of a rule that makes starting pitchers A Thing again, and limits pitching changes (particularly mid-inning pitching changes).
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Dec 31, 2021 8:49:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Jan 3, 2022 14:08:54 GMT -5
No CBA Negotiations Between MLB And MLBPA Currently Scheduled
By Anthony Franco | January 3, 2022 at 11:28am CDT
Last month, Evan Drellich of the Athletic reported that Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association weren’t expected to discuss core economics issues until after the New Year. The calendar has since flipped, but there still don’t seem to be any talks on the horizon. Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports (on Twitter) that there is currently no schedule for the next set of collective bargaining discussions.
Nightengale adds that the parties have met twice since MLB instituted a lockout in the early morning hours of December 2. Those talks, as expected, were strictly regarding issues not related to core economics. It’s those key economic issues (i.e. the game’s service time structure, the competitive balance tax and potential playoff expansion) that are of greatest importance to both sides. Finding a mutually agreeable solution on such topics figures to be the most time-consuming and difficult aspect of negotiations.
In the aftermath of the lockout, both commissioner Rob Manfred and key members of the MLBPA (including executive director Tony Clark, lead negotiator Bruce Meyer and players with leadership roles in the union) have expressed a desire to get back to the bargaining table. That hasn’t happened in earnest over the past four weeks, although it’s not clear talks would’ve achieved much regardless. Drellich wrote last month that individuals on both sides believed that December discussions on core economics would likely have only resulted in negotiators “saying the same things to each other over and over.”
Instead, it seems that there’ll need to be an approaching deadline that spurs conversation. At this point on the calendar, neither side is dealing with the level of financial pressure they’d face if the threat of game cancelations became more tangible. The league’s owners aren’t in imminent danger of losing gate revenues, while the players aren’t yet faced with the possibility of foregoing game checks.
Spring Training games are first scheduled to begin on February 26. Players aren’t paid for Spring Training, but owners would first face lost revenues at that point. If the work stoppage lingers long enough into Spring Training that regular season games are threatened — at least some form of exhibition play, even if abbreviated, will be required for players to work their way into game shape — then the possibility of lost income for players looms larger. Of course, current free agents (and a few players in DFA limbo) are faced with ongoing employment uncertainty due to the ban on major league transactions.
For now, it doesn’t seem those scenarios are imminent enough to push the parties back to the negotiating table. It does seem, however, that significant progress will have to be made at some point during this month. Shortly after the institution of the lockout, Nightengale suggested the sides viewed February 1 as a “soft deadline” for a new CBA to be in place in order to avoid interruptions to Spring Training. He floated March 1 as a possible deadline for regular season play to proceed on schedule given the need for some form of ramp-up period. Opening Day is currently scheduled for March 31.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Jan 4, 2022 3:42:39 GMT -5
Max Scherzer Discusses Lockout
By Sean Bavazzano | January 3, 2022 at 11:04pm CDT
As the MLB lockout continues into 2022, little indication has been given that the current status quo is set to expire any time soon. This morning’s news, that Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association have yet to schedule their next bargaining session, all but affirms that.
Despite the ongoing transaction freeze and tight-lipped nature of CBA talks, players haven’t avoided headlines altogether. Recently, a trio of All-Star MLBPA members— Zack Britton, Marcus Semien, and Lucas Giolito— spoke about the current state of the lockout. Today, another high profile MLBPA member joined the fray to discuss the seeming malaise surrounding CBA negotiations: Max Scherzer.
Speaking with Jorge Castillo of the Los Angeles Times, the perennial Cy Young contender hit on a number of familiar points. First among them, Scherzer reiterated the union’s stated goal to increase competitive integrity in the game, that is, to increase incentive for all 30 teams to win games instead of opting for the well documented tank method. “We feel as players that too many teams have gone into a season without any intent to win during this past CBA. Even though that can be a strategy to win in future years, we’ve seen both small-market and large-market clubs embrace tanking, and that cannot be the optimal strategy for the owners.”
Concerns about service-time manipulation are something Scherzer and the union are also looking to address in the next CBA. The right-handed pitcher name-checks the Kris Bryant grievance as one example, though whispers of front offices leveraging the current system to maximize player control have been long presumed.
Beyond the belief that certain players are being held in the minors artificially long, Scherzer also posits that “middle-class free agents” are being slighted under the current system as well. The ability of teams to minimize a player’s early career earnings and open-market earnings doesn’t sit right with Scherzer, who believes this approach is in direct contrast to what an earlier union deal, dubbed “the grand bargain“, sought to accomplish. “The grand bargain is that you make less money early in your career so that you can make more money later in your career. Teams have shown that they’re not willing to pay for players’ past production for a whole slew of reasons. And if that’s the case, that’s the case. But if we’re going to look at players that way, then we need to then allocate more money to players earlier in their career.”
Scherzer further reiterates that the union is not interested in any system that ties player compensation directly to league revenues, citing that doing so would implement a cap system that’s at odds with the sport’s free market economics. Of course, players and fans have noticed that while a cap system may not currently exist, teams have increasingly behaved like the luxury tax threshold acts as one.
Treating the current luxury tax threshold as a hard cap naturally curtails player spending, even if a small handful of players sign record-setting contracts every offseason. As the beneficiary of one such contract, Scherzer pushes back on the notion that the current system works fine, because despite his compensation, a number of players will still be left to scramble for jobs with limited time and opportunity after the lockout.
Ultimately, Scherzer concludes that a number of player concerns need to be remedied in the next CBA for the game to continue with integrity. Because the current system affects every player adversely in one way or another, and the players are “galvanized” by this perception, he asserts that the union is as strong as it’s ever been. When asked if the current stare-down between league and union could lead to a delayed season, Scherzer was hopeful, but non-committal:
“It’s too hard to even speculate what the future looks like. You’re just in limbo right now. You’re training ready to be good to go for when spring training starts. If that doesn’t happen, then you make different decisions based on that. But until that happens, you have to have the mentality that we’re going to be playing on time. Any other kind of speculation is just hearsay.”
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Jan 5, 2022 8:28:09 GMT -5
Buster Olney @buster_ESPN · 58m Jeff Passan: Why MLB's labor negotiations have gone nowhere -- and baseball's path backwww.espn.com/mlb/insider/insider/story/_/id/32964064Passan On CBA NegotiationsBy Tim Dierkes | January 5, 2022 at 8:17am CDT On Monday, USA Today’s Bob Nightengale wrote that no negotiating sessions were scheduled between MLB and the players’ union. That remains the case, but ESPN’s Jeff Passan writes today that “MLB is working on proposals to bring to the table.” Passan’s sources believe the “earliest negotiations will ramp up this time is late January.” Passan suggests MLB is hoping to determine what tops the players’ list of priorities: the oft-repeated “competitive integrity” anti-tanking buzzword, getting players paid earlier in their careers, or raising the competitive balance tax thresholds. As has been reported previously, MLB’s most recent proposal had the CBT threshold starting at $214MM in 2022. MLB’s proposal had the thresholds progressing only to $220MM by the end of a presumed five-year deal. Going from $210MM in ’21 to $220MM in ’26 would be a 4.8% increase. As I’ll explain, that’d represent the union’s biggest failure yet in increasing the CBT. Last month, I documented how the CBT thresholds have changed with each new CBA, after this tax was introduced in 1997. In 2003, the threshold was increased by 98.6% from the previous mark, jumping from $58.9MM in ’99 all the way to $117MM in ’03. That was the first of four collective bargaining agreements where CBT increases were on the table, once it was initially set at $51MM in ’97. That set of negotiations had the CBT ending at $136.5MM in ’06. In the CBA spanning 2007-11, the players were able to get a 30.4% increase by ’11, jumping up to $178MM. But in the CBA spanning 2012-16, the players had a major loss. They succeeded only in taking the CBT from $178MM to $189MM, an increase of about 6.2%. Compared to that $189MM point, the 2017-21 CBA ended with an 11.1% bump to get to $210MM. The players have reportedly set their opening bid for the CBT at $245MM. That implies they might hope to see it progress to around $260MM by the end of the deal. A jump from a $210MM starting point to a $260MM ending point would represent a 23.8% increase, falling neatly between the player-favoring 30% increase of ’07 and the MLB-favoring 11% increase of ’17. The CBT is a major issue, but it remains to be seen whether the players will abandon some other more aggressive asks to prioritize it. As Passan sees it, if the two sides don’t make progress by February 1st, a spring training delay is likely. He feels that a lack of progress by March 1st “sets off the alarm” in terms of not starting the season on time, given all that must be done to be ready to play.
|
|
|
Post by CP_Jon_GoSox on Jan 6, 2022 4:14:50 GMT -5
MLB lockout update: No negotiations scheduled between sides, but late January looking like key time to avoid delayed season (report) Updated: Jan. 05, 2022, 8:33 p.m. | Published: Jan. 05, 2022, 8:33 p.m.
By Chris Cotillo | ccotillo@MassLive.com
Even though more than a month has passed since the start of the MLB lockout, no progress has been made toward a solution. And according to ESPN’s Jeff Passan, things aren’t expected to heat up in the next couple of weeks, either.
No bargaining talks between the league and the MLB Players Association are scheduled, according to Passan, and the belief is that the earliest timetable for negotiations to ramp up is “late January.” The union is reportedly waiting on the league to make the next offer and MLB is working on proposals to bring to the negotiating table.
For baseball fans who are hoping for the hot stove to be turned back on, that’s bad news. And it also means that the beginning of spring training, set for mid-February, might be in jeopardy too. While it’s too early to know if the start of the regular season is in jeopardy, there are some concerning signs. OddsChecker, an odds comparison site, set odds that the start of the season will be delayed at -250 (implied 71.4% chance) compared to +170 (implied 37% chance) for the season starting on time. Passan cited two players who are readying themselves to miss games, “not simply because it could happen, but because they believe it will.” There seems to be a legitimate chance that MLB plays a shortened season for the second time in three years, though the late January/early February negotiations will determine if that will happen.
“Feb. 1 is still the first litmus test,” Passan wrote. “If they haven’t made progress by then, chances are spring training will be delayed. Which isn’t a huge deal. It’s March 1 that sets off the alarm. If there is no progress by then, only a quick agreement will save games -- and even that might not get it done. There is still free agency to finish and arbitration to adjudicate and algorithms for teams to rejigger based on all the new inputs from an agreement.”
At this point, with no negotiations since the sides met for seven minutes at a Dallas hotel on Dec. 1, all of the contentious issues are still at stake. The union is concerned with free agency and arbitration rules as well as raising the minimum salary and luxury tax threshold; the league is trying to lessen spending while expanding the playoffs. Each side will have to make concessions to get a deal done.
Until they do, baseball will remain at a standstill, with no major-league transactions allowed. And it might be a while.
|
|