If you throw out the good players permanently and are left with an inferior product then attendance will dip almost everywhere but Tampa and Oakland where attendance can't get much lower.Aw orse performing team will almost always have an attendance drop.
If the Angels tradr Trout they get a return for the future. If he is permanently banned, they get nothing. Another reason why owners would not be as frivolous with their assets
But you're missing the point--the product is only inferior for 2-5 years, unless you're assuming that all the top prospects, college players, and HS players refuse to play for the owners in some kind of solidarity play with a union that doesn't represent them OR their interests.
Individual teams also aren't guaranteed to perform worse--it's not like the Twins have to scrap all their current MLB players, but no other team does.True, implementation of a permanent lockout of current players will result in a greatly reduced bar for overall quality compared to current, but everyone is operating with that new lower bar, so the comparative quality across the league won't shift all that much.And, as I've discussed before, that bar will rise every year, as the new players get better.Essentially, the owners would simply be frontloading 6-10 years of roster churn into one year.
Finally, while Mike Trout is an asset, he quite possibly could be an underwater one--Albert Pujols certainly is.That is the crux of what I'm saying here--if the owners can't make money this year, or perhaps next due to current situation, and if there's going to be a work stoppage in 2022 anyways, why not get out from under your underwater assets (the players as a whole), and reset the economics in your favor now?
If the owners decide to do that, there's not a whole lot the players can do, other than figure out a way to start their own league, and that's a much tougher proposition than the owners simply accelerating future roster churn.It would also require the players to in all likelihood make salary concessions at least on par with, if not greater than, they would be doing with the owners now and their proposed 50/50 revenue split.Essentially, the players would be taking an enormous risk for no reward, if not a negative reward.