Local Man Angrier at Millionaires than Billionaires

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, Mark G said:

I am simply saying that the players are not partners with the owners; they are employees, and need to bargain in that capacity.  

"Know your place."  Always sage advice in life.

[Mark G]

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

The players are not just employees like you and me. The players are also the product. The fans are paying for the players. That's the product we're buying. I think that changes the equation quite a bit.

I work in social services providing day to day care for people with developmental disabilities.  As such, I am the product, in this case the service, that my employer is selling.  If I do not think I am being treated right by my employer, I can look elsewhere for work.  If I protest to my employer and refuse to work for what they want to give me, they will fire me whether I am the product or not.  I can be replaced.  So can the players.   As a consumer, I am buying the game, not individual players.  The players are not the game, and they are not partners in the business.  They really are just employees like you and me.  They are employed because they play the game better than anyone else, but that does not change their employment status.  If I can't get the Cy Young winner to come play for me I have to find someone with less talent instead.  Players come and go; it is the game that survives.  I hope they can get a good contract, especially for the MILB players, but they have to bargain as the employees they are or they will never get anything.  And neither will we.  

As an aside, I have been in 5 separate unions in my life and I understand the bargaining process as well as anyone I know, and every union that has told ownership/management they demand a say in the day to day business operation lost that part of the battle (I don't count public unions in that scenario; that is a whole different ballgame).  I hope the players don't go down that road any further than they have been in recent contracts, because I don't see that ending well.  As I said elsewhere, the owners are not going to give the keys to the store to their employees.  Again, I don't side with the owners; I simply accept the reality of the situation and I want the game to go on.  We all do; we just disagree on who has responsibility for the impasse and what side we tend to agree with.  Personally, I don't agree with either; I just have a sense of how this has to go to get a deal.  

[DJL44]

8 hours ago, Mark G said:

who has responsibility for the impasse

The owners clearly have responsibility for this impasse. They voted unanimously for a lockout.

If you look at the demands the players are mostly asking for an extension of the status quo. The owners are the more radical proposal. The owners clearly believe they have the leverage and are trying to squeeze the union.

[chpettit19]

9 hours ago, Mark G said:

I work in social services providing day to day care for people with developmental disabilities.  As such, I am the product, in this case the service, that my employer is selling.  If I do not think I am being treated right by my employer, I can look elsewhere for work.  If I protest to my employer and refuse to work for what they want to give me, they will fire me whether I am the product or not.  I can be replaced.  So can the players.   As a consumer, I am buying the game, not individual players.  The players are not the game, and they are not partners in the business.  They really are just employees like you and me.  They are employed because they play the game better than anyone else, but that does not change their employment status.  If I can't get the Cy Young winner to come play for me I have to find someone with less talent instead.  Players come and go; it is the game that survives.  I hope they can get a good contract, especially for the MILB players, but they have to bargain as the employees they are or they will never get anything.  And neither will we.  

As an aside, I have been in 5 separate unions in my life and I understand the bargaining process as well as anyone I know, and every union that has told ownership/management they demand a say in the day to day business operation lost that part of the battle (I don't count public unions in that scenario; that is a whole different ballgame).  I hope the players don't go down that road any further than they have been in recent contracts, because I don't see that ending well.  As I said elsewhere, the owners are not going to give the keys to the store to their employees.  Again, I don't side with the owners; I simply accept the reality of the situation and I want the game to go on.  We all do; we just disagree on who has responsibility for the impasse and what side we tend to agree with.  Personally, I don't agree with either; I just have a sense of how this has to go to get a deal.  

Social work has a cap on what they can pay because it's almost all government funded. It also has a terrible time getting, and keeping, employees of any skill level, let alone good ones, because of that pay cap. You can do quite a bit of complaining and not be fired in that industry actually. I know because I had to keep many malcontents when I ran group homes and an ILS branch of a social work company. The counties have a union and as a result get better pay and provide a much better product. Social work is actually a great argument for unions fighting for quite a bit and bettering the overall product.

We all want the game to go on. We just disagree that the owners getting their way in order to just get a deal done makes the game better and keeps it going. The complaints most of us have about how the game is going, and the decrease in popularity, are almost all on the owners and their FOs and their gaming of the system. To me it just doesn't make sense that we'd just keep letting them do their thing when it's what's ruining the game.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The owners clearly have responsibility for this impasse. They voted unanimously for a lockout.

If you look at the demands the players are mostly asking for an extension of the status quo. The owners are the more radical proposal. The owners clearly believe they have the leverage and are trying to squeeze the union.

MLB would extend the current CBA tomorrow.  It is the players who are unwilling to accept the status quo so you are starting with a badly flawed presumption.  Also. the lockout has absolutely ZERO impact on the ability of the sides to negotiate so your argument makes no sense even if not for the fact it is the players demanding more.

The only thing the owners are asking for is more playoff teams.  How is this bad anything but a positive for everyone, especially fans?

The player’s two primary demands are to shorten control and decrease revenue sharing. This increases revenue disparity and moves premier free agents to top revenue markets a year earlier.  This would be terribly unfair to fans of half of the teams in the league and greater competitive disparity in bad for the league.  They also want arbitration to begin in year 3.

The owners proposed a system that …
•    Eliminates qualifying offers and remove Draft-pick compensation attached to any free agent which is obviously good for free agents.
•    A Draft lottery similar to the one used by the NBA to discourage tanking
•    Adds universal DH which would add 15 jobs for hitters in the NL / ave salary for a DH in 2021 was $9.2 million.  Obviously a plus for players.
•    An increase to the minimum player salary.  Obviously a plus for players.
•    An increase in the CBT threshold
•    A minimum team salary.  Obviously good for players.

Every element of MLB’s “radical proposal” is beneficial to players.  The majority of what the players want would widen the disparity in revenue and therefore discourage competitive parity.  The draft lottery, universal DH, and minimum team salary all great for the league and players.  Eliminating the qualifying offer, increased minimum pay, and increased CBT all good for the players.  The players feel the hundred and two-hundred, and three hundred million dollar contracts are not enough and they are unwilling to play under these horrendous conditions.

[Platoon]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:19 AM, Mark G said:

 I have been in 5 unions over my life and understand them quite well.  This union genuinely believes they control the overall business, and if that was ever actually achieved I shudder to think what kind of business it would turn out to be.  Every business needs investors, and the investors protecting their investment keeps the business afloat.  The owners being decent employers, on the other hand is a whole new post.  Bottom line is, I don't side with the owners necessarily, I understand the overall concept.  I have never believed the players do.  

I have never been able to understand union members who stay at a job (or 5 jobs) and dislike unions. Maybe it’s the above average pay, security, health care and generous paid time off that’s so aggravating. There’s lots of "at will" jobs available, and lots of people who would love to replace disgruntled ex union members. 
 

As for the owners, it’s truly hard for me to feel sorry for someone who makes as much money as they do, and has, in the first place, the wherewithal to buy into a franchise that for many is both, at a minimum, an asset that will appreciate dramatically and entry into a pretty exclusive good old boys club. 
 

Finally a word to the 75% who think with "hard work" they can make it into the 1% bunch. Really? You got to be kidding me! It’s thinking like that that not only keeps you out of the upper 1%, but likely keeps you in the lower 50%. Wealthy people love thinking like that. 

[DJL44]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Every element of MLB’s “radical proposal” is beneficial to players. 

Except lowering the luxury tax to $180M which is beneficial only to the owners and overrides pretty much everything else. Their latest proposal of $214M is also a money squeeze. The players' share of revenue has been dropping under the previous CBA because of the penalties of exceeding the luxury tax. It is clearly constraining spending for the only teams that want to spend money. The minimum team salary wouldn't come close to making up for lowering the luxury tax threshold to $180M.

More playoff teams is a negative if you want people to actually pay attention to the regular season, not to mention the first round of playoffs.

A draft lottery doesn't discourage tanking in the NBA. I'm not sure why it would matter for MLB where draft picks are even more of a crapshoot. Bad teams are going to sell off talent.

Universal DH is a net zero. Those DH jobs just replace someone else's job. The roster didn't get bigger.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Except lowering the luxury tax to $180M which is beneficial only to the owners and overrides pretty much everything else. Their latest proposal of $214M is also a money squeeze. The players' share of revenue has been dropping under the previous CBA because of the penalties of exceeding the luxury tax. It is clearly constraining spending for the only teams that want to spend money. The minimum team salary wouldn't come close to making up for lowering the luxury tax threshold to $180M.

More playoff teams is a negative if you want people to actually pay attention to the regular season, not to mention the first round of playoffs.

A draft lottery doesn't discourage tanking in the NBA. I'm not sure why it would matter for MLB where draft picks are even more of a crapshoot. Bad teams are going to sell off talent.

Universal DH is a net zero. Those DH jobs just replace someone else's job. The roster didn't get bigger.

Apparently, you were not paying attention when we had more playoff teams in 2020.  Having more teams in the playoff race keeps more fans engaged.  It also encourages more teams to try to contend which promotes free agent interest.  Players also get paid for  playoffs and I would sure hope they want to participate in playoff series.  To paint this as negative takes real resolve in being negative.

DHs make an average of over $9M according to the articles I have read.  So, yes they roster count is a net zero but they will replace much lower paying bench jobs.  It's also generally considered good for the game.

There is no perfect solution to tanking but a lottery at least contributes.  You also ignored they offered a Salary floor which combined with the lottery would discourage tanking and generally promote a better product.  Good for the game, good for the fans, and good for the players when view objectively.

Why are we talking about the first offer (180M) when the offer is now 214.  Seems you are trying real hard to put a negative spin on what is actually happening. 

You completely ignored the fact that the union has contributed nothing.  You also ignored the increase in minimum pay.  You ignored they offered free agency at 29 1/2 and you ignored the union spit in the face of small market teams asking for a reduction in revenue sharing.     

 

[TheLeviathan]

16 hours ago, Platoon said:

I have never been able to understand union members who stay at a job (or 5 jobs) and dislike unions. Maybe it’s the above average pay, security, health care and generous paid time off that’s so aggravating. There’s lots of "at will" jobs available, and lots of people who would love to replace disgruntled ex union members. 

I would only quibble that unions do come with downsides.  I think this is an oversimplification that isn't fair to the point..

Your last paragraph is spot on though.

[Mark G]

17 hours ago, Platoon said:

I have never been able to understand union members who stay at a job (or 5 jobs) and dislike unions. Maybe it’s the above average pay, security, health care and generous paid time off that’s so aggravating. There’s lots of "at will" jobs available, and lots of people who would love to replace disgruntled ex union members. 
 

As for the owners, it’s truly hard for me to feel sorry for someone who makes as much money as they do, and has, in the first place, the wherewithal to buy into a franchise that for many is both, at a minimum, an asset that will appreciate dramatically and entry into a pretty exclusive good old boys club. 
 

Finally a word to the 75% who think with "hard work" they can make it into the 1% bunch. Really? You got to be kidding me! It’s thinking like that that not only keeps you out of the upper 1%, but likely keeps you in the lower 50%. Wealthy people love thinking like that. 

With all due respect, I took a peek back at my posts and I can't find a word that even hinted that I liked the union, I just liked the work at that point in my life and had to join the union to work there.  I simply said I understand the mindset of unions, and this union in particular is taking it to the extreme.  I also said in almost every post I have made that I do not side with the owners (I don't side with either), I simply accept the reality of the disparaties involved between ownership and employee.  

As another aside, every union I have been in looked out for future hires coming into the union as well as current members.  If that were true of this union, they would be bargaining to the hilt for the MILB players coming up through the ranks and will be there members soon.  But they don't seem to be very good at that, judging from the conditions of being a minor league player today (and in the past).  That is the area I hold against the union; otherwise I don't care how much they get, I just do not believe the owners will give them as much as they demand.  And they need to accept that just as much as any union has had to.  When the golden goose is done being cooked, both sides will have the chefs hat on, only the players will be the only losers (along with the fans).  The owners will just buy something else.  

[DJL44]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:35 PM, Major League Ready said:

Having more teams in the playoff race keeps more fans engaged.  It also encourages more teams to try to contend which promotes free agent interest.  Players also get paid for  playoffs and I would sure hope they want to participate in playoff series.  To paint this as negative takes real resolve in being negative.

There is no perfect solution to tanking but a lottery at least contributes.  You also ignored they offered a Salary floor which combined with the lottery would discourage tanking and generally promote a better product.  Good for the game, good for the fans, and good for the players when view objectively.

you ignored the union spit in the face of small market teams asking for a reduction in revenue sharing.     

If having more teams in the playoffs is great then they should put 24 teams in the playoffs or maybe all 30. They've already destroyed pennant races. Making the regular season pointless would be the next step.

A salary floor wouldn't discourage tanking at all. You would have bad teams purposely trading for past their prime players with bloated contracts (paid for by the large market teams either with cash or with prospects) so they can meet the salary minimum while losing just as much as they ever did. This happens in the NBA all the time.

The number of wins in a season is a net zero sum. If there are winners there must be losers. "Tanking" is not a real problem, it is an inevitability of math.

The union is against more revenue sharing because it takes money out of their pocket and puts it in the owners' pockets. It doesn't make teams more competitive. If anything it creates a permanent underclass of teams that primarily exist so the large market teams can have someone to play. It discourages teams from trying to generate more revenue locally because they can just run a low payroll and all of their expenses are covered before they even start the season. Every dollar a small market team generates locally is a dollar that gets taken out of their revenue sharing at the end of the year. It's socialism for billionaires, turning ownership of a small market franchise into a no-risk investment vehicle.

None of these proposals by the ownership or the union address the real problems with the game. There is less action happening in more time. The current version of Major League Baseball is the most boring baseball I have ever watched, especially in the postseason. It's the best athletes in the world standing around waiting to see if the batter hits the ball over the fence or strikes out. I wonder why I even start watching a postseason game, knowing I'll be going to bed in the middle of the 6th inning because the games start at 7:30 and end around midnight.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If having more teams in the playoffs is great then they should put 24 teams in the playoffs or maybe all 30. They've already destroyed pennant races. Making the regular season pointless would be the next step.

Did the league or anyone here suggested anything even resembling 24 teams.  Any concept is likely bad if exaggerated to the point of absurdity.  The NHL and NBA have 16 teams.  The NFL has 14.  MLB has 8.  I think MLB can push it to a dozen teams and in the process included several more teams.  16 was a bit too much but it did make the playoff races much more interesting.  It was a good test.  Now tweak it to 12 teams.

[DJL44]

15 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The NHL and NBA have 16 teams.  The NFL has 14. 

That isn't the positive example you think it is. "Let's be more like the NFL" is a great way to get me to stop watching baseball like I have stopped watching football.

[dex8425]

On 12/3/2021 at 8:32 AM, Heiny said:

Thanks for the ridiculous article.  I'm not sure if I should take this as a real story or something made up in jest.  Personally, I'm disgusted by both sides.  Millionaires vs. Billionaires who can't figure out how to divvy up multi-billions of dollars.  There is no reason the new CBA should not have been hammered out before it gets to this point.  The only people hurt by lockouts and strikes are the fans.  Because you know when it's all said and done both sides will still be millionaires and billionaires.  After the '94' cancellation of the WS, I was so disgusted, it took me over two years to get back to watching MLB. Eventually, I came back because I love the game. But as I get older,  I can take more enjoyment from town ball.  The disparity in the game is the real problem.  Players making 600K/yr on the same field as players making 30 or 40M/yr?  It's laughable.  And teams like the Yankees and Dodgers able to spend double on players vs. the small market teams?  To me this is grand stupidity.  But even then, I can overlook it all when the umpire says:  "Play Ball"!

As I understand it, the players proposal (that they are taking a hard line stance on) would create even more disparity by drastically reducing service time with each team. Players becoming free agents much earlier hurts teams like the Twins, Rays, A's, Pirates, etc. The owners are willing to pay players more during the ARB years, but that's not good enough for the players.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That isn't the positive example you think it is. "Let's be more like the NFL" is a great way to get me to stop watching baseball like I have stopped watching football.

The NFL is widely popular and you are extracting what you want instead of even considering the big picture.  Do you think the NBA/NBA and NFL. are by incompetents who do not understand their playoff formats are bad for their sports.  They all seem to be doing pretty well to me.  When your opinion is contrary to the leadership in all of these various leagues, it might be time to pump the breaks and reconsider.  

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, dex8425 said:

As I understand it, the players proposal (that they are taking a hard line stance on) would create even more disparity by drastically reducing service time with each team. Players becoming free agents much earlier hurts teams like the Twins, Rays, A's, Pirates, etc. The owners are willing to pay players more during the ARB years, but that's not good enough for the players.

I would not call the change to service time drastic but it's certainly enough to be impactful.  The result is that the biggest markets would get the biggest starts another year earlier.  They also asked for a hundred million dollar reduction in revenue sharing.  This combination would be pretty devastating to small markers and eventually baseball as a whole.  The better solution is a salary floor and lottery.  It's far from perfect but much better than widening the already giant disparity between the largest and smallest revenue markets.

There is an opportunity to funnel the difference between the floor and spending to players.  Again, this is not huge but an incremental gain.  I would suggest distributing at least part of those funds to prearb players.

 

 

[DJL44]

20 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The NFL is widely popular and you are extracting what you want instead of even considering the big picture. 

Maybe they can change the rules of baseball from tagging a person out to tackling them to get them out! People would love that!

The NBA and NHL regular seasons are mostly pointless and so are the first playoff rounds. Baseball teams that barely make it to .500 should not be in the playoffs, especially if they keep this stupid idea that the first round of playoffs is only a 3 game series. ANY team in baseball can win in a 3 game series.

Did you ever think that baseball loves adding playoff games because the players are not fairly compensated for playoff games? The players get half of the gate receipts for playoff games and NONE of the TV, radio or internet streaming money. The owners would love if players' only revenue during the regular season was half of the gate.

[Major League Ready]

21 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Maybe they can change the rules of baseball from tagging a person out to tackling them to get them out! People would love that!

The NBA and NHL regular seasons are mostly pointless and so are the first playoff rounds. Baseball teams that barely make it to .500 should not be in the playoffs, especially if they keep this stupid idea that the first round of playoffs is only a 3 game series. ANY team in baseball can win in a 3 game series.

Did you ever think that baseball loves adding playoff games because the players are not fairly compensated for playoff games? The players get half of the gate receipts for playoff games and NONE of the TV, radio or internet streaming money. The owners would love if players' only revenue during the regular season was half of the gate.

How much they get paid and the question of if it’s good for the sport and good for fans are two very separate questions.  Apparently, your understanding of the merit is superior to all of the executives in the other leagues combined.  Let’s just for a moment presume that might not be the case and expanded playoffs are a good for the game and fans but compensation is inadequate compensation the players should negotiate a different deal.

A quick Google search reveals that an average playoff ticket is $165 and the average stadium capacity is 42,675.  Therefore, the average gate receipts per game are $7,041,375 with $3,520,687 going to players.  That’s $67,705 to each player per game.  Those poor bastards.  How can they be expected to play a game for this pittance?

The prearb guys would be making 20X what they make in a normal game.  Not a lot of other employers paying 20X for overtime.  The guys making a million dollars per start are getting that much on the hope they get your there so they have been taken care of quite well.  Getting paid more than what the average American makes in a year to play one game seems pretty good.  If they make a deep playoff run the players would make what an average American makes in a couple decades.  That sure seems like good compensation but again, they should negotiate a different deal.

If we want our ownership to take financial risks in order to put a contender on the field, shouldn't we be in favor of a financial reward for taking those risks? 
 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

If we want our ownership to take financial risks in order to put a contender on the field, shouldn't we be in favor of a financial reward for taking those risks? 

You probably would but playoff media revenue (the real money) is shared league wide. The Pirates make as much off the national TV contract as the Yankees. Socialism for the rich again.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If we want our ownership to take financial risks in order to put a contender on the field, shouldn't we be in favor of a financial reward for taking those risks? 
 

 

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

You probably would but playoff media revenue (the real money) is shared league wide. The Pirates make as much off the national TV contract as the Yankees. Socialism for the rich again.

You have a point here.  So, basically, playoff teams and their players split the gate.  It's an incentive for both.  National TV money is split by all the teams so it's basically a source of revenue sharing.  I guess there would be pluses and minuses of making that playoff TV money an incentive.  I would provide incentive but widen the revenue disparity gap if it went only to playoff teams.     

Another reality is that if revenue goes up via national TV revenue all teams have more to spend.  I would bet at least 50% of that incremental revenue gets spent on players.  Increased playoff revenue is a great thing for both sides and fans.  

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I would bet at least 50% of that incremental revenue gets spent on players.  Increased playoff revenue is a great thing for both sides and fans.  

This is what the players are fighting for in the new CBA. They've seen their % of revenue go down over the last CBA. They're trying to fight to make sure 50% of that new money goes in their pocket.

You want a system that encourages investment. You don't want low revenue teams that are content to run a minimum payroll and make a ton of money losing. You want to encourage large revenue teams to compete for the top free agents. You want to encourage MLB expansion to increase overall revenues, not just divide the current pie 32 ways instead of 30.

I think changing from 10 to 12 playoff teams makes a lot of sense - when the league expands to 32 teams. That's 8 division winners and 4 wild cards. I think best of 3 playoff series are pretty stupid after a 162 game season. The NBA doesn't even run best of 3 playoffs and it has much more confidence the best team wins the game.