New CBA - What's good for the game

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

If MLB took control of broadcast away from individual teams to stream every game and air many on MLBN to a nationwide audience, would that bring the model close enough to NFL for revenue sharing/parity improvements like a salary floor be feasible?

It would certainly decrease broadcast TV revenue. MLB games are highly rated regionally but people don't generally watch MLB games that don't feature the local team.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, diehardtwinsfan said:

• I think you need a hard cap and a hard floor along with some sort of revenue sharing to allow the smaller markets to spend at the top of the cap consistently. 
• Minor league wages need to be fixed.
• Given the way analytics has changed the game, I suspect minimum salaries will need to go up considerably and the time to FA will need to drop a bit. 

Those are the big ones. 

The Milb wage is unfortunate and it’s not all that hard to fix.  The current arrangement is great for a very small percentage of the players.  Those players get this big money based on the assumption they will someday be great.  If that happens, they will make a boatload of money so why do we pay them millions before they prove anything? 

What if most of the bonus money was distributed in salary instead of going to a select few? I built a financial model to test this theory.  Using a max bonus of $1M for the 1/1 pick, and dropping the amount by 2% per pick, the bonus at the end of round 5 is $36K.  Rounds 6-10 get 30K, and 25K for the remaining rounds.  This would allow the teams to increase salary by around $60K/year.  Maybe it would be an additional $50K for A, $50K for A+, $60K for AA, and $80K for AAA.

As bean 5302 pointed out, the revenue disparity is just too large to make it feasible to have an NFL type model.  The difference between top and bottom in MLB is almost 3X.  With the exception of the Patriots and Cowboys, the NFL teams are all within $100M or each other.  The players are seeking a reduction in revenue sharing and a substantial increase in the luxury tax threshold so there is no way they accept a hard cap.  It's hard to see how we escape this without revenue disparity increasing so decreasing the disparity seems impossible.

Why does the time to free agency need to drop?  I see no benefit to the game.  Actually, I can't see any way it's not a detriment as it will put smaller market teams at an even greater disadvantage.  Why should the fans of mid and small market teams suffer?  The money to pay payers comes from fan not owners.  Why should we want changes that result in us losing players earlier?  The owners age based proposal seems like a decent compromise.   The players reaching free agency before the proposed age are extremely well compensated.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

41 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It would certainly decrease broadcast TV revenue. MLB games are highly rated regionally but people don't generally watch MLB games that don't feature the local team.

How can an MLB game be highly rated when no one can watch it? Half the teams or more are stuck in that Bally Sports debacle. Further The other half have very lucrative deals that make them relatively rich.

the conundrum of doing what’s right for the league would significantly impact the Yankees and Dodgers but would probably increase the total profit, might decrease the total revenue

[Steve71]

Woudn't overall viewership increase if there was a greater perception that all teams operated on a relatively level playing field.? This is anecdotal, but I know a lot of fans who are turned off that the "big guys" get all the coverage, all the big stars, poach from small teams, and shrug off bad contracts without meaningful consequences.

The NFL does a great job of convincing fans that all teams have a chance to be successful and rebuild a bad franchise through the draft and FA.

Lastly, I omitted the minor leagues in earlier post.  Fix it.  The salaries are ridiculously modest.  They addressed the housing issue last Fall, now pay real wages to these young men.  The figures outlined above by Major League Ready seem reasonable, with or without altering the bonus structures.

[bean5302]

As has been noted in other articles and comments, MLB players already get 50% of the share. The MLBPA has acknowledged players get 50% and the MLBPA has been happy with the figures MLB owners have provided in proving the 50%.

I keep seeing people commenting on about NFL without a fundamental understanding of the economics or competition level of baseball. The NFL is less competitive than MLB. Not only is there more turnover as a percentage of eligible teams in the MLB playoffs, but the regular season has far more parity as well. The best MLB team could convert to 11-6 in the NFL. The worst MLB team could convert to 6-11 in the NFL. The NFL deals in nearly exclusively non-guaranteed contracts. Patrick Mahomes is a fantastic example. He just signed an eyeball popping 10 year $450MM base contract with $25MM in potential incentives. Only $63MM of the $450MM is fully guaranteed. Mike Trout signed a 12 year $426MM contract of which all $426MM is guaranteed because there is no salary cap. This means a team can absorb bad contracts and be flexible with them. 

Proposing changes that would not benefit the sport and neither players nor owners would accept just doesn't make sense.

 

[Steve71]

MLB has hundreds of minor league players, NFL has none.  Revenue should go to those minor league players.

Average NFL player plays 2.3 years.  MLB is 5.6 years, 2.43 times as long.

MLB contracts are guaranteed, while most NFL contracts are not, but those are becoming more evident, see Kirk Cousins.

Despite these differences, I fail to see how full revenue sharing, a hard cap, guaranteed decent play for MiLB players, high salary floor would "hurt" the game.  How so?

This year (and most of the past decade), New York, the largest media market, has had two of the worst performing NFL franchises, the Giants and Jets.

That would be like the Yankees and the Mets (or Dodgers or Red Sox) finishing in the cellar for 8 years straight.  Is that ever likely to happen in MLB under the current system?  Not hardly.

[ToddlerHarmon]

Thanks for asking the question. Most of the answers seem to be focused on the details of how, but I think there's a lot of room to discuss what the fans *should* want. So, look out, I'm going to go long form.

Some possible guiding principles:

1) Meritocracy. The best players should play, and the best front offices should be able to win. Age, service time, options, imbalanced rosters, and the luck of who drafts you shouldn't limit players' playing time, career length, or earnings potential. Similarly, market size and local subsidies shouldn't decide which teams have a chance, and which fan bases get to have an engaging experience. Also, being good at player evaluation and development should be decisive over resources.

2) Continuity. We would rather root for people and their stories, not for laundry. Keeping performing players on the same team for lengthy careers contributes to fan enjoyment and engagement. This is about keeping stars on one team through their whole career, and about keeping the 30-year-old lineup fixture from being displaced by less expensive options, and about allowing a pitcher's arm to survive a 15-year career, and about getting future stars playing at the highest level as soon as possible.

3) Equity. Because college baseball is mostly not profitable, and minor league ball is well established, baseball has a unique opportunity to create a non-exploiting sport that provides a living for prospects and players and doesn't have us all cheering for free labor. Why should fans care? Besides wanting to like the places we spend money, this also contributes to meritocracy and continuity, as anti-competitive and anti-longevity abuses occur when players face an all-or-nothing career path: PEDs, overuse, playing injured, taking money outside the CBA-allowed channels, working without representation.

4) Accountability. Mistakes by management should be punishable by the fans staying away, but not permanent, thus encouraging owners to move on quickly. To me, this means revenue should flow to winners, but maybe others have other solutions. It also implies that resources to build next year's team shouldn't be only determined by past success or failure. Salary caps and floors contribute to this by divorcing revenue from payroll, but again others may have other solutions.

What do we get from these principles? Well, imagine going to games and knowing the players. Imagine following a season without knowing that the super-team stands between your team and a championship. Imagine having it matter to your team winning whether you go to a game, or buy merchandise, or subscribe to a streaming package. Imagine championships being available at better odds than a lottery ticket. Imagine not having your well-oiled baseball machine blown up by a cheating scandal or a looming free agency. Imagine not having to give up on a team for 5 years at a time.

I probably missed some principles, or oversold some of these, or even created an impossible goal. I'd love to hear what people think.

 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Steve71 said:

Woudn't overall viewership increase if there was a greater perception that all teams operated on a relatively level playing field.? This is anecdotal, but I know a lot of fans who are turned off that the "big guys" get all the coverage, all the big stars, poach from small teams, and shrug off bad contracts without meaningful consequences.

The NFL does a great job of convincing fans that all teams have a chance to be successful and rebuild a bad franchise through the draft and FA.

Lastly, I omitted the minor leagues in earlier post.  Fix it.  The salaries are ridiculously modest.  They addressed the housing issue last Fall, now pay real wages to these young men.  The figures outlined above by Major League Ready seem reasonable, with or without altering the bonus structures.

The bonus structure idea was formed to get the approval of players not owners.  The players are not going to agree to an increase in Milb pay because it would reduce the pool of money available to them.  Milb pay has long been a black-eye for the league.  So why hasn't it been fixed.  The owners could easily redistribute a very small portion of their player budget to Milb players and the problem goes away.  Why would they care if some of their payroll was redistributed to Milb players?   The problem still exists because MLB players won't allow funds that could go in their pockets to be allocated to Milb players.  That's why I thought redistributing the funds already allocated to Milb bonuses was the best approach.  Everyone makes a decent living instead of only the top draft picks how may or may not every earn that bonus.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

15 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Here's what would happen. Long contracts with high AAV would vanish from the market.

I disagree, it would probably reduce the amount guaranteed on those long term high AAV block buster signings. You still have the huge long term deals in the NFL, they are not fully guaranteed 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Sconnie said:

How can an MLB game be highly rated when no one can watch it? Half the teams or more are stuck in that Bally Sports debacle. Further The other half have very lucrative deals that make them relatively rich.

the conundrum of doing what’s right for the league would significantly impact the Yankees and Dodgers but would probably increase the total profit, might decrease the total revenue

Can you elaborate?  What would cause profit to decrease while revenue increases.  

BTW ... The best way for players to increase their income is to promote increases in revenue.  It sometimes appears they don't understand basic economics.  For example, if revenue increases via expanded playoffs, what do teams do with that money?  Revenue has been increasing for a very long time.  Did owners pocket those increases or did player compensation go up over the past 40 years?  In general teams spend 85-90% of revenue.  Operating costs are not going to increase as a result of an increase in playoff revenue.  Therefore, the vast majority would end up going to players unless somehow teams start to operate differently than they have for the last 50 years.  

[DJL44]

13 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

What if most of the bonus money was distributed in salary instead of going to a select few? 

Why does the time to free agency need to drop? 

It makes sense to direct bonus money to a select few, the most talented players, especially if you want the next Dave Winfield to pick baseball.

Regarding free agency time - the general managers figured out they can keep college drafted players as serfs for basically their entire career. Draft them at age 21, minors until age 25-26, free agents at age 31 or 32. If those players automatically get to become free agents at age 30 the team probably brings them up to the majors earlier. The players also get one chance at a market-rate contract during the prime of their career.

Would you rather see the 24 year old prospects in the big leagues or more innings pitched by 30 year old AAA retreads?

[DJL44]

13 hours ago, Sconnie said:

How can an MLB game be highly rated when no one can watch it?

Everyone agrees that Bally Sports has been a disaster.

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, Steve71 said:

That would be like the Yankees and the Mets (or Dodgers or Red Sox) finishing in the cellar for 8 years straight.  Is that ever likely to happen in MLB under the current system?  Not hardly.

Why would MLB want that to happen? The league makes more money when the Yankees make more money. It isn't like the Rays are generating the revenue sharing money.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The best way for players to increase their income is to promote increases in revenue.  It sometimes appears they don't understand basic economics.  For example, if revenue increases via expanded playoffs, what do teams do with that money?  Revenue has been increasing for a very long time.  Did owners pocket those increases or did player compensation go up over the past 40 years?  In general teams spend 85-90% of revenue.  Operating costs are not going to increase as a result of an increase in playoff revenue.  Therefore, the vast majority would end up going to players unless somehow teams start to operate differently than they have for the last 50 years.  

Actually revenue has been growing much faster than salaries. Teams are not spending the vast majority of new revenue on salaries. That's the whole reason there is conflict this time around. The players agreed to increased revenue sharing in the last CBA and saw their percentage of that revenue decline. They're not falling for that BS again.

[Major League Ready]

9 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Actually revenue has been growing much faster than salaries. Teams are not spending the vast majority of new revenue on salaries. That's the whole reason there is conflict this time around. The players agreed to increased revenue sharing in the last CBA and saw their percentage of that revenue decline. They're not falling for that BS again.

I keep hearing this argument but the percentage being paid out is often over simplified.  Here is a article that addresses this issue and there are other recent articles that come to the same conclusion.  Baseball Economics

Another part of this over simplification is that most teams have substantially increased their expenditure on other types of employees.  This is how it works in virtually every company in the world.  The players are not entitled to a certain portion of revenue regardless of what changes in the industry.  The amount available for players is a product of revenue - operating costs.  If the cost to travel doubles that comes out of the available budget for players the next year.  Literally the way it works in every industry.  

[Major League Ready]

37 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It makes sense to direct bonus money to a select few, the most talented players, especially if you want the next Dave Winfield to pick baseball.

Regarding free agency time - the general managers figured out they can keep college drafted players as serfs for basically their entire career. Draft them at age 21, minors until age 25-26, free agents at age 31 or 32. If those players automatically get to become free agents at age 30 the team probably brings them up to the majors earlier. The players also get one chance at a market-rate contract during the prime of their career.

Would you rather see the 24 year old prospects in the big leagues or more innings pitched by 30 year old AAA retreads?

Are you really suggesting there is not enough money in baseball to attract the top talent.  We were able to attract the top talent 50 years ago.  Since then the average salary has gone up 133X .  The percentage of players with even remotely the same ability to make it in more than one sport is about 1 or 2 in a thousand.  It's not exactly going to hurt the sport if we lose one of both of them.  I seriously doubt the bonus would influence 1/4 of this already tiny percentage.  So, should we take care of ALL of the thousands of Milb players or should we worry about losing one player out of a couple thousand prospective players of which there will be 10 Kohl Stewart equivalents for every 1 Dave Winfield?  

Have to ask the same question about college draftees.  Can you provide any evidence that supports this position?  The fact is that the average age of position players has gotten younger.  Is there any evidence team drafting preference has shifted away from high school players?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Can you elaborate?  What would cause profit to decrease while revenue increases.  

BTW ... The best way for players to increase their income is to promote increases in revenue.  It sometimes appears they don't understand basic economics.  For example, if revenue increases via expanded playoffs, what do teams do with that money?  Revenue has been increasing for a very long time.  Did owners pocket those increases or did player compensation go up over the past 40 years?  In general teams spend 85-90% of revenue.  Operating costs are not going to increase as a result of an increase in playoff revenue.  Therefore, the vast majority would end up going to players unless somehow teams start to operate differently than they have for the last 50 years.  

Agreed, much better for the players to increase the pie than to divvy the pie up differently. Increasing revenue is better for COGS than decreasing cost, however good forecasting can identify future revenue reductions and allow for opportunities to backfill in advance or reduce cost to maintain margin.

My model would probably reduce overall revenue for the league because a few teams have outsized TV contracts (relative to the rest of the league) that are unlikely to be re-upped or increased they'd be replaced with an in house solution (direct advertising and direct streaming fees). You'd have an opportunity to reduce cost even more, centralized broadcast production, most importantly not sharing as much cost with cable providers. The advantage would be scheduling to go Wall-To-Wall games for 18 hours a day, the ad revenue over the talking heads on MLBN would explode. Cable is dying, this would speed up an eventuality while still maintaining the cable subscribers you have left... and provide a more effective revenue sharing mechanism as it's all centralized (just like the NFL).

While agreed that the NFL is not the beacon of parity, the revenue plan is a very good model that the MLB schedule just doesn't facilitate. Many of the arguments pro/con a stronger revenue sharing model is feasibility. It could more feasible than some think, and a possible eventuality as cable providers consolidate/disappear.

[Trov]

To address the posters 3 questions.  I think a floor would help the competitive balance, however, without a cap there is no reason for a floor.  The players want teams to have to spend more money, but want the huge market teams to spend even more if they want.  That does not help balance in any way, it just increases the money being spent.  The players may try to mask it in the claim to help win the fans over with helping be more balanced, but it is just a way to increase the overall money spent.  I could go deeper into why, but without a cap I do not want a floor.  On the other side if there is a cap, there needs to be a floor as well. 

For the increase tax level, that does not help balance at all and I am not for it in any way.  It does not help mid-market or small market teams in anyway.  It just further spreads how much the huge markets can spend without having to pay dead money into the league.   

Shortening service time to FA does not help mid-market and small market teams at all.  It may further push teams to hold guys in the minors, so unless there is also a requirement of becoming minor league FA sooner it will just cause fans to get mad that top prospects sit in the minors because the team is not ready to win now and will not want to waste service times years with bad team.  I think a better proposal would be to adjust payment of players prior to arbitration based on their WAR, or some combo of stats.  Instead of having a league min, you actually get paid based on what you do for the team prior to arbitration.  You have a min, but then can get increased based on how much output you have.  The years of control would still be the same, but top players will get paid more faster. 

If players truly want what is best for game, and not just them, they would accept a cap with a floor.  If they will not agree to a cap, then agree to a max contract length of no more than 5 years, and similar to basketball only so many players can have 5 year contracts on a team, so many 4 years, and the rest the max is 3 years.  

Why do I suggest this?  First, the cap with floor will one make teams spend money, so they will not load their team with minor league guys just to keep payroll low while they wait for their top guys to make way to majors.  The teams will spend on vets because they need to spend, that is good for players too.  The cap makes it so that huge markets cannot outspend everyone for top players, making small and mid-market teams to hold top guys in minors until they can go all in, like KC did years ago, and others have tried.  Unless they can be like the Rays or A's and keep the pipeline loaded. 

If the cap is not there, the max contract lengths would allow smaller and mid-market teams to spend on top FA guys.  Much of the reason they do not is not just the cost, but the length, knowing for many guys the end of a 6 plus year deal is full of bad dead money.  A small and mid-market team cannot afford to have bad contracts on their roster.  The huge market teams can afford to just cut a guy if he is not doing well and still pay him the huge sums.  They will sign a guy knowing full well they will plan to spread his cost across the years.  The Twins may be more in on a FA if the contract was for 3 years than for 5 plus.  So if each team could only have say 5 5-year deals, and 5 4-year deals and rest had to be 3 or less, that may be even high number, teams would think twice before offering a long term deal for some guys allowing a smaller market team to have chance to sign them. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The bonus structure idea was formed to get the approval of players not owners.  The players are not going to agree to an increase in Milb pay because it would reduce the pool of money available to them.  Milb pay has long been a black-eye for the league.  So why hasn't it been fixed.  The owners could easily redistribute a very small portion of their player budget to Milb players and the problem goes away.  Why would they care if some of their payroll was redistributed to Milb players?   The problem still exists because MLB players won't allow funds that could go in their pockets to be allocated to Milb players.  That's why I thought redistributing the funds already allocated to Milb bonuses was the best approach.  Everyone makes a decent living instead of only the top draft picks how may or may not every earn that bonus.

You really need to stop deflecting blame from the owners for literally everything. I've been *very* vocal about my dislike of the MLBPA and their willingness, nay eagerness, to throw minor leaguers under the bus for their own benefit but the owners are not blameless here. There are loads of reason why it's in ownership interest to pay, house, and feed minor leaguers better and they simply don't do it because no one is making them do it and MLB ownership rarely does anything that costs money unless someone forces their hand.

All the parties with power have very willingly contributed to the abysmal treatment of minor league players; let's spread the blame around fairly for it.

[farmerguychris]

14 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Mike Trout signed a 12 year $426MM contract of which all $426MM is guaranteed because there is no salary cap. This means a team can absorb bad contracts and be flexible with them. 

Proposing changes that would not benefit the sport and neither players nor owners would accept just doesn't make sense.

I think it is for the good of the sport to limit contracts like Trout received.  How does this type of money promote a competitive balance that will lead towards parity and future generations of baseball fans. This promotes the haves and the have nots, which over a long period of time may simply lead to less baseball teams, thus less fans and possibly down the road - the end of baseball.

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 minutes ago, farmerguychris said:

I think it is for the good of the sport to limit contracts like Trout received.  How does this type of money promote a competitive balance that will lead towards parity and future generations of baseball fans. This promotes the haves and the have nots, which over a long period of time may simply lead to less baseball teams, thus less fans and possibly down the road - the end of baseball.

I'm all for limiting player contracts as long as we limit ticket prices, television subscription costs, and owner profit at the same time.

The players earn the money they do because the money is there to do it. People have shown a willingness to pay $50 for a baseball ticket and $10 of their cable subscription to watch baseball.

Limiting what the player earns without also limiting what ownership charges US at the same time just turns  the billionaires into super-billionaires but doesn't fix the increasing access problem baseball has with its fanbase.

[Major League Ready]

35 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You really need to stop deflecting blame from the owners for literally everything. I've been *very* vocal about my dislike of the MLBPA and their willingness, nay eagerness, to throw minor leaguers under the bus for their own benefit but the owners are not blameless here. There are loads of reason why it's in ownership interest to pay, house, and feed minor leaguers better and they simply don't do it because no one is making them do it and MLB ownership rarely does anything that costs money unless someone forces their hand.

All the parties with power have very willingly contributed to the abysmal treatment of minor league players; let's spread the blame around fairly for it.

Your welcome to your opinion.  Several dozen clients that are substantially larger than any single MLB team paid me to help them with these strategies.  My experience leads me to certain conclusions.  I am sorry if you find that objectionable. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Your welcome to your opinion.  Several dozen clients that are substantially larger than any single MLB team paid me to help them with these strategies.  My experience leads me to certain conclusions.  I am sorry if you find that objectionable. 

Somehow the system quoted the wrong post. I have fixed it. I take issue with your blame about MiLB pay and how you allocate that blame, not the distribution of revenue.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

Agreed, much better for the players to increase the pie than to divvy the pie up differently. Increasing revenue is better for COGS than decreasing cost, however good forecasting can identify future revenue reductions and allow for opportunities to backfill in advance or reduce cost to maintain margin.

My model would probably reduce overall revenue for the league because a few teams have outsized TV contracts (relative to the rest of the league) that are unlikely to be re-upped or increased they'd be replaced with an in house solution (direct advertising and direct streaming fees). You'd have an opportunity to reduce cost even more, centralized broadcast production, most importantly not sharing as much cost with cable providers. The advantage would be scheduling to go Wall-To-Wall games for 18 hours a day, the ad revenue over the talking heads on MLBN would explode. Cable is dying, this would speed up an eventuality while still maintaining the cable subscribers you have left... and provide a more effective revenue sharing mechanism as it's all centralized (just like the NFL).

While agreed that the NFL is not the beacon of parity, the revenue plan is a very good model that the MLB schedule just doesn't facilitate. Many of the arguments pro/con a stronger revenue sharing model is feasibility. It could more feasible than some think, and a possible eventuality as cable providers consolidate/disappear.

I definitely think you are on to something in general with broadcast rights and methodology.  I have given this some thought myself.  It's a rather complicated and I am just assuming there are a number of complications we probably are not aware of.  That said, the current system is a mess and there has to be a better solution.  

[Major League Ready]

11 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Somehow the system quoted the wrong post. I have fixed it. I take issue with your blame about MiLB pay and how you allocate that blame, not the distribution of revenue.

The owners are going to pay out X amount in overall expenses and that includes every non-player employee, every MLB player, every signing bonus, evedry operating expense, and every Milb player.  While this is obviously a very general statement describing a very complex set of financial conditions, this is still the way it works in every business.  I have literally never had a client in my entire career see it differently.  If the owners were to pay Milb player as an example $60k more annually that would reduce the available funds to be paid to players.  While I am open to any explanation of why owners would care if an additional $60K would go to Milb players, it sure seems that the MLB players would be the parties affected and therefore the side preventing from happening.

[Brock Beauchamp]

24 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The owners are going to pay out X amount in overall expenses and that includes every non-player employee, every MLB player, every signing bonus, evedry operating expense, and every Milb player.  While this is obviously a very general statement describing a very complex set of financial conditions, this is still the way it works in every business.  I have literally never had a client in my entire career see it differently.  If the owners were to pay Milb player as an example $60k more annually that would reduce the available funds to be paid to players.  That's why Milb players don't get paid more.   

They literally own the baseball team. Owners can allocate funds how and where they please within the confines of the law. They choose to allocate X percentage to minor league players in pay, housing, and food. If the will was there, they could find the money, they don't do it because they don't want to and don't have to (which is where blame on the MLBPA factors into this conversation). Money from any number of sources within the organization could be re-routed into the minor leagues.

It's weird how the general public threw a fit about the treatment of minor league players during COVID and owners magically found money to marginally increase pay and housing costs. If all of this was predetermined and all numbers are fixed, how'd that happen over the course of just a couple of weeks?

[Major League Ready]

54 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm all for limiting player contracts as long as we limit ticket prices, television subscription costs, and owner profit at the same time.

The players earn the money they do because the money is there to do it. People have shown a willingness to pay $50 for a baseball ticket and $10 of their cable subscription to watch baseball.

Limiting what the player earns without also limiting what ownership charges US at the same time just turns  the billionaires into super-billionaires but doesn't fix the increasing access problem baseball has with its fanbase.

Good point ... Either the teams make more or I would add that the top markets would sign an even higher percentage of the elite talent.  Neither one is good for fans.  I toyed with ideas for lowering the cost to fans but it quickly occurred to me that was a fantasy world.  Why would owners or players even consider reducing their income?

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I toyed with ideas for lowering the cost to fans but it quickly occurred to me that was a fantasy world.  Why would owners or players even consider reducing their income?

They won't, which makes all of this so difficult. In almost every situation, no matter which side of this conflict "wins", the fans end up on the losing side.

[DJL44]

Why is forcing more parity a goal? Are people not watching baseball because the Pirates haven't been to the playoffs in 6 years? I don't think this is the issue. 20 team have made the playoffs in the past 3 seasons. The teams with the longest postseason drought are the Mariners (20 years), Phillies (10), Tigers (7) and Angels (7). None of those are low-revenue low payroll teams.

[Major League Ready]

50 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

They won't, which makes all of this so difficult. In almost every situation, no matter which side of this conflict "wins", the fans end up on the losing side.

The fans don't have to lose.  Each side has proposed certain changes.  Not all of them hurt the fans.

The owners have proposed ....

Expanded Playoffs.  Some fans don't like this but it would not be on the table if fans did not want to watch additional playoff games and we saw from the test season that it created more interest for fans of several teams. 

Universal DH.  Same thing.  Some fans will hate it but I think the majority find this a win.

Moving up free agency based on age.  Very nice for a subset of players.  No benefit to owners and a modest loss for fans in small markets but overall not a big impact. 

An increase in the league minimum.  Net gain for players.  I see this as relatively inconsequential for owners and completely inconsequential to fans.

Draft Lottery - Small win for fans

The players have proposed ....

Less revenue sharing and an increase in the luxury tax would be a big win for a few teams.  Obviously, it's a detriment to the fans of all of the other teams to varying degree depending on their relative revenue. 

Players have proposed to reduce the time to free agency although there are conflicting reports as to the actual demand.  This would benefit large market teams to the detriment of small teams and their fans.  The relative degree would depend on specific terms.

Changes to Super-two eligibility.  A win for players.  Relatively meaningless to fans.

I would say it's quite clear the fans would suffer some losses if the players prevail.  I see absolutely no detrimental affect for fans in anything the owners have suggested.  Actually, I some of their proposed changes are a modest win for fans although the expanded playoffs are probably a fairly significant win for fans of all of those teams that remain in the playoff race.

I don't think improving parity is essential.  However, the disparity has reached a point where furthering it would be detrimental to the game and certainly detrimental to the fans in mid and small markets.