The Lockout Diaries: Week 13

16 hours ago, Nick Nelson said:

 

That means all the pressure is on the players at this point, but they are pretty clearly united and defiant in their stance. They're not going to cave or relent to the non-serious proposals being put forth by the league. Good for them.

 

View full article

 

What exactly was inadequate about the offer they received?  It is rather mindless to make this statement without something to support your position.  It would be far more valuable to outline the league's proposal.  You know, present the facts.

What did you find most problematic?  The 40% raise to prearb players or the elimination of draft pick compensation.  Was it the expanded playoffs that pays players $25K game or the universal DH that creates more high paying jobs or was it the league trying to avoid increasing the gap in parity by keeping the increase in the CBT tax modest?  Do you have any interest in a rational discussion about the actual facts?

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

Sure, I'll have a rational discussion. I find the proposal on whole to be problematic and non-serious because it is not a legitimate effort to compromise and seems focused on no outcome other than saving owners money and winning these negotiations.

The "rationales" you're putting forth are simply off-base. I'm not buying into that empty corporate messaging. You actually think they're trying to keep the increase in CBT modest because they want to "avoid increasing the gap in parity"? Come on. If that was their goal they'd implement a salary floor and find measures to stop Pittsburgh from spending $40M/year to constantly tank. They want to keep their own spending controls in place so teams like LA and NY have justification for spending increasingly small fractions of their revenue. 

Moreover, the bottom line is that owners are in control of their product. They initiated the lockout. They canceled games. It is their responsibility to provide terms that their labor finds fair and equitable. In failing to do so, I hold them fully accountable.

The CBT argument is wholly illogical.  The top teams who actually would spend beyond the threshold would love for it to go up.  That would save them money in penalties and increase their competitive advantage.  The vast majority of teams would never surpass the threshold so how can it possibly be about money for them?

1 hour ago, Nick Nelson said:

This theory is not backed by reality. Teams use the CBT as an excuse NOT to spend more and increase their competitive advantage. They use it as a de facto ceiling while there is no corresponding floor on the other end. Other teams are concerned that if powerhouses like the Yankees (who were outspent by the PADRES last year) go back into full-on free spending mode it'll inflate the overall market. Which it will. Which it needs to. 

How does this change the fact that teams able to spend above the current CBT threshold would benefit from the threshold increasing?  They could increase their competitive advantage without penalty.  It also does not address that teams financially unable to surpass that level could not possibly be influenced by trying to save money?  The teams that are able to go higher don't have to because the threshold was raised.  You are spouting a theory that fits the narrative you like but theory defies logic. 

On 3/4/2022 at 6:02 PM, Nick Nelson said:

They wouldn't benefit because they don't want to spend that money. The Yankees and Dodgers like having this impediment in place because they want an excuse for keeping their spending in check and pocketing more money. Your argument presumes good faith and the owners don't operate on it. 

We can talk in circles about CBT all we want but the undeniable bottom line is that player salaries have been declining while league revenues and inflation grow. That shouldn't be happening in a business so financially healthy (despite what the lying commissioner would have you believe). What about MLB's proposals do you see as strongly suited to correcting this trend? What's unreasonable about the MLBPA's requests (which the league won't take any serious steps in bridging the gap toward) from that view? 

You are making an assumption that the decrease in spending means more to the bottom line.  You no doubt are aware that teams have added up to 100 new employees for analytics, specialized coaches, and other SMEs.  The Cardinals for example have added 100 employees.  Take their salaries, benefits, travel, office expense, computer & software, and other administrative expense multiplied by 100 and you have roughly 4% of revenue.  Do you think $12M will produce more by investing $12M into a free agent for 1.5 wins or will that investment be more impactful invested in these 100 people and specialized equipment.  Do you want your team to be the one that does not make these investments?

Another couple percentage points in other changes in how teams could also be present.  Some of it could even be random.  We had extremely high spending before the lockout.  You know baseball but when baseball people think they are business analysts or understand economic analysis we get this type of exceptionally poor conclusions, especially when considerable bias is at hand.

Does anyone have an email address for the commissioner's office so I can directly express my thoughts about the process so far? I'd love to send them some input, recognizing that no one would likely ever read to the third sentence.

The owners are just playing a power game. They win in any iteration of a final CBA. The PA position would add $5-6 million per team and they have retreated from their ask since that was broken down by the folks at Fangraphs. You haven't added a single cogent thought in any of your posts to date or contributed positively to any conversations, except to suggest repeatedly that the owners are the guardian angels of the future of baseball. Of course, you are entitled to your own ideas. I think everyone understands your position.