Major League Ready

How is raising the CBT threshold good for the game. It widens the gap in parity and there can be no argument to the contrary. In 2020, we could have had more games. The last proposal was for 80 games as I recall but 80% of comp. They elected for 60 games at 100%. They had the audacity to go public with MLB promised prorated salaries. The memo that was leaked clearly showed they were purposefully misleading the public. They are not partners and therefore not due a percentage of revenue. Partners invest capital and there compensation varies based on the success of the business or this case individual team. US Household income has increased almost identically to the adjusted rate of inflation. Had MLB players income grown at the same rate they would be making 5% of what they make today. Yes, 5%. Yet, they are unwilling to play for the increases that have been proposed. What's wrong with an international Draft? I see that as a more equitable approach that promotes parity. The owner's last offer looked perfectly reasonable. I might add that if there was no union we would have baseball and players would still be the most fortunate group of players on the planet. They would still be making 100X that of the people paying their salaries. and top players literally make nearly 1,000X that of the average American income. Yet, they are unwilling to work. Finally, if you think the players are more concerned about the health of the game than owners you have lost your mind. Even it's purely financially driven, their interest is far more long term. Also do you really think athletes, with no business experience and for the most part no formal education are better equipped to determine what's better for this business than a group of 30 of the most accomplished business people in the country? There are 3 Harvard MBAs and a couple other MBAs. Several with degrees from Wharton and 28 of the 30 are as accomplished as it comes. Anyone here who believes they are qualified to stand in judgment better have some serious credentials.

If the context is acquisition strategies .... Glasnow was acquired for a SP (Archer) that by far the more established pitcher. Michael Wacha has not broke 1 WAR since 2017. 41 y/o Rich Hill had not broke 1 WAR since 2018. I really don't understand your point. Are these really the type of acquisitions you believe will produce a contender. Before you answer, we would all jump on a steal like Glasnow but that is a very rare case. I applaud the assessment method here where you are looking at the acquisition practice of playoff teams. It's a lot more telling if you take 2-3 years of these teams. If you do this the relative effectiveness of the various acquisition methods is very evident. Anyone who really wants to know could assemble the information relatively easily.

The Padres has a .633 win percentage in 2020. Granted it was a short season. They traded for 3 well established players and turned in a .488 win percentage. Musgrove was the best of the bunch and he has 1 year remaining. Blake Snell was once again a 2 WAR SP just like ever season outside his one outstanding season. Darvish was horrible the 2nd half last year. He could bounce back but he might be a liability. Point being they might just waste multiple seasons with the strategy they followed. Meanwhile, the rays got 2/3 of Snell's war back in a good role player (Mejia) and Patino is already in the majors. We will have to see if he reaches his potential, but he may have a higher career WAR or average WAR as compared to Snell. They also saved $29M over the next two years which could be used elsewhere. When Snell is gone in two years, the Rays will still have 3 years of control with Patino and two years with Mejia.

I would like to see the increase to prearb players be primarily distributed to all players as opposed to the current proposal by the MLBPA which would distribute 60% of the dollars to one percent of the players. These are the same players likely to go on a get contracts that produce generational wealth. How about looking out for all of the players for once. I would like to see the minimum go to: 1st year - 650K or 114% of current. 2nd year – 750K or 131% 3rd year – 855K or 150% Average annual is 750K or an increase of 31%. The bonus pool should be modest. For example, a player would double his salary if meeting the criteria that has been set. It’s great to give them a bonus it should be something along the lines of doubling their salary, not multiple millions. They will get the multiple millions if they establish that value.

He is not arguing semantics at all. You are both arguing for a given strategy. Chpettit19 as provided numerous examples that support a given strategy. You are insisting your strategy is better while providing no validation. The best form of validation is pretty straight forward. Look at playoff or 90 win teams with below average revenue for any season, preferably multiple seasons. How have the various means of acquisition contributed to those teams. I have posted these facts on multiple occasions. Acquisition of established top of the rotation pitching through free agency or trading for prospects is almost nonexistent. Trading established players for prospects has had a far greater impact. Players that were drafted or acquired as prospects far outnumber these other two methods combined. You have put a lot of effort into repeating this argument over and over. It would be great if you put a little of that energy into a meaningful / unbiased assessment of the relative effectiveness of acquisition methods. It's not hard to do with fangraphs. Take the 90 win teams with below average revenue from any season. List all of the players by WAR above whatever threshold you elect to use. I used 1.5 WAR. If you do this, there is absolutely no question of the value of building from within. The reason is pretty simple. 1 WAR in free agency cost $8M+. When you have half the revenue of top teams, by definition you must be more effective per dollar spent. The notion that trades for established pitching is a good bet is absurd if you actually look at the history of these trades. I listed numerous trades where established pitching was traded for prospects that had major roles in building playoff teams. Chpettit19 listed very recent trades for pitching that did not produce much. Show us validation. Show us your insistence there is no plan can be backed up by facts that validate your position. That would be what is known as a valid argument.

Good question Cody. I think there are quite a few variables in play. 1) Do they get a great offer for Arraez? I think that might trump everything. 2) How they intend to approach 2022. If it's all about retooling, they may want to give Martin that role ASAP. 3) Do they like Martin at a specific position or do they like him in a super utility role? 4) Is there a shuffle that allows Miranda take over at 3B sooner than later? Donaldson or Sano traded. 5) Even their belief in Lewis at SS could influence what they do with Arraez. Lewis could end up at 3B or Super Utility. Unless #1 happens, I think he is with us until at least the 2022 deadline when some of these questions have more clarity.

I had the same thought. However, I count 4 only if you consider Miranda's best position 2B and I think his future is 3B with the flexibility of playing 2B & 1B. Also, and maybe I have the wrong impression, but Steer's value is that he can play multiple positions. Julien's best position probably is 2nd but he is not great defensively at any position. It would seem his value will be defensive flexibility as well. The bigger IF dilemma IMO is more immediate in the form of Arraez. Polanco has 2B covered for the next 3 years with a 4th year option and there is a good chance Miranda will man 3rd for the next several years and Martin will be here soon.

I hear (see) this proclamation often but never with any proof of concept. In other words, it’s always grand proclamation with no evidence to support it. It sure would be great if someone would actually provide evidence supporting this assertion. First, we have to define established. Montas best two season accumulated 7.1 WAR so let’s use that as the standard. How many SPs were successful acquisitions for teams with below average revenue teams acquired for prospects? List them and I will name 4:1 in favor of players that went on to produce at least 7 WAR over two seasons where the player had never produced more than 1.75 WAR (half the standard) in any season. The three teams with by far the most success over the past 20 years are Oakland / Cleveland and Tampa. It is very clear their strategy / practices are the opposite of what you insist is essential. Yet, these three are the most successful small/mid market teams. Montas had produced .2 WAR when he was acquired for established players. Manaea was acquired for a rental while still a prospect. Bassit was acquired after 1 professional season with .7 WAR in exchange for 1 year of Jeff Samardzija. BTW … They got a guy named Semien in that trade as well. Cleveland acquired Clevinger / Bauer and Carrasco and Kluber were all acquired by trading established players for prospects. History suggests that trading for prospects has been far more important than trading for established top of the rotation SPs in terms of building a winner in a small / mid-market. It would be great if someone (anyone) would provide evidence to support this often-made claim.

Another omission is these calculations is the cost (bonuses) paid to prospects. In 2021 teams paid out $437M in bonuses. Why don't we quit paying the Mark Appels huge money for failing?. Let's give every player a 100K bonus. That would cost each team $3M leaving $11.8M. Let's take that money and pay every Milb player an extra $40K/year. That would cost roughly 7.2M leaving 4.6M to add to prearb players. If each team averages 9 prearb players that would equate to a raise of $511K to 1.08M or roughly a 90% increase.

We don’t need to have full disclosure to understand that the percentage of revenue the Braves spent on payroll was very low in comparison to other teams. They spent $153M on player salary with $568M. Of course, they also had player benefits and draft bonuses of roughly $28M but those inclusions are normally not considered when payroll percentage is discussed. The $153M is 27% or at least 15% below MLB average which equates to additional profit of $85M. Of course, the fact they won the WS also provides incremental revenue that should be accounted for when comparing to other MLB teams. These facts show “the folly” in using these numbers as representative of the league norm. What it may demonstrate best is that it’s fortunate for players almost all of the teams are owned by individuals. They would appear to be much more willing to spend than corporations. The argument about league minimums is equally ignorant. It suggests the players only ask for prearb players is a raise in league minimum. If you ask your employer for a 10% raise in your base salary and a bonus of 15% and another bonus of 20% is the ask 10% or 45%? The players are asking for a 36% increase in the minimum which would be substantial in itself. In addition, they are asking for a $115M bonus pool. Obviously, only 1% of players would be included but how it’s divided does not diminish the payout. (the total net increase paid to prearb players) The net effect is roughly a 56% increase for every prearb player on opening day rosters plus an allowance of 3 FTEs per team for injury replacement. They are also demanding the number of super-two to increase from 22% to 80%. There were 36 super twos in 2021 so that equates to roughly another 80 players getting arbitration. The average increase is roughly $1M a year so let’s call it another $80M or an additional 41% for a total increase of around of roughly $850M per pre arb player. Of course, the arbitration increase will also be seen in future years so the increase has a multi-year affect. Without the multi-year effect this brings the total ask to roughly 133%. The fact that players or fans would point to the league minimum as the ask for prearb players without considering the ask for the bonus pool and 3rd year arbitration illustrates either ignorance or extreme bias. The prearb ask itself is absurd. Then, we add a huge increase in the CBT, lowering revenue sharing and all of the other demands and you have a situation that is not getting resolved until players get realistic. I would bet they could get a 50% increase in league minimum if that was their actual ask for prearb players.

I think it's absurd any stadiums have been funded in the past 25-30 years. Given the increases in revenue it has become very viable for teams to fund their own stadiums but who benefited most? Had the teams assumed that expense, they would have reduced payroll by roughly the equivalent of their facilities cost just like any other business. In other words, they would not have been able to pay the average player $4M/year. The tradeoff would have been players would have been paid less and we tax payers would not have footed the bill for stadiums. How absurd is it that a business that can afford $300M contracts for a single employee is subsidized by tax payers that make 1/100 of those employees?

The Braves had $250M more in revenue than the Twins and spent $33M more than the Twins on Payroll. That will produce some profit but suggesting this example is representative of all teams is financial ignorance. The Brave simply don't spend like a very top revenue team. This is probably the difference between a team being owned by a corporation vs an individual.

The players showed in 2020 they would stick to their guns no matter what. The owners took the covid year losses and went on business as usual. If they all decide to recoup these losses, they could adjust their free agent spending over the next 2-3 years. 115 players made more than $10M last year. IDK exactly how many were past their arbitration years but it was probably 90%. Those players were paid a collective $2.13B. It would take a couple years for the owners to adjust but it is completely within their power to recoup these losses. A 200K increase in minimum salary won't prohibit a deal. That's roughly $80M but that's not the ask for prearb increases. They also are demanding another $115M in bonus pool + arbitration for 80% of 3rd year players which is another roughly $80M. I would be the owners would go for the $200K or 36% but the ask is well over 100% for prearb players. How it's divided up does not change the collective amount. My guess is that the two biggest holdups are the 80% arbitration and the increase in the CBT threshold is the biggest holdup. All of the teams outside to top 20 revenue markets have to be pretty tired of the advantage held by the top revenue markets. Those owners are not going to allow that gap to be increased. The arbitration demand completely changes the compensation framework not just for 3rd year players but all players. That alone would be an enormous ask. Combine it with all the other demands and we have a stalemate.

Wouldn't you say the issues that diminished ratings and the issues creating an impasse on a new CBA are mostly different issues? The universal DH will help a little and expanded playoffs would definitely keep more fans engaged. However, the changes in the game and the game itself not appealing to younger fans seem to be the problem and they are not part of this impasse. Of course, one could argue a prolonged work stoppage will drive fans away but history suggests they will return.

We have blown enough 1st round picks. He would have to demonstrate he is not at risk. Plus, the fact that he has Boras as an agent is just one more reason to avoid him. We would have never signed Buxton or Polanco if Boras was their agent.

What has that got to do with the adverse effect of raising the CBT threshold? What do you care more about, preventing teams from making a profit or preventing the further erosion of parity? It's one or the other in this case. I would add that I have provided an alternative distribution of revenue sharing that would provide greater opportunity for small market teams that are spending by redistributing those funds based on payroll spending. Fans of any team outside the top 5-7 teams promoting an increased CBT or taking away revenue sharing from low revenue teams makes absolutely no sense.

As a Twins fan or even a fan of the game, why would you advocate furthering the gap in parity. You seem to suggest that the top markets being able to spend more is somehow good for the fans. There would be two groups of winners if they significantly raise the CBT threshold. The top 5-6 teams in terms of revenue could sign an additional top free agent without penalty. Therefore, those few teams and their fans as would benefit as would a handful of players. The bottom 20 teams that will never spend at that level and their fans will be further disadvantaged. Why should we want to be more disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint so that some free agent gets $200M instead of $180M?

There are firms or teams within consulting firms that specialize in economic analysis of business models. This is a deep well that would require several pages to outline and explain all of the problems associated with comparing compensation between the leagues in the context of revenue split. Nobody wants to read 10 pages so here is what is believe it or not a brief summary. 1) The percentage that goes to players is not the same as player salaries which is the number often used to calculate the percentage going to players. MLB pays out roughly 9% of revenue for player benefits and signing bonuses. How does that compare to other leagues? The NBA has virtually no signing bonuses. 2) There are a myriad of differences in Operating Costs. a. Facilities costs – How much do MLB teams spend on construction costs compared to NBA and NFL teams. b. Facilities maintenance – I would assume it costs a lot more to maintain target field for 82 games as compared to 41 games for the Wolves or 8 games for the Vikings. c. Milb costs – The Vikings have a practice squad and the Wolves have a G-league team. MLB teams have substantially more cost in their Milb operations? d. Travel and Hotel – 82 games on the road vs 41 for NBA and 8 for NFL e. Non-plater employees – how do #of employees compare between leagues. The bottom line is that the normal practice in any business relationship is to find a metric that adjusts compensation fairly as variables change. Revenue is a terrible starting point because the amount available to pay players is not determined solely determined by revenue. It’s determined by Revenue less Operating Expense. If for example average operating costs for MLB is 38% and the NBA is 33% and the NFL is 30%, a 50% revenue split is much more favorable to the other league. Now, I don’t know what those percentages are and neither does the person who wrote this article. As a matter of fact, it does not appear the author understands these principals at all. A set percentage of revenue was a smart play for NBA and NFL teams when they made those deals. If you believe revenue will continue to make significant gains and operation costs will be relatively stable, operating expense as a percentage of revenue will decrease over time. Of course, that means net income as a percentage of revenue will increase. Right now I would not bet on MLB revenue increasing. We also are facing significant inflation. If Russia invades the Ukraine we could have 10% inflation. Hat combination would be very bad for owners. Quite a few of those owners have degrees from Wharton and MBAs from Harvard. Believe me when I say this has not escaped them. Another thing that is much maligned is that the percentage has gone down the last few years. There is a factor that seems to be completely ignored by those who write about this trend. That would be that teams have taken a small part of the available budget (Revenue – Operating Cost) and invested in Analytics Teams / Equipment / Specialized Coaches / etc. This is very common in every industry. Good companies find better ways to perform. They add certain skill sets and pay for them by reducing others. They invest in equipment that displaces others. MLB teams don’t reduce the number of people. They change where they are investing. It’s become well understood that these investments in baseball are yielding great results in identifying and developing people, Assuming you accept the industries conclusion these investments will yield better results than continuing to invest 100% of their available budget on players, would you prefer they take 3-5% of the available funds and invest in other areas or would you prefer they continue to invest 100% in player salary and not hire these other staff of buy the specialized equipment? Finally, we would have to assume players would accept some combination of NBA / NFL / NBA contract terms. I just don’t believe that is remotely true. IMO they have the best terms. No maximum length of contract is huge. The negotiations in free agency often come down to number of years. The players goal is to get paid as much as possible for as long as possible after they are no longer producing at a level equal to their compensation. Just think about what percentage of the big free agent deals are underwater the last couple years or even several years. Those other leagues have some terms the MLBPA would never go for. They have much more restriction in terms of years or even maximum amounts. MLB players would also never give up contracts being 100% guaranteed. I just don’t believe the combination of terms that exist is these other leagues would be accepted by the MLBPA. The one fact in this article that is the most telling is that team values are higher for NFL and NBA teams. The most influential determinant of company value is profitability. Perceived risk and the forecasted revenue growth also play a role in evaluation. However, it’s a pretty fair assumption that the revenue split in these other leagues is more favorable to ownership which might explain their willingness to make such an agreement.

Do you think the players would accept non-guaranteed contracts or 5 year maximum length or a cap or a set contract max amount? Don't see the players accepting these terms. Getting paid beyond their production in the final years of their contracts is a huge priority. They also seem very focused on the top 5-10% of players. If MLB asked for these terms, we would never get back to playing IMO. How about opt-outs. Does the NBA or NFL have opt-outs?. I just don't see NBA/NFL terms as something the MLBPA would accept.

How many players would typically qualify for the pre arb bonus pool as currently proposed? Seems like it would be about a dozen players. Am I interpreting this wrong?

You removed all the context which was they have a ton of depth. The question remains can they produce a couple of front of the rotation guys from this group of prospects. This whole line of thought is presuming the need for two front of the rotation guys. Trading for 2 or even 1 true top of the rotation guy would be extremely costly. There is no way around mortgaging the future. It would be a whole lot more advantages if they developed them from within. Also, if they develop 4 solid starters or even 5 where a couple are stacked, they would be positioned to afford a true top of the rotation free agent.

I see him as a higher floor lower ceiling when compared to Balazovic / Duran / Canterino / SWR / Raya and Petty. Ryan / Winder / Sands and Enlow are all guys with a good chance to be solid contributors with Ryan / Winder maybe having a little more upside. Strotman and Valimont seem like they are the biggest wildcards. A couple of those 1st 5 guys reaching their potential would be huge for this team's chances of eventually contending. Povich / Haijar / SGL and Varland are so new it will take a while to figure out their future role but the takeaway is the system is so deep that the odds are pretty good they develop enough guys to full a rotation and add some BP arms from failed SPs. Now can they come up with some legit front of the rotation guys?

Of course, you are right. People get bent out of shape because they think these comparisons are meaningful when they provide no value at all. Allow me to add a couple of thoughts. The Twins bonus pools allotments are almost $14M which is 4.5-5% of revenue. Also, MLB benefits are $16M a team according to spotrac. Is this being considered in these comparisons or are they simply salary comparisons? IDK what the number is for NBA teams but I would assume considerably less given the smaller roster size. How about maintenance cost. I would guess it costs a whole lot more to maintain Target field. What about travel. Twice as many people to transport staying twice as many nights. Even the small things like meals / bats and balls add up over an entire season. Too many people getting upset and taking a stand when they simply don't have enough information to warrant taking a position at all.

Most of us watch MLB to see great talent. The vast majority of pitchers are markedly worse than the worst position players. Players flailing away is not a net positive when the game is suffering from a lack of action already. Plus, injury concerns for pitchers make this an absolute no-brainer. We can't complain about the state of the game while resisting change.

Are the fans being completely ignored? We don't know the exact motivation of owners. However, generally speaking business owners are inherently very concerned about their product and their customers. At least the successful ones are very mindful and this subset of entrepreneurs have been the most successful in America. Anyone here a business owner or know one? Do you or they care about you customers? Even if the motivation is purely financial, there financial interests align with fan interests. This is not even remotely true for players which is why we have demands that would be bad for the game and ownership not bending to those specific demands. I think we can look at the universal DH as a cost they were willing to bare for the good of the game. The draft lottery is a small thing but good for the game. The international draft they proposed seemed to me that it would be good for the game. Expanded playoffs are good for Owners and Players but they are also very good for the game IMO. There were several different markets in 2020 that were energized by expanded playoffs. Maintaining a modest increase in the CBT threshold and maintaining revenue sharing are without question beneficial to the game. Some big market fans might argue for shorter control but this would definitely promote a wide gap in parity. I guess we could presume owners only did this for financial reasons but that seems pretty cynical. What's good for the game is good for them financially. This is a pretty easy premise to embrace yet fans want to believe the owners are against them. They are not the side demanding change that would further the gap in parity. If this latest proposal really does drop draft pick compensation, and add the DH, expanded playoffs, and a draft lottery, as well as a reasonable increase in league minimum, I don't know how we can conclude they have not done enough.