Major League Ready

Also, were capital contributions considered? In other words, when improvements like the ones done at Target field are made, do owners borrow that money or do they contribute the capital? IDK, but it would change the calculation.

Because I have learned that it is pointless to argue the facts with many people here because some of you will ignore whatever facts you don't want to acknowledge. For example, when I kept asking the people who insisted this was all about owner greed if certain specific demands were bad for the game, they flat out refused to acknowledge the facts. They got downright combative about me asking for an answer. In this case, the attached memo clearly showed there was an understanding that MLB and the MLBPA had acknowledge the need for an alternative agreement if fans were not present. The MLBPA proceeded as if this was not the case and then intentionally mislead the fans. Even the national baseball media acknowledged the MLBPA claims that MLB had agreed to prorated salaries without fans present was fiction. The prorated salaries was the core premise and starting point. When it became clear fans would not be presented they literally ignored the basis of that agreement was that fans be present. They proceeded as if that discussion never took place and flat out misrepresented the understanding to fans. They literally went to the media telling them those terrible owners agreed and are not reneging on their agreement when they knew there initial agreement was based on fans being present. It's rather impossible to negotiate when one party is proceeding as if that understanding did not exist. Of course, the fact that they would not budge from 100% is well-documented. This timeline failed to mention the MLBPA agreed to negotiate different terms if fans were not present and it fails to mention the part where they mislead the public. I especially like the May 29th headline "MLBPA waiting for evidence of 'dubious' financial claims". It's widely acknowledged that roughly 40% of revenue comes from fans in attendance. Yet, the MLBPA concluded this was not problematic. That is so absurd it defies words. Of course, we know teams lost a pile of money so this assertion was so void of any financial acumen it's stunning. Also, anyone who has ever done economic analysis on this scale knows that it would be impossible to pull together that much data, consolidate it in a form that could validated and then validate it in a manner that would satisfy players. I have 8-9 figure contracts for nearly 30 years, and I have never in my entire career run across a more absurd statement or position. When one party thinks losing 40 of revenue does not create a need for adjustment you have an impossible position.

The 10 year pacts can produce situations that are unfair to players who are producing who could be getting that money. However, these 6+ year deals that go bad nullify some of the spending advantage of big teams. In other words, they actually help parity so I have no problem with these deals. The question is would a 5 year max help average revenue teams sign some of these top players. I am guessing not. The big revenue teams would offer an AAV that modest revenue teams could not afford. A floor does absolutely nothing / zero to help low revenue teams put a contender on the field. It's only benefit is to get really bad teams to hire veterans. Really great for the players but would anyone here be satisfied if our 61 win team in 2019 would have had 65 wins. Also , by definition the goal would be to take playing time away from prospects which is not what any of us would want. As I have said, there is a MUCH better way to use revenue sharing to help low revenue teams. Players care much more about how much they make over their career than what they earn the first couple years. They want more pay early only because they believe it will result in them making more in total. They are working towards hopefully generational wealth but even a bench player is going to make enough to retire at 35 and live very comfortably without ever working another day. That's there focus. The reality is the owners could very easily manage their payrolls via how they pay free agents to pay out the exact same amount regardless of what they pay in the first 3 or 4 years. I would like to see a significant raise in years 1-3 but really ... why do we care if they get paid more early. What is the benefit to fans? I particularly dislike the $100M pool because it will pay 3-4% (guess) of players more than all of then other prearb players will make combined even if they get a 35% raise. Those are the same players that will likely get huge contracts at some point. Once again it wreaks of Boras.

You are absolutely right but why should we care about anything other than the good of the game as fans. He still made triple what the average doctor does in 30 years practicing medicine. Granted, the owners are the wealthiest people on the planet but why should we care if a player "only makes $30M" and retires at age 32-33? Sign me up for that gig!

What's the "but". Would it have been good for the Twins, their fans or the game if they would have given him a 3 year $40M deal?

How the players handled 2020 changed things for me too. They went public complaining the owners had agreed to pay pro-rated salaries and now refuse to live up to the agreement. I was shocked they agreed to this but was still dismayed they were not living up to their word. Of course, the leaked memo very clearly showed they agreed to pay prorated salaries IF FANS WERE IN ATTENDANCE. They flat out lied to us and refused to compromise in any manner. So, to paint the owners as the party that dug their heels in is absurd. The players said don’t tell me about a national pandemic we are not working for a penny less than 100%. We could have had another 20-25 games had they been willing to compromise. than playing 60 games. It’s not as if the owners were making less they were losing money for every game played. They went public and in the most intentional manner mislead us. They also did not do much to foster a working relationship when they agreed to work something out of fans were not present and then literally not move 1% while at the same time misleading the public.

This many legit pitching prospects outside the top 20 is pretty exciting. Raya is the guy IMO that could really move up the rankings this year. The other guys all have enough raw stuff to move up too. It's going to be an interesting season.

It's not nearly as simple as revenue grew and player salary has not from a given point. Part of it is that teams had been ineffective in how they invested in free agents. They adjusted. That's how it works in business. Second, teams added a significant number of non-player personnel. Why? Because they felt that investment would have a greater return than spending on free agents. Businesses reallocate financial resource all the time. This time that did not favor players but would you prefer your team allocate those funds to players or spend those dollars on analysts, equipment and specialty coaches that will enhance player development and provide greater performance across all of your players? Then, there is the whole concept that an employee is entitled to more money because revenue grew. Obviously, there are employees who get bonuses based on revenue. However, compensation for employees is not driven by revenue. It just does not work that way in any industry. If your company's revenue went up, would you be successful in demanding a raise based on the company revenue? The other side of this premise was demonstrated quite clearly during 2020 when the players refused to work for a penny less than 100% of their normal rate. They very clearly demonstrated they were not interested in compensation being driven by revenue when revenue was down. They are employees not partners.

The most interesting part of this to me is that I don’t see how any of the demands would change what have much impact on how much the players make over their career if the owners are anywhere near as greedy as fans think. If teams are paying players $3M more over the first 3 years or $7M more over the first 5, they could easily adjust what they are spend on free agents. If everyone is convinced it’s pure greed on their part, why would they not just make this adjustment and go on paying out the exact same amount in salary and making exactly the same amount of profit? There were 116 players that made $10M or more and there cumulative income was $2.2B. The top 200 made 2.8B. Obviously, not all of them were on free agent contracts but even at the 37% raised proposed by player’s amounts to about $60M. Add the 100M bonus pool and you have $160M. It would be extremely easy to adjust spending on free agents to nullify that expenditure. Still think the owners are fighting it because of the financial impact? You think the owners with MBAs from Harvard have not figured this out?

I think you are right and I would not take that bet.

This is all reasonable. There is no perfect system where everyone gets treated fairly. Players don’t get paid big money the first 3 years. Chris Davis / Jason Heyward and many many others get paid an absolute fortune to underperform or even perform at or near replacement level. Look at Pujlos and Cabrera. They are going to get paid huge for 5 or 6 years at near replacement level. Many others are overpaid for 2-3 years. Ironically, the frequency of these bad contracts helps mitigate the spending advantage the top revenue teams have over the bottom revenue teams given those bottom revenue teams so rarely sign these deals. Maybe they should enact a clause allowing teams to cancel these deals but 1/2 of the money goes into a fund to be distributed among all prearb players. I am being facetious but it would be more fair than players getting paid $150M to perform at replacement level and prearb players making $600K. The system that is in place basically has an internship and then players get paid big. The good ones make generational wealth in 10 years and retire at 35. ? Does it really matter if they make $600K for the 1st 3 years? It’s not like they are suffering making twice what the average doctor makes. More importantly, this compensation system is crucial to below average revenue teams every having a shot to build a contender. Is it worth further eroding parity so that these guys can get paid earlier? Granted, there will be some players that suffer career ending injuries before they get to the big money. There are also plenty of Mark Appels who never even earn a roster spot but get a bonus that is 3 times more than the average guy makes in a lifetime. Is every player who ever makes it to MLB level entitled to earnings such that they can retire whenever they are done playing? As it is, any player that can maintain a roster spot even as a bench player will make enough to retire. An “Ehire Adrianza” bench type player will make $12-15M over their career. Let’s call it $7M after taxes. If they buy a $1M home and spend $1M on living expenses over their career they have $5M to invest. Let’s just say they buy an apartment building. If they hire a property management firm so they don’t need to be bothered with anything, they can return about 6% OR $300K/year. An average everyday player is going to make enough to retire at 35, live like a king and leave a trust fund that would all their kids to live like a king never working a day in their lives. How is it a problem they have to work a couple years at a reduced rate? One of the best parallels is MDs and their internship. They spend 8-10 years in school and come out with a half-million in student loads and then work insane hours for little pay for a couple hours. When they are done with that program the average doctor makes 1/2 of what the MLB minimum will be in the next CBA. IMO, we should be far more worried about how any changes impact parity than if players need to wait a couple years before they can afford a private jet.

You are right but these debates tend to lose focus on the actual point of the discussion. If you look back at the discussion, my point was that both sides are extremely fortunate. However, only one side refuses to go on without getting more from the other. A lot of people want to ignore which side won't go on without getting more. The owners want 3 things. A universal DH. It's good for the game and will replace some low paying jobs with high paying jobs so it's good for the players. It will cost the owners whatever the difference in salary is between the bench player they replace X 15. Expanded playoffs created a lot more fan interest in 2020. It's good for fans. The additional revenue created is good for players and owners. Obviously, the revenue goes to owners but given they spend 85-90 of the revenue it's good for the players too. They certainly are not asking for something from the players. An international draft. I will let you decide if that system could use an overhaul and if that would be good for the game because that's a whole other discussion. The league has not asked for anything this is not of benefit to the players and the game. The same can't be said of the player's demands. We are where we are because the players want more. That's why we won't have a normal season or perhaps any season at all. It's pretty tough to swallow they need more when looking at the contracts given out before the lockout. If your company had several years of success could you demand a raise because they are making money? Of course not. Your compensation is based on market economics. Would your salary / job be guaranteed no matter how you perform?

Actually, my position had has little to do with actual salaries although I have been a proponent of substantial increases in minimum salary. Owners always hold the ultimate control over salary levels so it would remain to be seen if any of these demands would actually raise salaries. If owners are anywhere near as focused on net profit as many claim they would simply reduce spending to compensate. My position has been very consistent the primary hold up to this point have been the demands that further erode parity. (large increase in CBT threshold, lower revenue sharing, and shorter team control) Team control has been partially dropped. The MLBPA slipped in a full year of service time for top rookies into a different demand. You would expect the sheer magnitude of the ask on the bonus of $100M is going to be a problem. That demand for that group of players is already a 35% raise plus the $100M bonus pool for a handful of top players in that group of players. Of course, those are the same players that will be the most apt to get 9 figure contracts. How many players will be prearb (300 guess) so the raise for them which is 35% would be about $60M. The bonus for a handful would be $100M. Sure seems like Boras influence to me, If there is drum banging, it's at the premise players income has not grown adequately. The sustained increases are literally unprecedented in any industry. No other employee group has sustained this level of increase for 50 years or 10 years for that matter.

I have no problem with what has gone on. I think it would be great if ticket and streaming prices were cut and both players and owners made half of what they are now. I am simply trying to balance the conversation with an accurate account of the facts or for that matter an acknowledgement of the facts This started with the OP who suggested players are just trying to keep up with inflation. Anyone familiar with how these measures are normally used and also familiar with the sustained increases in player salaries sees the subset of the population that has literally outpaced the entire working population by a wide margin. The point about franchise value was made by someone else. While they make a very good point, virtually every fan who makes this point fails to consider that player salaries have grown 5X the rate of franchise value which is why I pointed out both sides are extremely fortunate. Perhaps the most salient point is that only one side is not satisfied with their bounty and refuses to go on without an increase in compensation.

The results / history is clear that what has resulted is 90 percent of the WS teams have had above average revenue. Just to be clear, are you actually suggesting that any team could spend like the Yankees / Dodgers?

Making the playoffs is not the best measure of competitive balance. Are Twins fans happy with getting to the playoffs? The measure should be the relative ability to get to the WS or win the WS. 20 of the 22 National League teams and 18 of 22 American League teams to reach the WS in the 2000s have been above average revenue teams. Is that parity? To suggest the ability to spend an incremental $80or $100M on players is not an advantage defies every form of logic. Why would the Yankees or Dodgers spend an extra hundred million more than the Rays if it was not advantageous? I mean really, do we need to debate it's an advantage to be able to sign 3 elite players and have the budget of lower revenue teams left over?

Both sides have been incredibly fortunate and you are correct that the value of the Minnesota Twins is 30X what it was in 1970. We should also point out that Player salaries have increased by 136X of 1970 salaries. In other words, salaries have increased almost 5x compared to team values. Regardless of the exact numbers both sides are incredibly fortunate but only one side is wildly unsatisfied and demand more. It's the same side that said we are unwilling to work for a penny less than 100% during a pandemic and refused to bunch an inch. The owners want expanded playoffs which is good for the game and good for players. The also want the universal DH which is good for the game and good for players. They benefit both sides. The owners have not asked for "more" in the form of non-guaranteed contracts like football or max contract lengths like the NBA. They have not asked to eliminate opt outs. The demand for more and the subsequent threat to the MLB season is a product of players who don't feel the incredible compensation they get for playing a game is adequate and are demanding more.

We will have to see if any reliable account of the facts are made public. I seriously doubt that is this is purely about money. If the owners were only concerned about the bottom line what would stop them from simply reducing their player payroll? Literally none of the proposed terms would prevent owners from reducing payroll if that was their ultimate goal. These are very accomplished people. I believe they understand the level of parity is dangerously out of whack and they are unwilling to accept anything that promotes the further erosion of parity. The way teams were spending before the lock-out certainly does not indicate an unwillingness to spend.

Where are the players who don't think $100M and $200M and $300M contracts are not adequate compensation for playing a game? I want baseball too but I do not want the league accepting terms that further erodes the current unacceptable lack of parity.

The cumulative rate rate of inflation over the past 50 years is a little less than 7X. Average household income in the US over the past 50 years is almost identical to the rate of inflation. In 1970, ave household income was $9.870 and in 2020 it was 67,521 or just a touch under 7X what it was in 1970. Average baseball salaries were $29,303. Had they grown at the rate of inflation or the same rate as US income, the average player would be earning a little under $200K. Had US household income grown at the same rate as players, the average household income would be $1,350,000. Do you really want to take the position that players have not grown adequately when measured against the adjusted rate of inflation? Is there a group of employees anywhere in the world that have seen a greater rate of income growth than MLB and NFL players?

I would hope the twins would also trade him for a good young SS.

I would go through the list of pitchers posters here have insisted we should sign at all costs where the contracts would have started at age 30 or beyond and span 4-6 years but it would be a fair amount of work to come up with that laundry list. Now, we should not care about keeping a pitcher in the age 31 season. Darvish signed a 6 year deal starting his age 31 season. Bumgarner signed for 5 years starting his age 30 season and the list of examples is very long. Berrios has a contract starting at age 28 but that contract goes 4 seasons past his age 30 but that's good but keeping a different player past age 30 is bad? It's really hard to follow the logic here.

Changing the rule would assure small and mid market teams lose top players to the top 10 markets a year earlier. Definitely good for the players and definitely good for those top revenue markets. Bad for parity. Bad for the game and definitely bad for the other 20 markets and the fans of those teams. Every team has the option to ignore the year of service time. When they elect to keep a player in the minors the 1st 6 weeks because the short-term gain is not worth the long-term loss. How would this be a good outcome?

It just perplexes me that a MLB player can't bunt with the entire left side of the infield open. The shifts on him have been extreme for 3 years so he has had plenty of time to work on it. Rod Carew would have batted 900 against that shift..