chpettit19

And most MLB players never hit arbitration (average career is 2.7 years), yet the union has been fighting for arbitration numbers to go up since the day it was implemented. That a Boras plot, too? Even fewer players get extensions, let alone lucrative ones, yet the union has been fighting for no cap and higher amounts of revenue going their way since the start of time. Some Boras shenanigans there, too? Look, Boras represents less than 15% of all major leaguers. You're literally claiming the other 85% are so dumb and gullible that they're doing his bidding in the name of that 15%. Their agents can't convince them that all of his plots and tricks are just ways to take money out of their pockets? Dude should be president or world czar or something if he can convince 1100 guys to agree with each other and fight so hard in lockstep to their own detriment just so everyone gets along. We may have a shot at world peace. As for the MiLB numbers...I get that. But MLR is suggesting that MiLB don't matter in a discussion about a pre-arb pool of which graduating MiLB will make up the vast majority! That argument is saying Pete Alonso and Aaron Judge didn't matter before their rookie seasons because they were MiLB and that pool is for MLB players. That's absurd. It being some Boras in the shadows maneuver to have that pool go towards the elite young players is suggesting that the current pre-arb guys who wouldn't have made any money off that deal think it's a good idea despite it not helping them at all just because almighty Boras said it was. I'm sorry that I believe the other 85% of MLBPA members can think for themselves. Or have agents who are self-serving enough to convince them it's better if the money is distributed differently.

MiLB are the ones who turn into MLB players. They're actually the ones who turn into the pre-arb guys that have the opportunity to earn money from this pre-arb pool. You're too smart to be making this argument. I'm done with this conversation. Have a good day.

Of course the MiLB players are relevant. They're the ones that turn into pre-arb players. If Boras doesn't represent any MiLB players this part of the deal would only affect his players for a maximum of the next 2 years. And I'm quite positive that Scott Boras doesn't represent the entirety of top 100 lists or prospects with the chance to earn these bonuses. I know where this goes from here so I'm done with this line of discussion. You can believe what you want and look at it from whatever perspective you want. Agree to disagree.

Now you've completely changed the topic of conversation. I never said they shouldn't have taken the deal. I've never said they're being rationale. I've never spoken on the deal itself at all. You 2 were claiming that Boras and his clients are controlling things and the rest of the union more or less has no power. I'm pointing out that that stance isn't rationale. If the rest of the union had stated earlier that they'd be good with a 220M CBT and now Boras' clients are shutting it down at the expense of the rest of the union's paychecks you wouldn't be able to go on Twitter and see nothing but positive things being said by players about how the MLBPA is doing. It's absurd to think Scherzer (or Boras, or his entire client list) is holding this thing up and pushing for things the rest of the union doesn't want.

Yes. Scott Boras represents about 175 players in total. That's between the majors and minors. Run the math for me real quick and tell me what percent of pre-arb and minor leaguers that'd be. We'll completely ignore the fact that many of those 175 are already arb eligible or on contract extensions and I'll give you the entire 175. Shoot, I'll up it to 200 and you can still run the math and tell me what percent of just currently pre-arb players he'd represent. You're drastically overstating his client pool and power.

The suggestions you guys are making is that the majority of the union agreed to some cutoff lines in the negotiations and now a handful of Boras people are saying "f you" to that majority of the union and pushing the negotiations the way they want while ignoring all the players they're representing and who's paychecks are now being withheld. That's your claim. You think Max Scherzer and the other Boras clients on the committee are holding their teammates paychecks hostage to get what they want without a care to what their teammates want and you think the rest of those players are then getting on Twitter and backing the union negotiators and the decisions they're making while they lose pay.

Yes it did. The demand represents 100% of pre-arb eligible players. It gives every last guy the chance to earn more money by performing well. It doesn't say only Scott Boras clients are eligible to gain an increase. It doesn't say only top 100 prospects are eligible. It says the players who significantly outperform their peers will now be rewarded for it instead of just being paid the minimum. The demand represents 100% of minor leaguers even. It tells Bailey Ober that despite not being a celebrated prospect he can come up and perform well and earn more.

If they split the pre-arb pool evenly it'd just be a raise to the minimum. The league is already balking at the raise they've approved to the minimum so I find it hard to believe they'd be willing to make the minimum 1.03M (700k minimum plus the 338k you present).

The actual negotiators are Bruce Meyer and Tony Clark. Bruce Meyer is being paid a lot of money to get the players what they want. The entire 1200 (roughly, not every team has a full 40-man) roster of union players has been kept up to date as much as they want to be. Player reps have been on zoom calls the entire time being kept up to date after every proposal. The union appears to be quite united with what they're looking for and it's not based on just a few high priced stars or Scott Boras. Jared Walsh even talked about taking BP with his ear buds in so if there was an update on things he was available at all times and would be able to gather info and pass it along to his teammates so they could stay updated. The players have been discussing their desires with each other for years. They have given Meyer their list of demands and now it's on him to get them what they want. Characterizing Boras or Scherzer or anyone as being able to single handedly blow anything up is mischaracterizing how the negotiations actually work. Boras isn't getting a copy of the new offer and giving a thumbs up or thumbs down like a king overseeing a gladiator match. The union stance has been discussed and decided over months and years of union talk. Boras doesn't have the power to step in and just shut it down.

The team reps were on zoom calls all week with the people actually in the room. Every time there was a report that the players and league reps were going back to their sides of the stadium to discuss the player reps for the entire league were on zoom calls. The player reps then were passing the info to the rest of the 40-man players through group texts. It's certainly not just Scherzer and Andrew Miller making all the decisions for the players. The entire union is kept up to date with what's going on and why the negotiators are doing what they're doing.

I'd expect them to use the same sort of data this year that they did last year. Tracking spin rate, release point, velo, etc. to see when he starts tiring in each start and make their decision on when to take him out based on that. I think they'll use it for all their young starters, and maybe even Bundy, Cotton, etc. I'd think their goal will be to get 32 or 33 starts out of him. The length of those starts based on the tracking of a variety of in game data points. I'd expect him to be up and down, like any pitcher. I'm not suggesting he should be viewed as any sort of savior or stud rotation arm, but I find it overly, and unnecessarily, negative for h20 to suggest he shouldn't be viewed as someone who can stick in the majors. An up and down season with some clunker starts, but more very good starts and an ERA around 4 seems more than reasonable based on his minor league track record and his performance over 20+ starts last year. He could certainly fall apart, just like is a risk with any other player, but I didn't see anything last year to suggest he shouldn't be counted on as a #4 or 5 pitcher this year with the chance to be a #3 type in the prime of his career. I like Sands as a sleeper pick. His walks give me a little pause, but in a bunch of 4 inning appearances I'd think he could do very well next year. It'll be a fun season (if we have one) watching young guys test themselves against the best of the best. Don't expect a world series run, but should have some fun stretches where the young guns are all dialed in for the same stretch and can provide some glimmer of hope for the future.

That's not really a reason why he won't stick. What about his pitches, performance, mechanics, etc. lead you to believe he can't get major league hitters out anymore? The hitters he faced in the show last year weren't MiLB hitters either. He faced the White Sox 5 times last year. In his 5th start against them he went 5.1 innings allowed 0 runs and won the game 1-0. So the best team in the division saw him 5 times and he was still able to slice them up his 5th time seeing them. That's at least a little sign of hope that he can be a #3-5 arm in a rotation is it not? Against the Sox last year he gave up 4 (ML debut), 5, 0, 3, and 0 earned runs. He actually got much better as the year went on and teams got tape on him. Certainly not suggesting he's going to have a 2.5 career ERA, but I don't get why it'd amaze you that people think Ober can stick. Over his last 10 starts he gave up 1, 3, 0, 2, 0, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1 earned runs while averaging 4.9 innings per start. He had a 3.31 ERA in what was essentially an average length start in terms of innings (average AL start last year was 5.0 innings). Seems rather reasonable to expect someone who dominated the minors, improved as his rookie year went on, and dominated the best team in the division as he faced them more to be able to stick in the majors.

Madden is not shy about his dislike of Boras. He's not exactly the best source here. He was saying the same stuff 2 years ago after covid. Boras is absolutely powerful, but I find it hard to believe he got the actual negotiators and the rest of the 1200 players in the union that he doesn't represent to just do what he wants. Of course he has sway. He represents a large chunk of the best players, and thus most powerful players, in the game. But I find it hard to believe he single handedly blew this thing up. This wreaks of a guy with a bone to pick with Boras doing the same thing he's been doing for years and blaming all of baseball's problems on the "Avenging Agent" (his favorite term for Boras).

You're again assuming they're spending to their limit now. Do you know that 40M wouldn't have just put them up to 45% of revenue being spent on payroll? Do you know they didn't just pocket an extra 40M in extra profit that they could've spent and still pocketed 100M (or whatever you or they find to be an acceptable profit for the year)? Why should I, as a fan, care if that 40M incremental spending would do a lot or a little for their revenue if they're pocketing 150M in profit each year? That's the argument the players are making. The teams are claiming they can't spend an extra 40M cuz they don't have it. They say they aren't making enough, or any, profit year over year. The players are calling them liars. I tend to agree with the players. If there was no profit in baseball billionaires would quit buying teams and running them like businesses. If the Twins stick at 90ish million for their payroll in 2022 I'm going to be pissed. Not because I think the extra 30 or 40M means they're going to win the world series, but because I don't watch the Twins or pay astronomical prices to go to games for the Pohlads to pocket an extra 30 to 40M each year. The Twins can spend in the 120-140 range with ease and the Pohlads still pocket 10s, if not 100s, of millions a year off them. I want an extra 40M spent to add 5 wins even if those 5 wins get the Twins to a 75 win record.

They're all raking in money and more than happy with the status quo. If they weren't they'd be the ones pushing for change. It annoys me to no end when Manfred gets up there and says the owners are fighting for more competitive balance and to attempt to stop tanking. JUST STOP TANKING! They control their teams. If they want to get rid of tanking just quit doing it. But that isn't their goal. Their goal is to make money. Which I get. Takes money to run a team. But quit acting like the players are the ones stopping you from not tanking. Just quit doing it.

I've given you an explanation a number of times. You are working on the assumption that low payroll teams are spending to their limits, and not just to make profits while spending far less than they could. I, and clearly the MLBPA, reject that assumption. I think the low payroll teams could spend significantly more if they chose to, or were forced to. Raising the CBT would allow the big boys to have an even wider advantage at first, yes. But those low spending teams would adjust how they run their teams. Where people truly differ from you is the idea that the gap in parity is one of need and not one of profit driven greed by a subset of owners who are happy to deposit their revenue sharing checks directly into their bank accounts and not into the product on the field. I'm a proponent of a hard cap and floor as that forces teams to spend. Players aren't because it caps the top of the market salaries. Owners aren't because it forces them to open their books. But beyond that the best way to get the tanking teams to quit tanking is to make it less profitable to tank. Or preferably to make it not at all profitable to tank. As a Twins fan I don't want the rules changed to pander to the Pohlads and their pocket book padding. While the rules are in place I want them to use the best strategy possible within those rules to try to build a sustainable winner. But when it comes to the CBA I want it to force the Pohlads (and every owner) to be competitive and try to win. I realize that won't happen because they're mostly business people trying to make a profit, but it doesn't mean I think we should kill the competitive spirit of the owners who actually care about winning. So I say make it a bad business move to not try to win by letting the big boys go balls to the wall on trying to win. See how quickly the Pohlads are able to spend a little more when they can't be profitable without winning.

I honestly don't know if you're agreeing with me or what your point is here. What would stop them from spending 3/4 of what they spend now? A floor. That's why I said a floor is the way to get low payroll teams to pay more. And because 2/3 of the league doesn't want to spend more they won't sign off on a floor and that's why I said it wasn't coming anytime soon. Or the other option is to blow the whole system up. No more CBT. No more revenue sharing. Make the low payroll teams figure out a way to be competitive without their guaranteed money from the other owners. But this is the same conversation we had last night on a different thread.

Them only sharing it with the league doesn't solve the problem of the players not trusting them and them being able to cry poor when they aren't. That's the entire problem. The players think the teams are making X but the league says they're making Y. A bottom CBT based off Y doesn't solve the problem of the players still wanting it based on X. If the teams won't open their books there's no way to execute your plan that actually changes the teams at the bottom being more competitive. And I don't see how your proposal is any different than a floor. If you're going to tax the people at the bottom it would act the exact same as the arbitrary floor. Telling Pittsburgh they have to spend 50% of revenue on the major league payroll still leads them to spending $X more than they normally would've on veterans like Simmons. I fail to see any difference. If you're forcing people to spend more than they want the problem remains the same. Unless, as I said before, you're assuming the low revenue teams are currently spending so little because they are truly making that much less. So the answer really becomes a floor and cap or you scrap all the CBT or revenue sharing rules and make the teams try to be competitive every year to earn their fan's money. If revenue sharing is going to be a thing you need a floor and cap if you want to force more competition. Just a cap does nothing. As we've seen since it's been implemented. I'd also bet that if you put any sort of floor in and forced Pittsburgh to spend the extra 35M they'd change the strategy for rebuilding. Teams rebuild this way because they can make a ton of money by convincing their fans this is the best way to do it. The reality is they've got a bunch of real smart people who dig through the CBA with a fine tooth comb and find every way to take advantage of every rule. Change the rules and they'll change their strategy. Based on the current rules I have no desire for the Twins to trade prospects for major leaguers, but I do want them to spend to their normal levels. Building through the system being the best way to build for a team unable (unwilling?) to spend doesn't mean you can't spend on the major league team, too. Picks aren't why teams refuse to spend on payroll, money is. Nobody hits on enough high first round picks for it to be a great strategy for picks alone. Trading veterans for more prospects is part of tanking, but you have to get good veterans in order to trade them anyways which means you should pay some veterans to get the good ones. Teams don't spend because they don't want/have to. They have no motivation to put a better product on the field because they're guaranteed to make money either way. Take away their safety blanket. Change the rules. And they'll change how they build their teams.

My concern with that is that it leads to the same problems we have now of the teams saying they're broke and the players calling them liars. The owners are never going to open their books for anything less than a hard cap/floor situation and I don't know if they'd even do it then. Their ability to work in the grey areas of what constitutes baseball revenue and what doesn't is something I don't think they'd give up lightly.

How do you determine who is spending enough not to be taxed and who isn't? Same way as the CBT? So you put in an arbitrary number and the teams have to stay above it to not be taxed? So you're proposing a soft floor to go with the soft ceiling?

I'd have to spend much more time going through that plan to actually say if I like it or not, but I love the creativeness without diving deep enough to run some scenarios through my head.

I'll start by saying I'm a fan of cap/floor based off revenues, but that'll never happen because neither side wants it. And I want to shrink the disparity between high and low revenue teams. But you're coming at things from the idea that owners are spending what they can and low revenue teams are so far behind because they have to be. I think the MLBPA disagrees with that stance. I think they think lower revenue teams could spend more and choose not to. And I can't totally disagree with that. Especially since we already pretty well know that low revenue teams don't even spend their revenue sharing money back into the payroll. The MLBPA seems to be looking to take the bumpers away from the low revenue teams and make them actually compete. Do you disagree that the Twins would make more money if they filled Target Field more? The MLBPA is basically arguing that they should lose revenue sharing and force them to actually do things to improve their product and get fans in the stands. Revenue sharing takes away the competition and allows certain owners to make money off the owners who are truly trying to compete. I don't want them to neuter Cohen, et al and their big spending. Forcing the top teams to quit trying so hard has clearly not lead to the bottom teams trying harder. You want to see teams actually try to win? Take away their safety blanket and make them actually have to perform to earn their money. Maybe the compromise is to keep the CBT level for this CBA while lowering revenue sharing. Give the Pirates, Rays, Guardians, and Twins of the world a 5 year runway to adjust how they do things without their safety blankets from the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees. Then for the next CBA you fight for dramatic increases to the CBT and let the big boys eat.

Yes, but that floor is 26 rookies. That's not helping anything. The floor I'm talking about isn't 18.2M (700k*26 players). I'm talking 100+ million. That means you have to sign major league veterans or agree to pay your young guys way more than the minimum.

Sounds like nothing is emerging now. But I think the player's strategy of higher minimum salary and higher CBT is bad for the game. In theory it forces the lower payroll teams to pay more while allowing the big payroll teams to spend more so theoretically there's more money going to players, but what I think would happen in practice is the lower payroll teams would spend even less on veterans as they're forced to spend more on the young guys while the big payroll teams would sign even more of the veterans since they can go even higher before hitting the CBT. The only way to actually force the low payroll teams to spend more on payroll is an actual floor. And that isn't coming anytime soon.

He certainly hasn't lived up to the expectations of being the next Miguel Cabrera. He's been a good major league player, but not the 3 hole hitting, .300 BA, 40 HR guy people had in their dreams. From the outside he never seemed to have the desire or "need" to be a great hitter, but was happy being a good power hitter. I wonder what he may have been if he were 10-15 years older and played in the era just before this and 200 Ks a year was still somewhat embarrassing and people still cared a lot about BA. He fell in love with 450 foot HRs and slugging % which played right into this era of baseball. But when he's been at his best he's sprayed the ball all over with a nice short swing. He's disappointed, but still been more than useful during his Twins career.