Interesting change

23 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I think right now the Owners’ side is completely rudderless and adrift. What other explanation is there for “this is our final offer” last week including hidden text changes overnight, then a substantial shift this week?

I think you have a completely ineffective commissioner and some of the experienced owners like Reinsdorf who could lead groups of owners are staying on the sidelines, so the owners are swinging wildly from one day to the next. That leaves it impossible to guess what they will accept today.

I don't know that it is rudderless as much as a small revolt within the ranks with the new guys and the establishment.  I think a lot of those guys are not comfortable with Cohen and his potential spending going forward.  Not as much adrift as one group foot on the gas and other foot on the brakes.   I'm still stunned that Arte Moreno of all people wants to curb spending 

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Interesting change

I actually think I prefer the 14 team structure floated around yesterday as opposed to any 12 team scenario where the 3rd division winner is playing a 3 game series. 

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I think right now the Owners’ side is completely rudderless and adrift. What other explanation is there for “this is our final offer” last week including hidden text changes overnight, then a substantial shift this week?

I think you have a completely ineffective commissioner and some of the experienced owners like Reinsdorf who could lead groups of owners are staying on the sidelines, so the owners are swinging wildly from one day to the next. That leaves it impossible to guess what they will accept today.

The longer this has dragged out the less aligned the owners seem, beyond their willingness to lose games to stick it to the players.  A lack of real leadership on their side defensively isn’t helping find a resolution. 

1 minute ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Man. I've told myself I wouldn't get sucked in again 35 tweets ago. I'm next, save some hopium for me. 

Serious Question.  I get why raising the minimum wage is a big deal...we have 10 guys on the WS who get very nice raises.  I can understand why Mike Trout would want a higher CBT so the Yanks and Dodgers can fight to pay him even more money.  I don't understand what is in it for the average guy making 4 or 5 million.  For the average guy to miss paychecks in order to raise the CBT is a mystery to me.

18 hours ago, bmags said:

You should ask the players whether they will offer non-guaranteed contracts on the table in exchange for higher share of revenue since it doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Guarantees are certainly nice, but at the end of the day if the players in totality are receiving 8% less of the total revenue then their avg career earnings in relation to revenue will be 8% less than it would be with non-guaranteed contracts. Is there more risk? Sure. Would the spread of wealth have greater variance? Possibly, but at the same time the middle class has been cut out of much of baseball's growth regardless. Baseball isn't exactly a high turnover industry of which you are so replaceable that non-guaranteed contracts would greatly impact the majority of individuals. Turnover may be high in relation to other industries given the short careers, but the talent pool for employees is much lower than other fields.

If the pie has 1 million dollars and I give 48% to my workers but don't guarantee anyone's contract, I am still guaranteed to distribute $480,000 to my employees. That may mean I cut some bad contracts and sign some new ones, but the total distribution remains the same. 

If the pie has 1 million dollars and I give 40% to my workers, and guarantee contracts, then my total guaranteed distribution to players is $400,000. My turnover might be slightly lower because of the guarantee, but the average workers wages are also going to be lower. It would be more valuable to the average worker to have the opportunity to earn from the bigger piece of the pie than it would for some bad contracts to be terminated. While turnover would heighten slightly, the industry isn't flush enough with MLB talent by which my replaceability would go to a new flock; if anything, it would likely be redistributed to the middle class of the league and the other active players.

Edited March 8, 20224 yr by Look at Ray Ray Run

2 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Serious Question.  I get why raising the minimum wage is a big deal...we have 10 guys on the WS who get very nice raises.  I can understand why Mike Trout would want a higher CBT so the Yanks and Dodgers can fight to pay him even more money.  I don't understand what is in it for the average guy making 4 or 5 million.  For the average guy to miss paychecks in order to raise the CBT is a mystery to me.

As is the case in almost any industry, if the competition is paying the average player more, it's going to lift the salaries of the average player league wide. 

So if the CBT goes up and 5-7 teams push that threshold, then in turn it could cause the escalation of wages for the middle. This hasn't always worked in practice in baseball, but it has in other industries. 

Even though there's a gap between the biggest spenders and the smallest ones, in theory that gap should not continue to grow; so as those at the top spend more and more, the bottom should come up to remain competitive. This would help the middle-tier player of which the lower level teams are often "competing" for as they can't compete at the top of the market; at least they claim that, they all obviously could.

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

Serious Question.  I get why raising the minimum wage is a big deal...we have 10 guys on the WS who get very nice raises.  I can understand why Mike Trout would want a higher CBT so the Yanks and Dodgers can fight to pay him even more money.  I don't understand what is in it for the average guy making 4 or 5 million.  For the average guy to miss paychecks in order to raise the CBT is a mystery to me.

You actually got the answer to this yesterday - remember when we talked about how with a $180 million payroll cap the White Sox couldn't have signed Gravemann or Leury? The White Sox are a prime example here. They would, by every account we've ever heard, insist on staying below the tax line. They have 3-4 positions they need help at - backup catcher, starting pitcher, RF, and 2b (maybe reliever if someone were to take Kimbrel). 

Right now they have $13 million to spend below last year's tax level to fill those 4 positions. That means they'd be spending on average $3 million per spot, meaning everyone would be bargain hunting.

Blow that up to $230 million, suddenly the White Sox can spend $33 million while still staying under the tax. Now they go sign a Conforto (he gets more money out of it), they trade for Bassitt, and they still have $5 million to spend on 2 more positions. Upping this limit means that a team like the White Sox can bid on either mid or high level guys, and that gets those mid-level guys contracts.

12 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Serious Question.  I get why raising the minimum wage is a big deal...we have 10 guys on the WS who get very nice raises.  I can understand why Mike Trout would want a higher CBT so the Yanks and Dodgers can fight to pay him even more money.  I don't understand what is in it for the average guy making 4 or 5 million.  For the average guy to miss paychecks in order to raise the CBT is a mystery to me.

If you push up the bottom and the top, you push up the middle with it. 

15 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Serious Question.  I get why raising the minimum wage is a big deal...we have 10 guys on the WS who get very nice raises.  I can understand why Mike Trout would want a higher CBT so the Yanks and Dodgers can fight to pay him even more money.  I don't understand what is in it for the average guy making 4 or 5 million.  For the average guy to miss paychecks in order to raise the CBT is a mystery to me.

It's the hope owners have, to break the union by having those guys in that mid level stand up and say "what the fuck, let's play."

It's those mid level players who should be fighting for a cap and floor instead.   Without a floor, a lot of of those $8 million - $12 million aging veterans go away very quickly in place of cheap labor.     Look at the NBA, 30+ year old veterans go collecting checks for a very long time and for big $$$ while logging less than a dozen minutes per night.

  

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The part more interesting to me is the drop in revenue sharing money, because that is the money that supports the parasite franchises and rankin teams so that they’re massively profitable while 1500 people are watching their September games on TV. Cutting that share will sting those teams some.

I think the increased television revenue offsets this for them but the whole thing gives me a headache if I think about it too long as it will negatively impact or be neutral to the White Sox. 

38 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Guarantees are certainly nice, but at the end of the day if the players in totality are receiving 8% less of the total revenue then their avg career earnings in relation to revenue will be 8% less than it would be with non-guaranteed contracts. Is there more risk? Sure. Would the spread of wealth have greater variance? Possibly, but at the same time the middle class has been cut out of much of baseball's growth regardless. Baseball isn't exactly a high turnover industry of which you are so replaceable that non-guaranteed contracts would greatly impact the majority of individuals. Turnover may be high in relation to other industries given the short careers, but the talent pool for employees is much lower than other fields.

If the pie has 1 million dollars and I give 48% to my workers but don't guarantee anyone's contract, I am still guaranteed to distribute $480,000 to my employees. That may mean I cut some bad contracts and sign some new ones, but the total distribution remains the same. 

If the pie has 1 million dollars and I give 40% to my workers, and guarantee contracts, then my total guaranteed distribution to players is $400,000. My turnover might be slightly lower because of the guarantee, but the average workers wages are also going to be lower. It would be more valuable to the average worker to have the opportunity to earn from the bigger piece of the pie than it would for some bad contracts to be terminated. While turnover would heighten slightly, the industry isn't flush enough with MLB talent by which my replaceability would go to a new flock; if anything, it would likely be redistributed to the middle class of the league and the other active players.

Job security is one thing many unions negotiate for. Just look at how crazy the NFL reports is about Rogers getting 153 out of 200 million actually guaranteed. Guarateed contracts are immensely important and a huge advantage for the MLB players.

I’m not sure if it’s good or bad that the only baseball news coming out today is Bauer showing up at the union camp…

2 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's the hope owners have, to break the union by having those guys in that mid level stand up and say "what the fuck, let's play."

It's those mid level players who should be fighting for a cap and floor instead.   Without a floor, a lot of of those $8 million - $12 million aging veterans go away very quickly in place of cheap labor.     Look at the NBA, 30+ year old veterans go collecting checks for a very long time and for big $$$ while logging less than a dozen minutes per night.

  

The higher cap is for the middle level players.  Ian Happ explained it in a podcast.  The top guys will always get theirs but the middle guys are getting squeezed out because owners would rather pay a rookie league min than bump up against the cap.  

It's been eerily quiet.  One meeting so far today and not a peep since.  Even Nightengale has resorted to tweeting pics of Liam "Man of the People" Hendriks instead of throwing out inaccurate play by play of the meetings.

Edited March 8, 20224 yr by hogan873

1 minute ago, hogan873 said:

It's been eerily quiet.  One meeting so far today and not a peep since.  Even Nightengale has resorted to tweeting pics of Liam "Man of the People" Hendriks instead of throwing out inaccurate play by play of the meetings.

That's probably for the best lol

Edited March 8, 20224 yr by Bob Sacamano

15 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The higher cap is for the middle level players.  Ian Happ explained it in a podcast.  The top guys will always get theirs but the middle guys are getting squeezed out because owners would rather pay a rookie league min than bump up against the cap.  

I only see a salary floor helping the middle players.  Forces owners to pay.  A higher cap doesn't force anyone to pay, and actually just allows for the higher spenders to probably spend more likely on the bigger guys. 

Edited March 8, 20224 yr by Squirmin' for Yermin

14 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

It's been eerily quiet.  One meeting so far today and not a peep since.  Even Nightengale has resorted to tweeting pics of Liam "Man of the People" Hendriks instead of throwing out inaccurate play by play of the meetings.

Hopefully that means they are actually talking instead of trying to control the narrative through leaks.

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Hopefully that means they are actually talking instead of trying to control the narrative through leaks.

Hopefully!