2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[AdamGreenwood]

I'd probably be on the side of the player's union if they were focused on the milb players who get treated like dirt, most of which never make it to MLB and end up being 30 with no education or money.

 

But instead, they're focused on the guys making $25 million, trying to get $30 million a year.

Typical union. Pretend they're fighting for the little guy, but instead they're trying to make the real little guy pay $40 for a seat in the bleachers so that the top players can get a 5th house.

[Jimcanuck]

I'd probably be on the side of the player's union if they were focused on the milb players who get treated like dirt, most of which never make it to MLB and end up being 30 with no education or money.

 

But instead, they're focused on the guys making $25 million, trying to get $30 million a year.

Typical union. Pretend they're fighting for the little guy, but instead they're trying to make the real little guy pay $40 for a seat in the bleachers so that the top players can get a 5th house.

 

This reads like communism. Labour negotiation is capitalism at work. In this case, players capitalizing on their rare skills to maximize $$. Those that don't make the cut get zilch.

[Abomination]

This reads like communism. Labour negotiation is capitalism at work. In this case, players capitalizing on their rare skills to maximize $$. Those that don't make the cut get zilch.

 

The main issue is that the union only seems to be representing a very small portion of the players. That said, the players have the ability to do something about that (I assume).

[Spanky99]

Labour relations 101. Always look after the old guys and F the newbies. Lots of examples of this. One of the earliest was the Canadian breweries. Two wage structures, one for the old guys, one for the rookies. Management manipulated it like mad.

 

It was noted in the past that the PA were to look for a significant increase in salary or reduction in control, last I heard. It was a huge point in negotiations from what I gathered, have you read different?

[Spanky99]

I'd probably be on the side of the player's union if they were focused on the milb players who get treated like dirt, most of which never make it to MLB and end up being 30 with no education or money.

 

But instead, they're focused on the guys making $25 million, trying to get $30 million a year.

Typical union. Pretend they're fighting for the little guy, but instead they're trying to make the real little guy pay $40 for a seat in the bleachers so that the top players can get a 5th house.

 

I've read different, mate.

[Jimcanuck]

The main issue is that the union only seems to be representing a very small portion of the players. That said, the players have the ability to do something about that (I assume).

 

I can't see that being the case. The union has to ratify any deal by membership vote. While it is true the team reps are mostly older players on FA contracts, they and the negotiating team have to consider the needs of the entire membership, or the ratification may fail.

[TheHurl]

I'd probably be on the side of the player's union if they were focused on the milb players who get treated like dirt, most of which never make it to MLB and end up being 30 with no education or money.

 

IBEW isn't going to look out for students in Electricians programs. Only make sure that they are funded well enough that they are still attended.

 

It's not their job to look out for non-members. What MLBPA should have done is had a pressence when the media was all on the MiLB salary train. The PA is awful at the public perception piece in their jobs.

[John_Havok]

I'd probably be on the side of the player's union if they were focused on the milb players who get treated like dirt, most of which never make it to MLB and end up being 30 with no education or money.

 

The player's union doesn't represent minor league players though, only players on the 40 man roster. MILB needs their own union.

[AdamGreenwood]

This reads like communism. Labour negotiation is capitalism at work. In this case, players capitalizing on their rare skills to maximize $$. Those that don't make the cut get zilch.

 

If my post reads like communism, your post reads like Squid Game.

[glory]

 

A month ago I thought there was no chance the league would actually lose games over this. Now I'm wondering just how many games will be lost.

 

They better come to a deal by Feb 1 and start Spring Training on time.

[Jimcanuck]

 

A month ago I thought there was no chance the league would actually lose games over this. Now I'm wondering just how many games will be lost.

 

They better come to a deal by Feb 1 and start Spring Training on time.

 

Gotta wonder how much the pandemic is affecting the owner's desire to negotiate.

[Sammy225]

Gotta wonder how much the pandemic is affecting the owner's desire to negotiate.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing. If owners are hampered again by covid restrictions they will be in no rush to get a deal done.

[Abomination]

I've been saying this all along. The MLBPA is a hot mess. It feels like they're just throwing ideas against the wall and demanding the MLB to figure out how to make them work. The league is facing the strong likelihood of more lockdowns and significantly reduced money coming in, with some owners probably not having the money to actually pay the players this year, and no season is very much in their interests. I feel like the players, for the most part, are the only ones with anything of significance to lose this year, and their leadership knows if they don't decisively "win" the negotiations they're probably out. That means it's also in the best interests of the leadership of the MLBPA for there to be no season, as they can blame the league and have some control over the narrative they tell the players.

[Jimcanuck]

I've been saying this all along. The MLBPA is a hot mess. It feels like they're just throwing ideas against the wall and demanding the MLB to figure out how to make them work. The league is facing the strong likelihood of more lockdowns and significantly reduced money coming in, with some owners probably not having the money to actually pay the players this year, and no season is very much in their interests. I feel like the players, for the most part, are the only ones with anything of significance to lose this year, and their leadership knows if they don't decisively "win" the negotiations they're probably out. That means it's also in the best interests of the leadership of the MLBPA for there to be no season, as they can blame the league and have some control over the narrative they tell the players.

 

The horror. The horror.

 

Yes, I watched Apolcalypse Now Redux the other night.

[Abomination]

MLBTR has a "Guess the end date of the lockout" contest.

[AdamGreenwood]

Gotta wonder how much the pandemic is affecting the owner's desire to negotiate.

 

"Each player signed to a major league contract at the start of the season shall have his salary determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the number of games scheduled (not adjusting for weather-related postponements or cancellations) divided by 162, minus any advanced salary. In the event of an additional interruption or delay, the salary shall be determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the games played by the player’s club divided by 162."

 

"So, for player salary, that’s just pure prorated pay based on the games that actually get completed. For an example, if the season were stopped after 10 Cubs games, then Anthony Rizzo’s payment for the year would be his full-season salary ($16.5 million) times 10, divided by 162 = $1.02 million. "

 

So, while they don't have to pay the full amount if games get cancelled, they do have to pay the full amount if the games are played, but no audience is allowed.

I'm surprised this isn't brought up in the CBA talks. Some teams like the Dodgers get so much TV revenue they're fine, but a lot of teams rely on the gate and they simply can not afford to pay full salaries without attendance.

 

In that scenario, it's probably better for them to cancel the season than play to empty stadiums.

You would think the players would agree to a reduction in salary based on that, but of course, they won't agree to it.

[Brownie19]

"Each player signed to a major league contract at the start of the season shall have his salary determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the number of games scheduled (not adjusting for weather-related postponements or cancellations) divided by 162, minus any advanced salary. In the event of an additional interruption or delay, the salary shall be determined by multiplying his full-season salary by the games played by the player’s club divided by 162."

 

"So, for player salary, that’s just pure prorated pay based on the games that actually get completed. For an example, if the season were stopped after 10 Cubs games, then Anthony Rizzo’s payment for the year would be his full-season salary ($16.5 million) times 10, divided by 162 = $1.02 million. "

 

So, while they don't have to pay the full amount if games get cancelled, they do have to pay the full amount if the games are played, but no audience is allowed.

I'm surprised this isn't brought up in the CBA talks. Some teams like the Dodgers get so much TV revenue they're fine, but a lot of teams rely on the gate and they simply can not afford to pay full salaries without attendance.

 

In that scenario, it's probably better for them to cancel the season than play to empty stadiums.

You would think the players would agree to a reduction in salary based on that, but of course, they won't agree to it.

 

I suspect the argument is that if you're going to cut my salary because the stadium is empty, you need to increase it when the stadium is full.

 

The NHL started postponing games simply because of the capacity limits set by the government.

[John_Havok]

Some teams like the Dodgers get so much TV revenue they're fine, but a lot of teams rely on the gate and they simply can not afford to pay full salaries without attendance.

 

In that scenario, it's probably better for them to cancel the season than play to empty stadiums.

You would think the players would agree to a reduction in salary based on that, but of course, they won't agree to it.

 

TV revenue is one of the biggest revenue streams that gets shared through revenue sharing, so anything the Dodgers and the biggest markets would pull in this year would still be shared as normal to the clubs with lesser TV deals. Shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

However, teams should be quite worried down the road that TV deals are going to be drying up to a point. People are simply cutting the cord on cable TV and choosing streaming options far more often these days. The multi-billion dollar local TV deals are likely a thing of the past.

[Dick_Pole]

This is why it's so, so good that the Jays are owned by Rogers. Rogers will get their cut one way or another and have pretty good incentive to keep a strong team on the field. Rogers might be the best positioned owner out of the 30 teams to take advantage of 2022 viewing trends no matter where they head.

[glory]

However, teams should be quite worried down the road that TV deals are going to be drying up to a point. People are simply cutting the cord on cable TV and choosing streaming options far more often these days. The multi-billion dollar local TV deals are likely a thing of the past.

 

The entire local cable/RSN model is going to change in the next few years, and that's going to be a big hit for MLB teams who got fat off local TV deals for a long time. That might be why owners are so eager to get a win in this CBA because once the RSN money dries up, it's going to be impossible to recoup that type of money with a DTC model. Of course, Manfred is ready to go waist deep into gambling, so that should help compensate.

[John_Havok]

The entire local cable/RSN model is going to change in the next few years, and that's going to be a big hit for MLB teams who got fat off local TV deals for a long time. That might be why owners are so eager to get a win in this CBA because once the RSN money dries up, it's going to be impossible to recoup that type of money with a DTC model. Of course, Manfred is ready to go waist deep into gambling, so that should help compensate.

 

I'm fine with that TBH, but it also likely means sponsorships on jerseys(gag), even more digital ads on the field when the game is viewed via streams, and anything else they can come up with. Get ready to be bludgeoned even more mercilessly by ads in every way, shape and form they can conceive.

[RobinThicc]

You cant even notice a patch on a jersey lol

[John_Havok]

You cant even notice a patch on a jersey lol

 

Cant notice 1. You can notice a dozen of them.

[Deadpool]

Cant notice 1. You can notice a dozen of them.

 

A jersey is all patches. That's what separates it from a button up shirt.

 

Also, I notice that FTX logo on the umps just... all the time.

[RobinThicc]

Cant notice 1. You can notice a dozen of them.

Yeah if they overdo it, it will be bad.

 

 

Digital ads on the field is 100% worse.

[AdamGreenwood]

TV revenue is one of the biggest revenue streams that gets shared through revenue sharing, so anything the Dodgers and the biggest markets would pull in this year would still be shared as normal to the clubs with lesser TV deals. Shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

However, teams should be quite worried down the road that TV deals are going to be drying up to a point. People are simply cutting the cord on cable TV and choosing streaming options far more often these days. The multi-billion dollar local TV deals are likely a thing of the past.

 

 

I don't think so. Live sports is heavily in demand for advertisers. It's one of the few things, you can't illegally download or stream to avoid all of the commercials.

[itaos]

I don't think so. Live sports is heavily in demand for advertisers. It's one of the few things, you can't illegally download or stream to avoid all of the commercials.

Thankfully this is not true, love my live sports streamed without commercials.

[John_Havok]

I don't think so. Live sports is heavily in demand for advertisers. It's one of the few things, you can't illegally download or stream to avoid all of the commercials.

 

It’s not about that, it’s about people not wanting to pay what cable companies charge for their subscriptions, and the subsequent sports packages. More and more viewership every year is switching to streaming services for sports consumption. Not the illegal stuff, the legal ones. People don’t want to pay for s*** they don’t use anymore.

[connorp]

Thankfully this is not true, love my live sports streamed without commercials.

 

Is the viewing experience that much better? Games are formatted for commercial breaks, so either you’re going to change the channel for the break, or ignore the tv for that time. If you just like the quiet visuals, turn the commercials on mute lol

[AdamGreenwood]

Thankfully this is not true, love my live sports streamed without commercials.

 

Live sports have commercial breaks built in. What exactly happens during your live-sports streams?