2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion Thread

[connorp]

I don’t think it’s the meager savings in the off-season that changes anything. What’s about to change is the money they won’t be making from the new TV deals starting this year, the new ad revenues from player uniforms, the new gambling revenue and the expanded playoff revenues the players have said will be nixed if a full season doesn’t happen.

 

The owners will give at some point this time around, there’s too much new money they’re giving up on if they don’t

 

Yeah this I agree with, all the top line rev is going to be gone and still all the operating expenses. Not to mention possible litigation with tv partners and whoever else. Not sure how that works

[Jimcanuck]

I don’t think it’s the meager savings in the off-season that changes anything. What’s about to change is the money they won’t be making from the new TV deals starting this year, the new ad revenues from player uniforms, the new gambling revenue and the expanded playoff revenues the players have said will be nixed if a full season doesn’t happen.

 

The owners will give at some point this time around, there’s too much new money they’re giving up on if they don’t

 

That's what I meant by savings turning to losses.

[Jimcanuck]

Yeah this I agree with, all the top line rev is going to be gone and still all the operating expenses. Not to mention possible litigation with tv partners and whoever else. Not sure how that works

 

The TV deals would have labour dispute clauses. Typically with these clauses neither party pays damages to the other, contract performance is simply suspended.

[saskjayfan]

The TV deals would have labour dispute clauses. Typically with these clauses neither party pays damages to the other, contract performance is simply suspended.

 

If the players don't move off their desire to eliminate revenue sharing we're never going to get a deal.

[Grant77]

If the players don't move off their desire to eliminate revenue sharing we're never going to get a deal.

 

Has anyone read a convincing explanation as to why the owners are so unified in favour of revenue sharing?

[jerb]

 

Jesse Rogers

@JesseRogersESPN

 

MLB and the MLBPA have been inside Roger Dean Stadium for over three hours. Unclear how much time they’ve spent together or in different rooms but neither side has come out yet.

[Terminator]

That's a good sign.

[connorp]

Has anyone read a convincing explanation as to why the owners are so unified in favour of revenue sharing?

 

Parity is good for any league. You can’t let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

[Abomination]

That's a good sign.

 

Yeah. They should have been doing this a long time ago though. Better (literally) late than never.

[jerb]

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

Meeting breaking up. Among MLB proposals today: MLB raised its prearbitration bonus pool $5 million, to $20 million. Still a very large gap compared to players’ proposal. MLB also proposed to allow one more draft pick to be determined by lottery, now top 4. Players had proposed 8

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

No revised CBT proposal today. That’s an area of major importance to both sides.

Edited February 21, 2022 by jerb

[jerb]

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

Meeting breaking up. Among MLB proposals today: MLB raised its prearbitration bonus pool $5 million, to $20 million. Still a very large gap compared to players’ proposal. MLB also proposed to allow one more draft pick to be determined by lottery, now top 4. Players had proposed 8

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

The sides plan to meet again tomorrow. On MLB’s prearbitration bonus pool: the $20 million would go to 30 players. Union’s latest proposal distributed it to 150 players (at $115 million)

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

Sources: Major League Baseball withdrew its proposal asking the union to allow MLB control/ability to reduce minor league roster sizes. MLB also withdrew its proposal limiting the number of times a player can be optioned to 5. (Right now, MLB doesn’t have a proposed limit.)

 

Evan Drellich

@EvanDrellich

 

This does not mean MLB cannot or would not unilaterally attempt to reduce minor league roster sizes ever in future. (Remember, minor league players do not have a union of their own.)

[Jimcanuck]

These seem like minor details....

[Abomination]

These seem like minor details....

 

 

Yeah. It seems like MLB made a few different minor suggestions at least. There's no coverage about what the players offered. Was the only movement on MLB's side? If so, this is going to last a LONG time.

[John_Havok]

Has anyone read a convincing explanation as to why the owners are so unified in favour of revenue sharing?

 

Ive read a lot of speculation and saw a graph that showed that when the current revenue sharing agreement was updated, player salaries overall started to go down. Essentially, since there's no real direction for where revenue sharing money gets spent by the recveiving teams, they just take it and pocket it rather than spending on players, which is where it was intended to be spent.

 

Nothing concrete though. The union wants some sort of teeth in the RSA that would penalize teams that receive it and don't see any correlating player salary expenditure increases. Not like "you received 50 million in revenue sharing, your payroll needs to go up by 50 million" but something that shows these teams are using the revenue sharing for it's intended purpose.

[Ehjays]

[Ehjays]

[John_Havok]

Feels like the union is sensing some weakness in the ownership group and their very real desire not to miss any games and risk losing the expanded playoff revenue and are really going for the throat.

[Spanky99]

Ive read a lot of speculation and saw a graph that showed that when the current revenue sharing agreement was updated, player salaries overall started to go down. Essentially, since there's no real direction for where revenue sharing money gets spent by the recveiving teams, they just take it and pocket it rather than spending on players, which is where it was intended to be spent.

 

Nothing concrete though. The union wants some sort of teeth in the RSA that would penalize teams that receive it and don't see any correlating player salary expenditure increases. Not like "you received 50 million in revenue sharing, your payroll needs to go up by 50 million" but something that shows these teams are using the revenue sharing for it's intended purpose.

 

That was on Fangraphs, by the way. I believe there was one showing teams and there TV deals, it's insane money. These are huge savings for Rogers in the Baseball Ops.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Spanky99

[Ehjays]

[John_Havok]

 

Take nothing Bowden says with any seriousness. He's 100% in the owners corner and this was not a "moving backwards" proposal by any stretch of the imagination

[Spanky99]

Take nothing Bowden says with any seriousness. He's 100% in the owners corner and this was not a "moving backwards" proposal by any stretch of the imagination

 

This.

[saskjayfan]

Take nothing Bowden says with any seriousness. He's 100% in the owners corner and this was not a "moving backwards" proposal by any stretch of the imagination

 

They players asked for x amount for minimum salaries and then they increased the amount they asked for. They are moving in the wrong direction. On what planet do you think the players are being reasonable?

[John_Havok]

They players asked for x amount for minimum salaries and then they increased the amount they asked for. They are moving in the wrong direction. On what planet do you think the players are being reasonable?

 

They also offered a REDUCTION in the amount of players eligible for arbitration and lowered their draft pick #. IF you reduce the number of arbitration eligible players (ie reducing the cost of those players contracts in the process) you ask for concessions elsewhere. That's how it works.

 

Looking at 1 aspect of the offer and whining about it being a backwards step is as shortsighted and blatantly cherry picky as there is. Bowden has his head so far up the ownership groups ass he can probably see what they had for lunch.

[Abomination]

They also offered a REDUCTION in the amount of players eligible for arbitration and lowered their draft pick #. IF you reduce the number of arbitration eligible players (ie reducing the cost of those players contracts in the process) you ask for concessions elsewhere. That's how it works.

 

Looking at 1 aspect of the offer and whining about it being a backwards step is as shortsighted and blatantly cherry picky as there is. Bowden has his head so far up the ownership groups ass he can probably see what they had for lunch.

 

Neither of those things amount to very much money though. It affects what, maybe 5 arbitration players a year? They basically just moved money around. The total values are essentially the same.

[Spanky99]

Checkers.

[saskjayfan]

They also offered a REDUCTION in the amount of players eligible for arbitration and lowered their draft pick #. IF you reduce the number of arbitration eligible players (ie reducing the cost of those players contracts in the process) you ask for concessions elsewhere. That's how it works.

 

Looking at 1 aspect of the offer and whining about it being a backwards step is as shortsighted and blatantly cherry picky as there is. Bowden has his head so far up the ownership groups ass he can probably see what they had for lunch.

 

Super 2 is currently 22%. Players asked for 100% and moved to 80 then 75. They also asked for a bonus pool of 100 and when they reduced the amount they from 100 to 80 they asked for the bonus pool to increase to 115. When they lowered to 75K they tacked on an additional 25K per year in min salary. They aren't moving at all. In total dollar terms they are actually asking for more with their most recent ask.

 

The owners have given up draft pick compensation a big win for the players. They have agreed to higher minimum salaries another improvement. They have offered a bonus pool for pre arbitration players. They have offered a modest increase on the CBT. What they are offering is significantly better than what the previous deal is. Can they offer a bit more, sure, but the players are making ridiculous asks and aren't coming down off those asks.

[Spanky99]

Why so pro Owners? Why so pro Players? What say you???

 

Pro players as they are the show, and the monies are a drop in the bucket compared to the TV revenue of BILLIONS, wake up guys, our entertainment needs to be paid.

 

 

ETA: As do the MILB boys.

 

That's my take.

[saskjayfan]

Why so pro Owners? Why so pro Players? What say you???

 

Pro players as they are the show, and the monies are a drop in the bucket compared to the TV revenue of BILLIONS, wake up guys, our entertainment needs to be paid.

 

 

ETA: As do the MILB boys.

 

That's my take.

 

TV viewership dropped 12% from 2019 levels. Streaming services are a serious threat to lucrative MLB tv deals. Players already benefit from owners like Cohen who aren't treating this like a business. If he was he'd want a min profit of 300 million and the way he is spending he won't come anywhere close to that. Many owners do view it as business and want to generate a reasonable rate of return.

[Spanky99]

TV viewership dropped 12% from 2019 levels. Streaming services are a serious threat to lucrative MLB tv deals. Players already benefit from owners like Cohen who aren't treating this like a business. If he was he'd want a min profit of 300 million and the way he is spending he won't come anywhere close to that. Many owners do view it as business and want to generate a reasonable rate of return.

 

So you're boot-licking the owners, gotcha!

[saskjayfan]

So you're boot-licking the owners, gotcha!

 

and you're coddling the balls of Max Scherzer....got it.