MLB: there will be no economic concessions for labor peace

I fully support an unlimited length strike for the players to get what they want, as long as they fight for anyone other than the top 1% of player salaries.

This is an even bigger reason for the Red Sox to go for it this year.

Also, this is another indication that Manfred is completely worthless.

Yup. I kind of miss Bus Selig.

I've been saying this for years now - there is going to be a prolonged labor stoppage one way or another.

Silly me, I'm going to use logic here so I'll apologize up front. Now that the front office denizens have figured out they don't need to pay you for past performance, you need to have them pay you for current performance.

Now it's the MLBPA's turn to figure a few things out.

If I were in the MLBPA, I'd want half of salaries decided after the season as arbitrated based on performance starting rookie seasons. Players would then be paid almost what they're worth.

And the small market teams would laugh forever.

I'm not talking about arbitration like today. I'm talking about $/WAR.

Ownership will no doubt act like it's 1920 when negotiating salaries at the bargaining table, yet they all tout advanced analytics departments (even when they don't have them!). You can lay your money down that they use metrics like WAR to value players.

It's time for the MLBPA to say that out loud and demand that year over year payments be tied to those valuations in some fashion. It doesn't have to be dollar for dollar but paying Devers, for example, 5% of his actual worth in the coming year is one hell of a twisted business model.

Selig was a spineless tool of the owners, just like every commish since Bowie Kuhn. Kuhn was the last one who had the guts to stand up for the good of the game and right vs wrong, like most of his predecessors did. Since him? Getting the job has been nothing more than how to vote for enriching the owners and voting for their way only and since Manfred? Siding with small market owners only, narrowly defining his role even more.

I'd love to see a real, independent businessman put into the role.

The problem as a player would be that there’s no security. That’s the way the greater labor market has trended - toward independent contractors, constant switching of jobs, gig economy etc - but I can’t imagine average to slightly above-average players wanting to give up the prospect of a 4Y deal that sets them up for life. Then again, if you put up 3 WAR when you’re 25, and that’s fairly-valued with a salary of, say, 18M, you’re already set for life.

It’s an interesting idea. Probably too rational and progressive for Tony Clark to even sniff. I think Norm is right in that the crucial thing for the MLBPA is to get paid for current performance, but I’m not confident that they buy into that fully enough to implement it. From the quotes I’ve seen, every player seems to have a different idea of how to fix the situation. I just hope they learned their lesson from last negotiation, where they pushed for minor creature comforts while getting fleeced financially.

I agree that this will be a hard pill for the players to swallow, but in the longer term I don't see a way out of this if they don't work towards some sort of equitable pay scale. The flood of data has made it trivial for front offices to figure out where they should stick their money. That's exactly what they're doing. You've got a bevy of 20 to 25 year olds who are killing it at bargain basement prices. Why should they pay 30+ year olds who might struggle to be half as good?

The difficulty of negotiating such a change is obvious. You've got the aggrieved class of players in the middle who paid their pre-arb dues. They want a nice payday as a reward. This is doable but it will have a few details where the devil could lurk, so it will take time.

But none of that happens unless the players buy in, and that includes buying in to the pain of a strike. It's been almost 30 years since the last impass but I think baseball is there.

Anyone familiar with the history of these negotiations knows how much time it can take. Miller was a union organizer by profession. It took him many years and many baby steps before he got the players to come around, to understand their real value and the power they had, and to stick together through it all.

Are these guys ready for that, and can they look past their own interests? These are the same questions that always arise.

I dont know if I agree with this. The last 2 world champs, had key components where the players salaries were among the highest paid for their positions. I think teams want cheap players and look for them anywhere at the cost, often times, of their own success.

The players need to cut the control years...that has to be their main objective

In 2019 the Qualifying Offer went down for the first time in its history. We don't have the full numbers, 2018 numbers didn't come out till January of this year. That means the mean average of the top 125 players went down even after the Machado and Harper deals as revenues exploded. That's like the franchise tag or max NBA salaries going down as revenue goes up, something you never see happen. Those sports will never see the amount the players get go down as revenues go up, the players share is tied to revenues. So how isn't the MLB broken on a macro level?

It's crazy simple on a basic level with the NBA and NFL. Take total revenue calculate the players share and divide it based on number of teams and you have your salary cap. Using 2018 numbers that's about 160 million per team for the MLB.

Yet a bunch of teams can't afford $160 million payrolls in 2018. Each MLB team having their own TV deals being the huge issue, compared to other sports.

At a minimum you need to fix the revenue problem so you can set minimum salary levels for teams. This way the players get a guaranteed percentage that is based on revenue.

The current system is crazy, it's basically an honor system because teams have always increased spending as revenue goes up. The big market teams covering the amount the small markets can't afford. Till the small market teams got the current luxury tax rules passed. The goal was a ton more luxury tax money and the big spenders even having their draft picks moved back. Small market teams thought this would level the playing field. Then big market teams did what they never did before, they stopped spending more as revenues go up. A huge reason is the luxury tax line isn't tied to revenues, which is crazy. Just a bunch of limits determined when the last CBA was signed and they aren't even close to going up the same percentage as revenues.

Now the percentage the players get is going down, yet big market teams are seeing record profits. Heck the Red Sox owners want to get in on it now. Good luck fixing this mess now!

I will say this about the last CBA it did reduce spending and closed the gap between the small and large market teams. It just broke Baseballs economic system in the process. Granted it was a crazy unfair system to start with.