SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 10, 2022 19:11:16 GMT -5
This is potentially significant... Many thought this is why the sox drafted Nick Yorke with the intention of getting a pick instead next year because they didn't like the board. Those analysists were dead wrong!!!
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 10, 2022 19:20:46 GMT -5
My thoughts on the new CBA
-One of the most under-publicized rule changes is the "Rocker-Rule" where a Top 300 player is required to be offered a a minimum 75% of the slot. Many also thought the Red Sox drafted Nick Yorke with the intent to punt the pick and get a first rounder next year instead. This is a huge deal because teams that hate their draft boards will have a lot harder time intentionally deferring to the next years draft with extra spending money
- Players in their 5 years remain indentured servants. I guess the Player's committee made up of established veterans figured younger players still need to earn their stripes too -No draft pick compensation is interesting. It hurts small market clubs more than the free market. Still with CB picks they should end up fine
-Universal DH employs more older players who can't play defense in the NL.
-The new rookie performance draft pick compensation is interesting, but service time will still be manipulated by larger clubs and I don't see uncompetitive teams in a rebuild just calling up top prospects in exchange for a 3rd round pick, Will need to be a Supplemental 1st round to make this real
- Raising the luxury tax threshold was a no brainer. It ruined baseball. Maybe the Red Sox can get Mookie back?
- International Draft is the biggest game changer and require extensive intentional scouting departments. Hopefully those picks can be traded.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Mar 10, 2022 19:24:02 GMT -5
When a 1/3 of the union reps voted no and the owners voted unanimously yes, it says something about the deal.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 10, 2022 19:24:27 GMT -5
...have you watched a game? Every situation, pitching change, strike zone box, mound visit, inch of all in the park are all covered in ads. Frankly a uni patch might just be lost in the noise. I hope that they do the patches like the NBA which fit pretty seamlessly. I am very aware. My point is that the uniform was the last bastion of tradition. It’s the uniform Ted Williams wore… now brought to you by Exxon. it is definitely understandable, bruh. But we need you in the Game Day thread. I hope you can look past the visual interruption.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 10, 2022 19:29:38 GMT -5
When a 1/3 of the union reps voted no and the owners voted unanimously yes, it says something about the deal. that is probably true. the owners are going to have to spend the money or this will happen again. If somehow the shares of player revenue go up at the end of the deal, then the deal will have been successful. Something like 50/50 or what is in line with other major sports leagues. We really won't know until then.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 10, 2022 20:32:40 GMT -5
As much as I would like to hear that baseball is about to start, I think it's important that the players push back one more time. The reason is that the end-values on CBT and minimum salary will put them into a similar dilemma that they're in now, the next time the CBA expires. Over the life of this CBA the CBT is currently set to increase at ~1.5% annually while the minimum salary increases at ~2.7%. If we assume that inflation remains over 3% during the life of this deal then the players' buying power will diminish and if we assume that baseball revenue continues to grow at a much higher rate (safe to assume right now) then the players may find that their share of revenue is even lower 5 years from now than it is today. If the players sign today, then I expect another lockout in 5 years with the owners once again attempting to retain the status quo. Edit: Well, I guess they said yes. See you guys on this thread again in 5 years. Minimum went from $570,500 to $700,000 to start with, an 22.7% increase over the last CBA. I think they did darn well there, from start to finish 36.7% higher than last CBA. I just don’t see the issue going from $570,500 to $780,00 in five years. Let's wait on the those CBT rules, that is likely a problem. - The minimum went from $535,000 in 2017 (first year of last CBA) to $700,000 in 2022 - that's a 31% increase. - The collective bargaining tax went from 195m to 230m - that's an 18% increase. - Revenue in 2016 was ~9.03bil, if we estimate revenue in 2021 as 11bil (I still haven't seen official numbers) - that's a 22% increase. The reason it looks like the players did very well was because their last CBA's YoY increases trailed revenue, and even inflation, considerably. But if we compare it to the dollars from 2017 it doesn't seem impressive and if compare it to 11.5bil revenue (estimated revenue for 2021 w/o the pandemic) then the revenue projection of 27% causes these numbers to fall short. After these changes, and what has been reported, I estimate that players' share of revenue will increase from 47% to 48-48.5%, which is a nice short-term win. But if we assume that overall revenue growth goes back to its pre-pandemic ~5% then revenue will increase by a total of 27.6% then the players' revenue would have to increase by 17.6% just to retain their 2021 estimated 47% of revenue (assuming this deal raises them to ~48.5%). But given that the minimum is only increasing by 10.2% and the CBT is only increasing by 6.1%, it seems the players will be much worse off long-term as a result of this agreement. Have to hand it to the owners' negotiators. They realized that they weren't going to roll-over the players like they did in the last two CBA negotiations so they changed tactics and gave them almost everything they wanted while (almost) assuring that the players' revenue percentage is reduced by the end of the agreement and placing the owners in an even stronger position come the next CBA negotiation. It must be hard to convince players to vote against a deal that's good for them today, in the interest of the players who will be playing 5 years from now, when 70%+ of them won't be around to suffer the consequences. Then again, there could be another pandemic, or the 5% YoY revenue increases could go down - the players took the sure/easy money today without the risk.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 10, 2022 20:41:49 GMT -5
When a 1/3 of the union reps voted no and the owners voted unanimously yes, it says something about the deal. I agree. The biggest takeaway was that the 8-member executive panel all voted against it. Essentially the owners broke the union and got what they wanted (a larger piece of long-term revenue) while giving the majority of players what they wanted (a larger piece of short-term revenue).
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Mar 10, 2022 20:49:14 GMT -5
When a 1/3 of the union reps voted no and the owners voted unanimously yes, it says something about the deal. I agree. The biggest takeaway was that the 8-member executive panel all voted against it. Essentially the owners broke the union and got what they wanted (a larger piece of long-term revenue) while giving the majority of players what they wanted (a larger piece of short-term revenue). not trying to sound argumentative...but in an industry that has been around for 140 years, isn't 5 years short term by definition. If somehow the players share of revenue was to increase 2-3 %, wouldn't that be a success for the players ?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 20:57:29 GMT -5
I'm with you. It feels like they're close and that this latest squawking from the owners is a last ditch attempt to push their narrative (that they're the only ones moving to the center even though they made zero movement before their original artificial deadline). I think it gets done by the weekend.
It's clear to me that the owners are afraid of the Players League option for MLBPA and they know that they have to make concessions.
Players league can`t happen overnight. I`m good at thinking outside the box, but this is ridiculous. I'm gonna go with "tongue in cheek," over "ridiculous." Either way, it worked!
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 21:01:40 GMT -5
I'm no fan of Dick Durbin, but I am a fan that he's a fan: Wow, it's amazing how fast a kick to the owners' collective crotch by a senator was followed by an end to their lockout...
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 21:13:55 GMT -5
So what is the role of the executive subcommittee if their votes count the same as the team reps? They're just 8 extra voters from a random assortment of teams? Does it exist to give rich veterans a little more clout? If so, it certainly didn't matter this time.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 21:17:38 GMT -5
This is potentially significant... But didn't Rocker refuse the physical?
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 21:31:20 GMT -5
So DH in the NL now? That seems big. Boo. I wish they got rid of it altogether.
The average NL game features four ABs by pitchers, two by each starter, all early in the game. Whoop-de-doo -- the average game features about 70 total ABs.
If it bothers you so much, go get a beer when the pitcher comes up. Make a sandwich. Use the head.
Watching a pitcher bunt or leave his bat on his shoulder is more than made up for by the occasional homer or Rick Porcello doubling off of his old buddy Scherzer, not to mention the extra strategy involved as the game progresses. It's an abomination, Big Papi or no Big Papi.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 10, 2022 21:48:26 GMT -5
Great news! I felt for sure Feltman, German, and Santos would be gone with a good possibility for Gimenez, although not sure he could stick the whole year. This is an added bonus for “depth based” teams. I predict almost 80% likely that this time next year we are happy we didn’t lose atleast one of those players. ( good luck measuring that prediction. I don’t even know how to quantify it) Simply saying I think at least one of those players will be a definite keeper on the 40 man roster next year and be seen as a contributor to the 2023 team in a meaningful manner I don't think this is good for the Red Sox. I have every confidence in CB's ability to identify unprotected players none of us have ever heard of and find real gems. His first two selections were Jonathan Arauz, who could give us some low-cost years as a decent utility guy, and the already-studly Garrett Whitlock.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,837
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Mar 10, 2022 21:55:48 GMT -5
There will enough time to diagnose the CBA. For now, I am ecstatic for the return on my beloved. BOSTON RED SOX !!
… brought to you by Lockheed Skunkworks! According to MLB Trade rumors: “ The league also succeeded in its desire to add advertising patches to player uniforms, which will generate tens of millions in revenue itself.” This might be it for me. I can’t have corporate America elbowing in on every possible aspect of the things I love. Eh, I hated the concept when the NBA started with it a few years back. But it hasn't affected my interest in the games. The only time you really notice it is when a guy is at the free throw line and the camera zeros in on him. The uni patches didn't diminish my pleasure over seeing the Celtics beat the Nets on Sunday with the crowd chanting "Kyrie sucks!" in the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 10, 2022 21:55:53 GMT -5
I agree. The biggest takeaway was that the 8-member executive panel all voted against it. Essentially the owners broke the union and got what they wanted (a larger piece of long-term revenue) while giving the majority of players what they wanted (a larger piece of short-term revenue). not trying to sound argumentative...but in an industry that has been around for 140 years, isn't 5 years short term by definition. If somehow the players share of revenue was to increase 2-3 %, wouldn't that be a success for the players ? For the owners/industry, I agree that's short term. But for a player who averages 5.5 years for a career, it's quite long-term. I think that's how each side wins. If the players gain 2% (on the high-end imo, but too early to say) in year 1, but they end-up down by 1-2% by year 5, I think most of the players would be content with that. On the flip-side, the owners would be thrilled by it because the CBA ends with them better off than they are today. To illustrate what I mean: End CBA 2021: 47% (player's percentage of revenue) CBA 2022: 49% End CBA 2026: 45% CBA 2027: 47% End CBA 2031: 43% Over a 5-year period the players do well, but the owners end-up ahead by the end. The really sneaky part is, if the owners only reduce the end-CBA by 0.5%-1%, the players will end-up much better off over the 5-year period but the owners still come-out ahead. One more thing to note - I'm not even accounting for the uniform patches. If the owners make 10mil per team (this is about what the NBA makes on average) then they just added $300mil. To contrast, the players' big win for additional awards to the pre-arb pool was for a whopping $50mil.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 10, 2022 22:01:14 GMT -5
This is potentially significant... But didn't Rocker refuse the physical? Not only did he refuse the Mets team physical, but Rocker and boras were attempting to force feed the met front office some medical records from a dr boras had found. Anybody who has had a serious medical issue knows full well about going dr shopping, or that different dr's can and will have differing opinions on an issue. When there is the possibility of a serious one? It's always best to have multiple. coming from someone who has been down that line.. i know exactly how it can be and sometimes 2 dr's will differ on diagnosis and treatments even for a serious issue. With the Mets and Rocker, all the media hoopla about an elbow issue and Boras wanting to force the mets into going by some dr HE had found and that medical reference only? it was beyond preposterous on both his and rocker's part to think the mets would have any trust/faith in doling out millions for possible damaged goods and they knew it, which is why they refused a proper medical evaluation.. Scared of the results.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 10, 2022 22:01:35 GMT -5
- Players in their 5 years remain indentured servants. I guess the Player's committee made up of established veterans figured younger players still need to earn their stripes too You know Marvin Miller and the union wanted that. It was seen as supply and demand. Less free agents each year, meant higher salaries.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 10, 2022 22:11:58 GMT -5
not trying to sound argumentative...but in an industry that has been around for 140 years, isn't 5 years short term by definition. If somehow the players share of revenue was to increase 2-3 %, wouldn't that be a success for the players ? For the owners/industry, I agree that's short term. But for a player who averages 5.5 years for a career, it's quite long-term. I think that's how each side wins. If the players gain 2% (on the high-end imo, but too early to say) in year 1, but they end-up down by 1-2% by year 5, I think most of the players would be content with that. On the flip-side, the owners would be thrilled by it because the CBA ends with them better off than they are today. To illustrate what I mean: End CBA 2021: 47% (player's percentage of revenue) CBA 2022: 49% End CBA 2026: 45% CBA 2027: 47% End CBA 2031: 43% Over a 5-year period the players do well, but the owners end-up ahead by the end. The really sneaky part is, if the owners only reduce the end-CBA by 0.5%-1%, the players will end-up much better off over the 5-year period but the owners still come-out ahead. One more thing to note - I'm not even accounting for the uniform patches. If the owners make 10mil per team (this is about what the NBA makes on average) then they just added $300mil. To contrast, the players' big win for additional awards to the pre-arb pool was for a whopping $50mil. There is no way, an advertiser should pay the same to an MLB team as they pay a NBA team. The NBA has way more close ups, has more nationally televised games and has bigger stars.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 22:19:44 GMT -5
But didn't Rocker refuse the physical? Not only did he refuse the Mets team physical, but Rocker and boras were attempting to force feed the met front office some medical records from a dr boras had found. Anybody who has had a serious medical issue knows full well about going dr shopping, or that different dr's can and will have differing opinions on an issue. When there is the possibility of a serious one? It's always best to have multiple. coming from someone who has been down that line.. i know exactly how it can be and sometimes 2 dr's will differ on diagnosis and treatments even for a serious issue. With the Mets and Rocker, all the media hoopla about an elbow issue and Boras wanting to force the mets into going by some dr HE had found and that medical reference only? it was beyond preposterous on both his and rocker's part to think the mets would have any trust/faith in doling out millions for possible damaged goods and they knew it, which is why they refused a proper medical evaluation.. Scared of the results. I'm ready for the payoff: "With the 21st pick in the 2022 draft, the Boston Red Sox select... Kumar Rocker, pitcher from Vanderbilt."
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Mar 10, 2022 22:22:02 GMT -5
For the owners/industry, I agree that's short term. But for a player who averages 5.5 years for a career, it's quite long-term. I think that's how each side wins. If the players gain 2% (on the high-end imo, but too early to say) in year 1, but they end-up down by 1-2% by year 5, I think most of the players would be content with that. On the flip-side, the owners would be thrilled by it because the CBA ends with them better off than they are today. To illustrate what I mean: End CBA 2021: 47% (player's percentage of revenue) CBA 2022: 49% End CBA 2026: 45% CBA 2027: 47% End CBA 2031: 43% Over a 5-year period the players do well, but the owners end-up ahead by the end. The really sneaky part is, if the owners only reduce the end-CBA by 0.5%-1%, the players will end-up much better off over the 5-year period but the owners still come-out ahead. One more thing to note - I'm not even accounting for the uniform patches. If the owners make 10mil per team (this is about what the NBA makes on average) then they just added $300mil. To contrast, the players' big win for additional awards to the pre-arb pool was for a whopping $50mil. There is no way, an advertiser should pay the same to an MLB team as they pay a NBA team. The NBA has way more close ups, has more nationally televised games and has bigger stars. Obviously, it's been a long time since any of us saw a MLB game.
There are tons of close-ups in baseball, of the batter at the beginning of each AB; of the pitcher, many times throughout the game; of fielders when they make a good play... tons of them.
EDIT: Also, there are twice as many MLB games in a season as NBA games. And there are more eyeballs on them.
EDIT (part deux): I consume most of my baseball either live (MiLB) or on the radio (MLB), so I won't see them anyway...
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Mar 10, 2022 22:30:28 GMT -5
How many years?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Mar 10, 2022 22:32:26 GMT -5
So DH in the NL now? That seems big. Boo. I wish they got rid of it altogether.
The average NL game features four ABs by pitchers, two by each starter, all early in the game. Whoop-de-doo -- the average game features about 70 total ABs.
If it bothers you so much, go get a beer when the pitcher comes up. Make a sandwich. Use the head.
Watching a pitcher bunt or leave his bat on his shoulder is more than made up for by the occasional homer or Rick Porcello doubling off of his old buddy Scherzer, not to mention the extra strategy involved as the game progresses. It's an abomination, Big Papi or no Big Papi.
Either way, it changes the calculus for a guy like Schwarber, I expect. Also makes JDM more tradeable. Just… interesting.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 10, 2022 22:59:00 GMT -5
Not only did he refuse the Mets team physical, but Rocker and boras were attempting to force feed the met front office some medical records from a dr boras had found. Anybody who has had a serious medical issue knows full well about going dr shopping, or that different dr's can and will have differing opinions on an issue. When there is the possibility of a serious one? It's always best to have multiple. coming from someone who has been down that line.. i know exactly how it can be and sometimes 2 dr's will differ on diagnosis and treatments even for a serious issue. With the Mets and Rocker, all the media hoopla about an elbow issue and Boras wanting to force the mets into going by some dr HE had found and that medical reference only? it was beyond preposterous on both his and rocker's part to think the mets would have any trust/faith in doling out millions for possible damaged goods and they knew it, which is why they refused a proper medical evaluation.. Scared of the results. I'm ready for the payoff: "With the 21st pick in the 2022 draft, the Boston Red Sox select... Kumar Rocker, pitcher from Vanderbilt." All the talent in the world. Worst thing (to me) is would probably give up 2y of the 4 team control before eligible for the rule5 draft with TJ and recoup time. Him getting.. 2.5? 3m? whatever slot is for 21st is no big deal. BTW.. He's not pitching again in Indy ball this year, right? Didn't that idea get scuttled?
|
|
|
Post by bosox904 on Mar 10, 2022 23:21:37 GMT -5
This is potentially significant... But didn't Rocker refuse the physical? Yes. Under the old rule it was only the top 50 pitchers. Teams also only had to offer 60% of the slot value to get their pick back.
|
|
|