2021-22 MLB Offseason Thread

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

There are public books on one team. The Braves lost 32 million in 2019. They lost 120 million in 2020 and they made 104 million in 2021. The Braves are a premier (top what- 6 or 8 franchise? The flagship franchise of the confederacy?) franchise, that also books decent revenue from the Battery- their real estate venture, and they’ve lost 50 million over the last 3 years. And the Braves don’t spend large amounts of money checking in at an active payroll at 120 and a payroll for competitive tax balance purposes at 155.  And, you know, they won the fucking Wood series so that’s probably helpful. 
so, analyzing the Braves financials:

they are a crown jewel franchise that has a huge regional following throughout the south and the whole country bc of their legacy on TBS

They won the entire fucking World Series 

They have a pretty profitable side gig going as business/land owners around their ballpark that’s pretty unique to them and counts in their revenue stream that dumbass journalists like Passan keep harping on

Even with all that they have gone pretty low key on their salaries, 

What has that gotten them?

A combined 60,000,000 loss over the last 3 years. Truly a breathtaking business to own. 
 

now, the baseball journalist would say- but Wulaw they made 103 million profit last year. Ok. Cool. So, if you can win the World Series and juice all your revenues that way with a payroll $70,000,000 below the CBT, which everyone expects people to spend to, and generate a ton of revenue as a land owner then you too can squeak out a profit margin slightly less than 20%. 
Remember- if they’d have spent to the CBT and didn’t have that other revenue they’d have broken even. In a year they won the World Series. So, I’m supposed to believe that the Braves show the average franchise is a gold mine?

yeah- no. It’s not. My bet is that a team like the Astros or Cardinals (or Braves if they spend up to the tax this year) is basically breaking even (mid tier market trying to compete by spending up to the CBT). Small markets would lose money if they spend up to the CBT. The CBT restrains big market teams from going crazy ensuring competitive balance. 
 

does the CBT need to stay exactly where it is for baseballs survival?  No, probably not. Is it in the ballpark of being a reasonable number?  Probably so. Is baseball some uniquely profitable business?  Not a chance. Do the players have it pretty good compared to labor in all other sports?  Yeah, yeah they do. Is it a good thing for the fans if they players set up a system where they suck all the profitability out of the game and get everything leaving the majority of the owners to operate around break even?  
I wouldn’t think so but your mileage may vary. 
I come from working class backgrounds. We were on free lunches at school when I grew up and my dad was a bread truck driver (blue collar union) and my mom was a receptionist. 
dad became an accountant and then a mortgage guy and mom became a teacher Donny the time I graduated they were doing better. I’ve owned 3 businesses but I’ve also worked for other people too some in management some as labor. I say this to say I think I have a pretty balanced view if labor and management relationship. The players aren’t getting screwed. The owners aren’t any example of what ownership should look like. The relationship is toxic. They are limiting what their business could be if bc of that toxic relationship and alienating customers. It’s all pretty stupid. 
 

[HtownHorn 14682]

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

There are public books on one team. The Braves lost 32 million in 2019. They lost 120 million in 2020 and they made 104 million in 2021. The Braves are a premier (top what- 6 or 8 franchise? The flagship franchise of the confederacy?) franchise, that also books decent revenue from the Battery- their real estate venture, and they’ve lost 50 million over the last 3 years. And the Braves don’t spend large amounts of money checking in at an active payroll at 120 and a payroll for competitive tax balance purposes at 155.  And, you know, they won the fucking Wood series so that’s probably helpful. 
so, analyzing the Braves financials:

they are a crown jewel franchise that has a huge regional following throughout the south and the whole country bc of their legacy on TBS

They won the entire fucking World Series 

They have a pretty profitable side gig going as business/land owners around their ballpark that’s pretty unique to them and counts in their revenue stream that dumbass journalists like Passan keep harping on

Even with all that they have gone pretty low key on their salaries, 

What has that gotten them?

A combined 60,000,000 loss over the last 3 years. Truly a breathtaking business to own. 
 

now, the baseball journalist would say- but Wulaw they made 103 million profit last year. Ok. Cool. So, if you can win the World Series and juice all your revenues that way with a payroll $70,000,000 below the CBT, which everyone expects people to spend to, and generate a ton of revenue as a land owner then you too can squeak out a profit margin slightly less than 20%. 
Remember- if they’d have spent to the CBT and didn’t have that other revenue they’d have broken even. In a year they won the World Series. So, I’m supposed to believe that the Braves show the average franchise is a gold mine?

yeah- no. It’s not. My bet is that a team like the Astros or Cardinals (or Braves if they spend up to the tax this year) is basically breaking even (mid tier market trying to compete by spending up to the CBT). Small markets would lose money if they spend up to the CBT. The CBT restrains big market teams from going crazy ensuring competitive balance. 
 

does the CBT need to stay exactly where it is for baseballs survival?  No, probably not. Is it in the ballpark of being a reasonable number?  Probably so. Is baseball some uniquely profitable business?  Not a chance. Do the players have it pretty good compared to labor in all other sports?  Yeah, yeah they do. Is it a good thing for the fans if they players set up a system where they suck all the profitability out of the game and get everything leaving the majority of the owners to operate around break even?  
I wouldn’t think so but your mileage may vary. 
I come from working class backgrounds. We were on free lunches at school when I grew up and my dad was a bread truck driver (blue collar union) and my mom was a receptionist. 
dad became an accountant and then a mortgage guy and mom became a teacher Donny the time I graduated they were doing better. I’ve owned 3 businesses but I’ve also worked for other people too some in management some as labor. I say this to say I think I have a pretty balanced view if labor and management relationship. The players aren’t getting screwed. The owners aren’t any example of what ownership should look like. The relationship is toxic. They are limiting what their business could be if bc of that toxic relationship and alienating customers. It’s all pretty stupid. 
 

Not only that, but why would the Braves spend more money when their current investment in salaries allowed them to win the WS, and that's with them missing Acuna, Ozuna, and Soroka for a majority of the season.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

Just now, HtownHorn said:

Not only that, but why would the Braves spend more money when their current investment in salaries allowed them to win the WS, and that's with them missing Acuna, Ozuna, and Soroka for a majority of the season.

Starting point is if they don't spend more then Freeman and most of their OF leave, right?  I mean, Acuna is coming back so that's obviously big for them, but just to keep the gang together it will probably cost them an extra 40 or 50 million, no?  I don't know- I'm not as conversant on the Braves salary cap situation or anything, but yeah, the price of success is that the payroll continues to climb, obviously.  

Now their revenue next year would have spiked if not for the strike, as attendance goes up and fans will stomach a price increase (say bye bye to that after the strike), so that will offset the additional spending if they were to keep the team together, but yeah, they aren't exactly minting money over there and again- it should be noted- that over the last 3 years, even with a strong 2021 they are in the hole $60 million or something like that.  That's not insignificant. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I mean, the industry spends something like 57% of its revenue on salaries, more than any other sports league

This is not close to being correct.

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

Well, Wulaw. Correct has never been his thing. 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

20 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

This is not close to being correct.

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/2/21/17035624/mlb-revenue-sharing-owners-players-free-agency-rob-manfred

 

Sorry- 56% per the ringer in 2018. Seeing as how revenue got shot to shit in 2020 and was down in 2021 I would assume that this number is probably a hair on the low side.

I mean, unless you want to be one of the asshole that tries to act like benefits aren't part of payroll, then, ok, you do you. I just know everytime I've ever calculated out the cost of employment for an employee I don't say- yeah- it's the salary b/c that would literally be insane and is done by no business ever.  

Feel free to link your sources on this and we can have a full on source off. 

BTW- this is just player salary.  Doesn't count FO, scouts, people that run the game day, concessions, guys that sell tickets, radio and tv broadcasters and on and on and on.  Nor bonuses to international players and drafted players (typically what- another 12-20 million depending upon where the team is picking and how aggressive they are in international FA).  It's not like the guys flying charter and staying in 5 star hotels is cheap, nor is the per diem.  This is all stuff that benefits the players (and it should!).

Edited to add- it might count minor league salaries but not clear on bonuses.  Also, it probably doesn't count the cost of insuring the big money deals, which could arguably be part of labor cost.  I know when I had key man life insurance on a couple of my employees I'd have considered that a labor cost- but I can certainly see why they wouldn't see it as a benefit of employment. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

6 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

Well, Wulaw. Correct has never been his thing. 

Damn it Derka, read the ringer article I posted.  I am correct. Or if I'm incorrect I'm incorrect in a way that as recently as 2018 the Players association was confirming was actually correct and showed those numbers to major media figures.

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

You stupid mother fucker, you just proved my point. Thank you, idiot. 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

11 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

You stupid mother fucker, you just proved my point. Thank you, idiot. 

I guess I am just so stupid I don't even understand your point.  I said 57% (which is a number I heard recently on a podcast).  He said- this is not even close to correct. I linked the article that the PA agreed with saying 56%. You call me a stupid mother fucker and an idiot.  Which I really don't get b/c I've never said anything bad about you, constantly tell people to knock it off and thought we were good. I guess I really am a stupid motherfucker b/c I'd have considered you someone that I really liked on the internet and thought we were cool.  Hell, last week I even defended you on a basketball thread that MoTown went after and said that your dad is a total badass.  Shrugs. If you want to explain it to me rather than literally just calling me hateful names I'm here for it.  Otherwise, ok cool hook em and have a nice life. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wulaw Horn

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

You still don’t get it, so on brand. Keep typing, bro. 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

1 minute ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

You still don’t get it, so on brand. Keep typing, bro. 

 Yes, I said as much and it's not a mystery, I don't get it. I was asking you politely to explain it to me but like I said- I've clearly totally and completely misread our relationship and I'm sorry for that. Seriously sorry. I thought you enjoyed interacting with me and I've enjoyed a couple of the PM's we've exchanged over the years. If I ever ran into you at a bar I'd happily buy you a drink. I've always enjoyed interacting with you. Sorry that apparently that isn't reciprocated. I will refrain in the future from interactions with you.  

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

I’m going to help you out, because you fucking need it.

Spoiler

I’m not Derka, you stupid fuck. 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

9 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

I’m going to help you out, because you fucking need it.

  Reveal hidden contents

I’m not Derka, you stupid fuck. 

So you pick a username aping his username and then act petulant when someone confuses that.  Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I had thought I completely misread a 15 year relationship with Derka and had lost a friend so I'm glad to see that's was wrong.  OK, Cool, Hook 'Em. 

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

Wulaw, new to MLB threads.

Now we can move on. Hopefully he promises to quit us again soon. 

[TonyTexas 10514]

Typical SO2.0. Just a fucking asshole who seldom adds to the discussion.  His typical posts are either putting someone down or telling people what to do or not do. He’s got little dick syndrome who still hasn’t gotten over not being chosen to be the hall monitor in elementary school. 
 

42 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

Well, Wulaw. Correct has never been his thing. 

 

34 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

You stupid mother fucker, you just proved my point. Thank you, idiot. 

 

28 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

You still don’t get it, so on brand. Keep typing, bro. 

 

21 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

I’m going to help you out, because you fucking need it.

  Hide contents

I’m not Derka, you stupid fuck. 

 

5 minutes ago, shadow_operative2.0 said:

Wulaw, new to MLB threads.

Now we can move on. Hopefully he promises to quit us again soon. 

 

[shadow_operative2.0 15984]

If idiot Wulaw had a fucking clue before typing all those thousands of words, none of that shit happens. 

[David Dennison 18860]

Imagine believing the Braves are losing money.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Yeah,  I thought it was well known those "public books" are boiler-housed bullshit with no resemblance to the actual finances.

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Yeah,  I thought it was well known those "public books" are boiler-housed bullshit with no resemblance to the actual finances.

The Braves are owned by a publicly traded company that has requirements to put out books for public consumption that comply with federal regulations for all businesses.  those books showed them taking a tax loss of $50,000,000.00 in 2019, $105,000,000.00 in 2020 and then turning a $100,000,000 profit in 2021.  That's public record, auditable fact. They are the only team we can make that claim to.  From that we can only extrapolate what other teams finances look like. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

34 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The Braves are owned by a publicly traded company that has requirements to put out books for public consumption that comply with federal regulations for all businesses.  those books showed them taking a tax loss of $50,000,000.00 in 2019, $105,000,000.00 in 2020 and then turning a $100,000,000 profit in 2021.  That's public record, auditable fact.

You really don't understand accounting, do you?

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You really don't understand accounting, do you?

I’m still waiting on your stuff refuting my ringer article. 
i know how to run a P&L for a couple million dollar business as I’ve had experience doing that.  Nothing more. Not a tax guy. I’d love to see it. Again- I’m not buying the idea the owners are losing their ass. I’m pushing back against the idea players are being taken advantage of in some major way. 

[Helobious 9454]

54 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The Braves are owned by a publicly traded company that has requirements to put out books for public consumption that comply with federal regulations for all businesses. 

Covid or not, $100 million loss to $100 million profit in one year doesn’t seem weird to you at all? 

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Imagine believing the Braves are losing money.

Do you think any of them didn't lose money in 2020?  Like, lots of it?

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

17 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Covid or not, $100 million loss to $100 million profit in one year doesn’t seem weird to you at all? 

Baseball gets something like 30% of their revenue from ticket sales.  Yeah- in a year where you have zero tickets sales that seems plausible (TV money was pro-rated down too of course).  

Edited March 3, 2022 by Wulaw Horn

[Beau Vine 54230]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

those books showed them taking a tax loss of $50,000,000.00 in 2019, $105,000,000.00 in 2020

If that's the "tax loss," then it includes amortization and depreciation, both of which are tax shields, which means those number reflect absolutely zero about how "profitable" they are.  
 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Beau Vine

[David Dennison 18860]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Do you think any of them didn't lose money in 2020?  Like, lots of it?

Something tells me that was an outlier.

If these teams want anyone to believe their cries of poverty, they need to open their books. Until then, I'm going to assume they are cleaning up.

[Blotto 23511]

Its amazing how many people keep saying this shit about Amazon. In what universe are billion dollar profits not "net profitable"? They publish this shit for everyone to see. They make a fuckton of profit. 

 

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

12 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So you pick a username aping his username and then act petulant when someone confuses that.  Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I had thought I completely misread a 15 year relationship with Derka and had lost a friend so I'm glad to see that's was wrong.  OK, Cool, Hook 'Em. 

I thought he was Derka all this time also

[Beau Vine 54230]

9 minutes ago, 4doorsMoreWhores said:

I thought he was Derka all this time also

Well, we already know how fucking stupid you are.

[4doorsMoreWhores 107]

18 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Well, we already know how fucking stupid you are.

And the bounds of your stupidity are unknown

[Beau Vine 54230]

Quote

NEW YORK — Four Major League Baseball owners — Bob Castellini of the Reds, Chris Ilitch of the Tigers, Ken Kendrick of the Diamondbacks and Arte Moreno of the Angels — objected to raising the competitive balance tax to the levels the league ultimately proposed most recently, three people briefed on an owner-wide call held this week told The Athletic. MLB moved forward with the proposal anyway, moving its offer on the first threshold to $220 million — up $10 million from where it was in 2021, and $6 million from its previous offer, but still far below the players’ ask of $238 million.

The luxury tax’s rate of growth has not kept pace with the overall revenues growth in the sport, making it one of the main concerns for the players.

The resistance of the four owners reveals at least some of the hard-liners who are likely influencing perhaps the single-most contentious issue in negotiations that have already cost the sport games. One person briefed on the call noted that White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, a hawk in the 1994-95 dispute, was not among those to stand in the way. Not all small-market owners — owners who theoretically would be most disadvantaged by an increase in the luxury tax, which curtails high-end spending — were opposed to the raise, either. Rather, at least some of the four owners took stances based on their personal feelings toward costs and baseball’s economic system, sources said.

The opposition suggests commissioner Rob Manfred could have a hard time securing increases to the CBT thresholds as talks continue. At the same time, the players now will likely consider whether those owners are in effect posturing, in an effort to convince the players to ask for less.

Posturing, though, might not be an accurate interpretation when owners actively oppose what the commissioner and his labor committee recommends. So the players also likely will have to consider what barrier the four-owner group portends for both the commissioner and the union when shaping a deal. Even more owners might push back on growing the CBT into the $230 million range, setting up a difficult fight, and one the players could still ultimately deem necessary. Eventually, a new collective bargaining agreement will need 23 of 30 owner votes to be ratified.

In bargaining, owners have used the Mets, and their relatively new owner Steve Cohen, and the Dodgers as examples of teams they’re worried about outspending the competition, sources said. On Tuesday, a day after MLB went to $220 million, the league made an updated proposal to the players in other areas — a final offer prior to the cancellation of games — but that package did not include any additional money in the CBT thresholds. SNY first reported that four unnamed owners objected to the proposal.

Time, pressure and a loss of money, of course, can change both player and owner positions. But industry sources on both sides have suggested in the 48 hours since Opening Day was postponed that the wait for a new CBA could be long. No one knows how many games will be lost, but it’s virtually certain to be more than the week’s worth that Manfred has already canceled.

So, does that mean the season is starting in May? In June? Industry sources generally are not optimistic about the season getting underway in April.

Andrew Miller, one of the players’ leaders, was asked this week about player preparedness to miss games.

“We’re prepared,” Miller said. “We’ve seen this coming in a sense, it’s unfortunate, but this isn’t new to us. This is not shocking. It’s again, unfortunate, but our communication, our willingness to see each other’s point of views (as players) and to find solutions and a fight for what’s right is nothing like I’ve seen before, I can tell you that.”

Two days after the sides left Florida without a new deal, a pair of representatives from both the commissioner’s office and the players’ union, including lead negotiators Dan Halem of MLB and Bruce Meyer of the Players Association, met in Manhattan on Thursday afternoon. The roughly 90-minute meeting touched on the key topics in bargaining, and also included discussion of what the bargaining schedule could look like from here. More meetings could follow within days.

No formal proposals were made Thursday, however, nor were any expected to be. In the aftermath of nine straight days of bargaining in Jupiter, Fla., tensions are high and positions entrenched.

Talks might not bring real movement for a time, for the same reason that Opening Day long seemed likely to slip away: Because work stoppages are about leverage and pressure. And that pressure mounts with the calendar. The longer the stoppage goes, the more money is lost by both sides.

And there is a psychological component, as well.

One of the league’s efforts that irked the players was a proposal to incorporate meal money and the stipends players receive into the luxury-tax calculations. MLB, in other words, wanted to count the amount of money players receive for food against the amount of money teams can spend before they are taxed.

The luxury tax already includes some player benefit costs — it’s not just a strict accounting of player salary. But players were angry, sources said, the league would try to add something as fundamental as the cost of food as a reason to spend less on payroll. MLB also tried to include stipends paid to players who participate in the All-Star Game, the Home Run Derby and other special events, sources said.

Overall, though, the calendar remains crucial to the proceedings. Now that actual regular-season games will be missed, the parties will start to feel the hit to their bank accounts, and the public scrutiny. From here, the length of the lockout is therefore largely a question of tolerance and will — of feelings that can eventually change. The luxury tax is just one area where hardline positions will be tested.

 

[David Dennison 18860]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[Beau Vine 54230]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Better than a 0-team playoff field...

[David Dennison 18860]

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Better than a 0-team playoff field...

Sure. But it's much, much worse than what we have now.

[WBT 20572]

I want to go back to a 4 team playoff damnit

[henrygandorf 29191]

is that tweet supposed to be encouraging?

[Helobious 9454]

 

[torre 1286]

wrong thread

Edited March 5, 2022 by torre

[henrygandorf 29191]

 

[Beau Vine 54230]

If they're going to ban shifts, they had better ban "no-doubles" defense.

[henrygandorf 29191]

comments are great too. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

Quote

A club executive was on the line, voicing an objection. Media members, he said, were unfairly characterizing a critical element of baseball’s labor negotiations. Nowhere in any previous collective-bargaining agreement did it say luxury-tax thresholds were meant to rise in accordance with industry revenues.

I had drawn such a connection on Feb. 16. Other writers had made the same link. At the very least, I thought, the spirit of the deal called for higher revenues to produce higher thresholds. So I contacted two people who were involved in the negotiations that established the luxury tax in the 1996 CBA — Gene Orza, the union’s former chief operating officer who retired in 2011; and Rob Manfred, a labor negotiator for the league before becoming commissioner in Jan. 2015.

Orza and Manfred agreed the club executive technically was right: Previous CBAs included no specific mention of the thresholds rising in accordance with revenues. But Orza said the union never would have agreed to a luxury tax under any other premise, and Manfred did not dispute that revenues factored into the calculation of thresholds.

Ninety-six days into the owners’ lockout, the thresholds are perhaps the most contentious element of the negotiations between the league and union. The players want the thresholds to rise, believing some teams treat the initial level as a de facto salary cap. The owners say increasing the thresholds will lead to greater payroll disparity and competitive imbalance, even though spending does not always correlate to winning.

Coming off a 232-day players’ strike in 1994-95 that stemmed largely from the owners’ desire for a salary cap, Orza said he explicitly warned Manfred to not “back door” with the luxury tax what the league could not accomplish during the strike.

“He would remember the conversation I had with him. Which is, ‘Make sure these things do not operate as a cap,’” Orza said. “And they have. I think last year the Padres went over it by about a dollar and a half. But only one (other) team (the Dodgers) went over it last year.

“It was always intended to have three or four teams go over the level. That would be a bootstrap on salaries, notwithstanding the fact they were paying the penalty. They couldn’t go over as much as they otherwise would. But they could go over. And they would go over. And if they’re not going over, it’s a salary cap. And they know they’re not entitled to a salary cap.”

Manfred said the thresholds are not functioning in that manner.

“Gene is certainly correct that the competitive-balance tax thresholds were not intended to operate as a cap. And I do not believe that they have,” Manfred said.

While the five-year CBA to settle the strike started in 1996, the luxury tax did not take effect until 1997 and remained in place through 1999 before getting removed in 2000 and 2001. The threshold in the first year was $51 million. The numbers in the next two years were determined by the mean of the fifth- and sixth-highest payrolls.

The 2002 CBA established fixed thresholds that remain the basis of the system today. Orza said there was no handshake agreement on whether the thresholds would rise with revenues. Rather, the parties had an implicit understanding that the two were linked.

“Why would the Players Association agree that there would be no relationship between the growth of revenue and the thresholds? That would mean the Players Association effectively agreed to a reduction in the percentage of revenue they were getting,” Orza said. “What in the history of the Players Association suggests that the Players Association would do such a stupid thing?”

Manfred acknowledged the parties discussed revenue growth each time they bargained over thresholds, saying it was, “one of the metrics you looked at.” But in explaining the lack of an explicit tie between thresholds and revenues, he pointed to the 2011 CBA, which included thresholds of $178 million in each of the first three years.

“We obviously didn’t expect revenue to be flat in 2011, 2012 and 2013,” Manfred said.

The thresholds did not increase in those years, Manfred said, because of other tradeoffs the parties made during the course of negotiations. Thus, thresholds and revenues do not necessarily increase at the same rates. And once the thresholds stayed flat for three years, the differences between the two widened. “By definition, it’s hard to catch up in a subsequent agreement,” Manfred said. “But that’s just because there were other trades made.”

The owners’ current proposal also includes the same threshold in each of the first three years — $220 million, rising to $224 million in the fourth year and $230 million in the fifth. The flat thresholds are believed to reflect the revenue the owners lost in the pandemic-shortened 2020 season that was played without fans, and also in 2021 when attendance remained limited because of COVID-19. The union, anticipating an increase in revenues, proposed $238 million in the first year, rising to $263 million in the fifth. The first threshold in 2021 was $210 million.

Orza said that the owners “have a lot of good arguments in every negotiation. But they always tack on something ludicrous, just absolutely ludicrous.” One example, he said, was calling the luxury tax a “competitive-balance tax” when in truth it is a salary restraint. And now, a quarter-century after the inception of the tax, Orza believes the league is doing something worse. He said Manfred, overseeing a league in which certain teams regard the first threshold as a de facto cap, is “basically taking advantage of an agreement we did not have.”

“Rob is a good guy. I’ve had great respect for him,” Orza said. “He’s smart, he’s the best move they’ve ever made, hiring a labor lawyer as commissioner. On that front, he’s heads and shoulders above everyone else they’ve ever had. And he’s industrious and clever. But sometimes, he gets too clever. And look, he’s got problems of his own, I’m sure.

“I’m sure clubs are afraid of (new Mets owner) Steve Cohen: ‘If we lose some restraints on salary, the Mets will spend $300 million or something like that.’ You always have that small-market, big-market battle. He has to be sensitive to that.”

Four owners, not all of them from small markets, last week opposed the league raising its offer on the first threshold from $214 million to $220 million. Despite that resistance, the league is willing to increase its offer from $220 million if the Players Association makes moves in other areas, according to people with knowledge of the league’s thinking.

All of that is part of negotiating. But in response to the club executive who said the CBA does not specify a link between thresholds and revenues, Orza offered a pointed counter.

“The notion that the thresholds should not rise as revenue rises — not necessarily 1 to 1 — that’s just nonsense,” Orza said.

 

[Starfleet Command 441]

I don't get the purpose of banning shifts.  Shifting is valuable on the margins, but banning shifts is hardly going to change the way the game is played.  This seems to be more driven by some players just not liking the concept all-together than a suitable fix for generating more non-HR offense.

To move away from TTO baseball, MLB will need to do something much more drastic.  Maybe deaden the bats so the number of HRs collapses while also substantially juicing BABIP through shrinking the distance between the bases or reducing the number of fielders.  Maybe pass a rule that each OF must be within 10 ft of the fence until the hitter has made contact with the ball lol.

[WBT 20572]

Move the fences back 10 feet per year until strikeout rates drop.  Only kind of joking.

[tx 3 putt 76958]

[Scraps 13561]

They are getting closerrrrr

[Wulaw Horn 19070]

This offer is imminently reasonable. Players should sign this. It’s fair and reasonable deal. I’m shocked quite frankly.  I thought that mlb was more interested in breaking the union than playing 162 games. 

[WBT 20572]

More youtube style fuckery, this time from Apple.

Quote

A weekly slate of MLB games will head to Apple TV+ whenever the season begins, the company announced on Tuesday.

 

Apple and MLB have partnered to bring users of Apple’s subscription streaming service “Friday Night Baseball,” a series of weekly doubleheaders featuring pregame and postgame shows that will start this season and air exclusively on Apple TV+, meaning the games will not air on local broadcasts. Apple TV+ will also offer users daily highlights, game replays, classic games, news and more. In the United States, the service will air live look-ins every weeknight during the regular season.

The slate of Friday night games will be available “free from local broadcast restrictions,” according to Apple’s news release. Additionally, for a limited time, users will not require a subscription to Apple TV+ to watch “Friday Night Baseball.”

Having this as an add-on to try to grow the game is fine but choosing to blackout these games from local broadcasters where the actual fans go to watch 150+ games a year is asinine.  But hey, they'll be free for a "limited time" if I go download the Apple TV+ app.

[tx 3 putt 76958]

There needs to be min salary cap, with penalties. Also, any team within 10% of the min for 4 years, must be sold 

[Beau Vine 54230]

3 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

This offer is imminently reasonable. Players should sign this. It’s fair and reasonable deal. I’m shocked quite frankly.  I thought that mlb was more interested in breaking the union than playing 162 games. 

Quote

On Monday, MLB offered to start the competitive balance tax thresholds at $228 million, going to $238 million by the end of the deal, according to sources. But the rest of the proposal is not yet known, and the league’s increase is said to have major strings attached.

What the fuck are you babbling about?