Joe Sheehan — he of the essential Joe Sheehan Baseball Newsletter (sign up now!) — did some back-of-the-envelope math the other day, and he basically determined that the reason we are not talking right now about pitchers and catchers reporting and players being in the best shape of their lives and, well, BASEBALL, is $440 million.
Mcdonald;s generated 19 billion dollars on revenue last year, that doesn't mean that the workers should complain about not getting paid much more. The players should be happy they are getting paid millions to play a game.
where is Murray Chass? Guy is a walking encyclopedia of MLB b Owners beefs. Joe, go get your BFF in HoF voting to write you a proper piece on MLB labor strife. Aside from Marvin Miller, it’ll be hard to find someone better to comment on this.
Feds should help finance cities to set up a league then have the cities own the teams. Both the players and cities are generally getting hosed by this setup. While its reasonable to question whether or not a city could effectively run a team (the Packers stucture seems to work alright), its not like the current setup is working for fans either.
The Packers are in the NFL, which runs their finances much more collectively, for the long term health of the game as a whole. If they were an MLB team, they would be a distant memory.
Good point that the players have basically caved on everything - except league minimums, and owners won't move on that. The owners latest offer started with a bottom that is less money inflation adjusted than the 2017 minimum, and made look like something by giving raises to players with at least 1 or 2 years of service time at the beginning of the season. Of course, they want these numbers to be constant for 5 years, so at the end of that time, players with 2 years in the league will be making about the same after inflation as first year players in 2017.
They have already won most of the monetary battles. They could just give the players the minimum salary, declare themselves victorious, and be on their way. They just don't want to be victorious. They want to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Of course, we have to guess at baseball's revenue, but Forbes put it at 2019 at $10.7 Billion. In the NBA, players make 50% of revenues, it is 48% in the NFL. In baseball, in 2019, it was 38%. (This includes 40 man, injured list, dead money, everything - not just "opening day payrolls") But that is too much for the owners. They want more.
I didn’t realize that the players had conceded that much. MLB owners should be ashamed of themselves. In their over-consuming greed they have killed the golden goose. The grand old game, our American pastime has a barely beating heart. Thanks, Joe, for the usual excellent explanation and your view of this dire situation. This old baseball fan just wants to hear the crack of the bat and the thud of a glove. The only numbers that I want to see are those without dollar signs like ERA, OPS, BA, WAR. Play ball!
I just don't agree with the notion that MLB is dying. The attendance figures don't support that. MLB had its highest ever attendance in 2019, pre-Covid. The game definitely has problems, but how exactly was the game healthier in the Golden 1950s when average attendance was about 12,500 per game, or the go-go sexy 70's when it was about 15,000 per game and there were a hell of a lot fewer entertainment options? Barely beating heart is just nostalgic hyperbole.
I think it’s readily acknowledged the owners have gotten the better deal on the last few CBAs. However, it is absolutely true the MLBPA freely and willingly signed off on each of those CBAs.
I don’t believe the MLBPA would trade even their recently expired CBA with MLB (in its entirety) for any CBA currently in force for the NFL, NBA, or NHL. During the Marvin Miller era, the players consistently got the better of the owners in the negotiation (although prior to the Miller era, the owners utterly and unfairly dominated the players). In recent CBAs, the owners upped their negotiating game and got the better deals. I don't think the players were complacent, but they may have been slow to recognize how much things had changed.
The owners have an information advantage over the MLBPA, and the MLBPA doesn't appear to have a compelling strategic advantage over the owners in another area that hurts the owners more than the players. Except for the financials of the Atlanta Braves (I believe), the players don’t know the operating revenue and expense numbers for the MLB clubs. The MLBPA can made an educated guess on these figures, but there is some uncertainty and a whole lot of (understandable) mistrust.
It’s not true the MLBPA has abandoned earlier arbitration. Their latest proposal is to extend arbitration to 80% of players with 2+ years of ML service, as opposed to the 22% in the last CBA.
I agree the whole dispute is about money and lament there aren’t discussions between the parties on how to improve the product of Major League Baseball (which is where the major issues are).
I empathize with the players’ frustration, but they are not going to gain everything they wish they would have negotiated in previous CBAs in this negotiation. Stop looking backward and look forward. I think the MLBPA should define what they believe to be an “incremental victory” and work toward achieving that. Maybe that is already the case.
The owners have deeper pockets and can hold out longer than the players. This may or may not be fair, but it’s reality.
This whole ordeal is incredibly frustrating. I see a small glimmer of hope in the MLBPA’s recent statement that they are willing to come to the negotiating table every day next week. I hope MLB will also be willing to meet every day.
True. Although the owners will be hurt, their losses pale in comparison with the younger players who have to pay their bills. Granted, the players should have thought ahead and saved up some cash. But.... I'm a professional financial coach and I know very well that most people do not think ahead & save for a rainy day. The only way the players win is if they save up to pay for it. Literally put themselves in position to live without a pay check for a year. I know other unions have put together strike funds to strengthen their bargaining position by helping union members survive the strike. That's really what needs to happen. And, wow, wouldn't that be ugly if the players were willing to hold out for a year. Who would blink first then?
Pujols is a great example of a guy who was underpaid for many years and the overpay in his later years almost made it up. however, mlb clubs have cut WAY back on those deals for older players now.
No, I think there are a lot more Acunas. Not that many players are still good into their 30s such that they earn long-term, overpaid deals. They should be able to get the money when they're most likely to be valuable.
The Braves have been very active in signing budding superstars to team friendly contracts. Freddie Freeman is coming off something like an 8 or 9 year $120M contract. I'm sure everyone agrees that his value is easily 3 times that. Ozzie Albies was signed to a 9 year $45M contract & $10M is not guaranteed. That's literal theft. Albies already has a 14 WAR career. Today. And he's got 6 years left on the "deal". When he signed the contract he was really struggling to make contact & there were some doubts about him. So, he took the guaranteed money and is already highly outperforming the contract. A lot has to happen to get into free agency at your peak. How many players get injured or flame out in the first 6 years of their career? You have to be a unique individual to really take a chance on yourself & not take the early money.
Maybe. I’d just want to see that math before taking a firm stance on it. Heck, I’m sure there are many players in their 20s who are wildly overpaid compared to Fangraphs value. Feels like a perfect Joe deep dive. The career list of most overpaid and underpaid…
When you're talking about players in their 20s, most of them are on annual contracts. The first two years are at the team's discretion, and then there's arbitration. If they underperform, they get a pay cut or released. If they have a big season, arbitration is better, but still pays them under their market value. I think they use other arbitration awards as benchmarks, not market value. If a player gets overpaid, it's for one year only until they're free agents & can sign multi year deals. So, I don't really see how it's possible for young players to be overpaid, certainly not in any significant numbers.
The whole system (for drafted players) is currently rigged so that owners can almost always pay less than value to players with fewer than 7(?)* years in the league. Until they get a free agent contract, most players are underpaid relative to value.
* My pozterisk- After 6 years of service time, a player is eligible for free agency. However, with the service time manipulations most teams exercise, it is usually 7 years before free agency.
As I mentioned with Pujols, he didn't get his big money until he became a free agent. Prior to that he was massively underpaid compared to his value.
This is systemic- in the current system, it always works out the same way. And if a player is out of the league before free agency, the owners are cashing in on his massively underpaid early years.
Yeah, I’m totally open to the idea that the players have signed onto a bad deal and the owners are benefiting. I just don’t like looking at 1 or 2 of the most egregious examples and calling it data. Maybe there are lots of guys locked into $6mil deals who are only playing at $4mil value, I don’t know.
Cody Bellinger comes to mind. But, the only way it's possible for someone to get into that position is for them to massively outperform their salary for a couple years before falling off a cliff. But even in that case, if you look at the entirety of Bellinger's tenure with the Dodgers, he's been hugely underpaid ($29.8M, 16.7 War).
Given the starting salaries for new players in the league I think that's almost impossible. Keep in mind how much baseball revenues have gone up, while player salaries have stayed stagnant.
I think the analogy about Houdini was a bad one. What makes this so frustrating and unfair is the lack of freedom the players have about where they can play. In the case of someone offering Houdini $750K to perform the amount the person who makes the offer to Houdini makes has nothing to do with it being a fair offer. If Houdini wants to accept that pay and come perform it is completely his choice. He can accept or decline, he can counter. He can accept an offer from a different city for more money. The point is he is free to accept or decline that offer and can still perform even if he turns down that offer. Houdini doesn't get drafted by one theater owner and then not be allowed to accept other offers.
MLB players don't have that choice. If Acuna wants to play in Chicago instead of Atlanta, he's not allowed. If he were free to pick his team he would get paid a lot more. Then he would be paid fairly.
Let's understand the system for what it is - a system where an artificial environment has been created. It's unfair because cities put taxpayers on the hook to pay for the stadiums. It's unfair because the owners get to draft players and if those players want to play baseball they have no choice of whom they can play for. That is why the players are not paid fairly.
But sports is a weird thing - I think most fans want a system that is inherently unfair, at least on some level. For example, if Pepsi and every other soft drink company besides Coke were to go out of business that would be good for Coke because they now would make more money. But if every team except the Yankees went out of business that would be bad for the Yankees because they would have no one to play. Fans in Kansas City want a system that is "rigged" enough to allow them to keep their good players on the team on not lose every superstar to the big market teams. So I don't think anyone wants a system where every player has complete freedom, but the reason is, ironically, what the 2 sides can't seem to understand - it would be bad for the game and in the long run everyone would make less money.
The only way I can see the system working is to do what some other leagues have done. That would be to implement some kind of a salary cap, but also one with a salary floor. Find a number based on a percentage of revenue and require every team to spend that amount. I looked up online and found a list of team payrolls from 2021 (based on the 26 man roster). It ranged from a little over $21 million spent by the Pirates to a little over $235 million spent by the Mets. It came out to a little over $2.5 billion and averaged out to about $85 million per team. 1/3 of the teams spent $137 million or more and 2/3 spent less than that. Imagine if both sides could agree to a proposal that each team had a salary cap of $150 million but had a salary floor of $140 million. That would mean that the teams would pay out a minimum of $4.2 billion in salary vs. $2.5B currently. Seems like a big win for the players, but they won't even consider that because a salary cap is a non-starter. I also think it would be a win for the fans because every team would be on equal competitive ground and it removes a lot of the incentive for tanking. I also don't think the owners would commit to an agreement like that because it would force them to spend money.
But it seems like there should be a simple set up that would benefit the game (and therefore the fans), resulting in more money for both sides to split. But since we have 2 sides fighting on how they can get the most money NOW we all lose.
I’ve always wondered what MLB would look like if it were operated as a total free market. Acuna would not only be fine but would flourish. But how many teams would that league realistically support? Your mass markets like LA, Philly, New York (maybe just one team?), Chicago (same), etc. could field teams but there’s no way teams like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincy, Minnesota, survive. It’d be very very good for Acuna and the top tier guys, but a lot of players would be out of jobs.
Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, etc. may not survive, but there would be additional teams in NY, and teams in Charlotte and San Antonio and Las Vegas. Or, there would be multiple leagues, independent or in a Euro-style pyramid, and some teams would be at the higher levels and others further down based on how they can compete with each other.
Great as always, Joe. I am a little disappointed, however, that you made a Houdini reference and did not simultaneously remind us that you wrote a great book about that legend. You are definitely slipping........
Great job of summarizing by Sheehan. The first paragraph of the conclusions "If the owners were to accept all of the players' numbers today..." should be the basis for the players to communicate if they want to win the battle in the eyes of the fans. Don't just disparage the owners - make it clear the balance has shifted since the last agreement and the correction is fair.
If bonuses paid out to Johnny Schlub and his coworkers were declining while the corporate revenue was increasing and corporate value was skyrocketing, there would be clear and logical grounds for demanding a correction and if the battle went public, they should get strong support.
I'm on board with the player proposal (assuming game improvements continue such as DH elimination, pace of play, increased action (higher batting average, more aggressive baserunning), etc. I'd be disappointed if team disparity and tanking wasn't addressed, but considering that would almost certainly involve a prolonged work stoppage, I'll let it go for this deal.
"There is no larger fight here, no grander ambitions, no effort whatsoever to deal with the many issues baseball faces. The players have caved on all of that."
And THAT is why Marvin Miller belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I think the biggest hurdle in negotiating for all major sports leagues is the fact that there are a lot of them making a lot of money. So, they have a lot to lose if a strike drags on, because they're not drawing their big pay checks. When Marvin Miller was around, that wasn't the case. In a lot of cases, players could go get a regular job & make (at least close) to what they were making as players. The cost/benefit analysis was a lot different than it is now. The player's in Miller's era had little to lose and big upside potential benefit. The calculation today is the opposite.
It has gotten to the point where the ONLY thing about baseball that interests me is Joe (and Bill James) writing about it. I spent my college years in the right field bleachers at Fenway Park during almost every game during the Spring Semester for 5 years (5 years because of all the time at Fenway - but it was worth it.) Today, I would rather get a root canal then watch a baseball game. Bill Terry (and others) have said that "Baseball must be a great game to survive the fools who run it." I'm not sure that is true anymore.
Mcdonald;s generated 19 billion dollars on revenue last year, that doesn't mean that the workers should complain about not getting paid much more. The players should be happy they are getting paid millions to play a game.
where is Murray Chass? Guy is a walking encyclopedia of MLB b Owners beefs. Joe, go get your BFF in HoF voting to write you a proper piece on MLB labor strife. Aside from Marvin Miller, it’ll be hard to find someone better to comment on this.
Feds should help finance cities to set up a league then have the cities own the teams. Both the players and cities are generally getting hosed by this setup. While its reasonable to question whether or not a city could effectively run a team (the Packers stucture seems to work alright), its not like the current setup is working for fans either.
The Packers are in the NFL, which runs their finances much more collectively, for the long term health of the game as a whole. If they were an MLB team, they would be a distant memory.
Good point that the players have basically caved on everything - except league minimums, and owners won't move on that. The owners latest offer started with a bottom that is less money inflation adjusted than the 2017 minimum, and made look like something by giving raises to players with at least 1 or 2 years of service time at the beginning of the season. Of course, they want these numbers to be constant for 5 years, so at the end of that time, players with 2 years in the league will be making about the same after inflation as first year players in 2017.
They have already won most of the monetary battles. They could just give the players the minimum salary, declare themselves victorious, and be on their way. They just don't want to be victorious. They want to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Of course, we have to guess at baseball's revenue, but Forbes put it at 2019 at $10.7 Billion. In the NBA, players make 50% of revenues, it is 48% in the NFL. In baseball, in 2019, it was 38%. (This includes 40 man, injured list, dead money, everything - not just "opening day payrolls") But that is too much for the owners. They want more.
The Acuna example is off. He wasn't paid 12.6% of his value. That would be fine. He was paid 1.26% of his value. Which isn't.
I didn’t realize that the players had conceded that much. MLB owners should be ashamed of themselves. In their over-consuming greed they have killed the golden goose. The grand old game, our American pastime has a barely beating heart. Thanks, Joe, for the usual excellent explanation and your view of this dire situation. This old baseball fan just wants to hear the crack of the bat and the thud of a glove. The only numbers that I want to see are those without dollar signs like ERA, OPS, BA, WAR. Play ball!
I just don't agree with the notion that MLB is dying. The attendance figures don't support that. MLB had its highest ever attendance in 2019, pre-Covid. The game definitely has problems, but how exactly was the game healthier in the Golden 1950s when average attendance was about 12,500 per game, or the go-go sexy 70's when it was about 15,000 per game and there were a hell of a lot fewer entertainment options? Barely beating heart is just nostalgic hyperbole.
I really hope Joe sees this, its the kind of thing I imagine he would find fun
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/02/presidential-versus-baseball-salaries
Joe, well said and very frustrating.
I think it’s readily acknowledged the owners have gotten the better deal on the last few CBAs. However, it is absolutely true the MLBPA freely and willingly signed off on each of those CBAs.
I don’t believe the MLBPA would trade even their recently expired CBA with MLB (in its entirety) for any CBA currently in force for the NFL, NBA, or NHL. During the Marvin Miller era, the players consistently got the better of the owners in the negotiation (although prior to the Miller era, the owners utterly and unfairly dominated the players). In recent CBAs, the owners upped their negotiating game and got the better deals. I don't think the players were complacent, but they may have been slow to recognize how much things had changed.
The owners have an information advantage over the MLBPA, and the MLBPA doesn't appear to have a compelling strategic advantage over the owners in another area that hurts the owners more than the players. Except for the financials of the Atlanta Braves (I believe), the players don’t know the operating revenue and expense numbers for the MLB clubs. The MLBPA can made an educated guess on these figures, but there is some uncertainty and a whole lot of (understandable) mistrust.
It’s not true the MLBPA has abandoned earlier arbitration. Their latest proposal is to extend arbitration to 80% of players with 2+ years of ML service, as opposed to the 22% in the last CBA.
I agree the whole dispute is about money and lament there aren’t discussions between the parties on how to improve the product of Major League Baseball (which is where the major issues are).
I empathize with the players’ frustration, but they are not going to gain everything they wish they would have negotiated in previous CBAs in this negotiation. Stop looking backward and look forward. I think the MLBPA should define what they believe to be an “incremental victory” and work toward achieving that. Maybe that is already the case.
The owners have deeper pockets and can hold out longer than the players. This may or may not be fair, but it’s reality.
This whole ordeal is incredibly frustrating. I see a small glimmer of hope in the MLBPA’s recent statement that they are willing to come to the negotiating table every day next week. I hope MLB will also be willing to meet every day.
"The owners have deeper pockets and can hold out longer than the players. This may or may not be fair, but it’s reality."
--> When you starve with a tiger, the tiger starves last...
True. Although the owners will be hurt, their losses pale in comparison with the younger players who have to pay their bills. Granted, the players should have thought ahead and saved up some cash. But.... I'm a professional financial coach and I know very well that most people do not think ahead & save for a rainy day. The only way the players win is if they save up to pay for it. Literally put themselves in position to live without a pay check for a year. I know other unions have put together strike funds to strengthen their bargaining position by helping union members survive the strike. That's really what needs to happen. And, wow, wouldn't that be ugly if the players were willing to hold out for a year. Who would blink first then?
Seems like there’s more to the story. For every Acuna, isn’t there a Pujols who is being paid way more than his Fangraphs “value”?
If Acuna wants that money when he’s worth it, then he’d have to be willing to give it back when he’s not. Right?
Pujols is a great example of a guy who was underpaid for many years and the overpay in his later years almost made it up. however, mlb clubs have cut WAY back on those deals for older players now.
No, I think there are a lot more Acunas. Not that many players are still good into their 30s such that they earn long-term, overpaid deals. They should be able to get the money when they're most likely to be valuable.
The Braves have been very active in signing budding superstars to team friendly contracts. Freddie Freeman is coming off something like an 8 or 9 year $120M contract. I'm sure everyone agrees that his value is easily 3 times that. Ozzie Albies was signed to a 9 year $45M contract & $10M is not guaranteed. That's literal theft. Albies already has a 14 WAR career. Today. And he's got 6 years left on the "deal". When he signed the contract he was really struggling to make contact & there were some doubts about him. So, he took the guaranteed money and is already highly outperforming the contract. A lot has to happen to get into free agency at your peak. How many players get injured or flame out in the first 6 years of their career? You have to be a unique individual to really take a chance on yourself & not take the early money.
Maybe. I’d just want to see that math before taking a firm stance on it. Heck, I’m sure there are many players in their 20s who are wildly overpaid compared to Fangraphs value. Feels like a perfect Joe deep dive. The career list of most overpaid and underpaid…
"Heck, I’m sure there are many players in their 20s"
If you want to see the math before taking a firm stance, why are you sure?
Do you even have enough examples to make that point?
When you're talking about players in their 20s, most of them are on annual contracts. The first two years are at the team's discretion, and then there's arbitration. If they underperform, they get a pay cut or released. If they have a big season, arbitration is better, but still pays them under their market value. I think they use other arbitration awards as benchmarks, not market value. If a player gets overpaid, it's for one year only until they're free agents & can sign multi year deals. So, I don't really see how it's possible for young players to be overpaid, certainly not in any significant numbers.
I’m not sure that there are more overpaid than underpaid. But I am sure that there are some of both.
The whole system (for drafted players) is currently rigged so that owners can almost always pay less than value to players with fewer than 7(?)* years in the league. Until they get a free agent contract, most players are underpaid relative to value.
* My pozterisk- After 6 years of service time, a player is eligible for free agency. However, with the service time manipulations most teams exercise, it is usually 7 years before free agency.
As I mentioned with Pujols, he didn't get his big money until he became a free agent. Prior to that he was massively underpaid compared to his value.
This is systemic- in the current system, it always works out the same way. And if a player is out of the league before free agency, the owners are cashing in on his massively underpaid early years.
Yeah, I’m totally open to the idea that the players have signed onto a bad deal and the owners are benefiting. I just don’t like looking at 1 or 2 of the most egregious examples and calling it data. Maybe there are lots of guys locked into $6mil deals who are only playing at $4mil value, I don’t know.
Who's an example of a 25- or 27-year-old who you would say is overpaid relative to their value on the field?
Cody Bellinger comes to mind. But, the only way it's possible for someone to get into that position is for them to massively outperform their salary for a couple years before falling off a cliff. But even in that case, if you look at the entirety of Bellinger's tenure with the Dodgers, he's been hugely underpaid ($29.8M, 16.7 War).
Given the starting salaries for new players in the league I think that's almost impossible. Keep in mind how much baseball revenues have gone up, while player salaries have stayed stagnant.
I think the analogy about Houdini was a bad one. What makes this so frustrating and unfair is the lack of freedom the players have about where they can play. In the case of someone offering Houdini $750K to perform the amount the person who makes the offer to Houdini makes has nothing to do with it being a fair offer. If Houdini wants to accept that pay and come perform it is completely his choice. He can accept or decline, he can counter. He can accept an offer from a different city for more money. The point is he is free to accept or decline that offer and can still perform even if he turns down that offer. Houdini doesn't get drafted by one theater owner and then not be allowed to accept other offers.
MLB players don't have that choice. If Acuna wants to play in Chicago instead of Atlanta, he's not allowed. If he were free to pick his team he would get paid a lot more. Then he would be paid fairly.
Let's understand the system for what it is - a system where an artificial environment has been created. It's unfair because cities put taxpayers on the hook to pay for the stadiums. It's unfair because the owners get to draft players and if those players want to play baseball they have no choice of whom they can play for. That is why the players are not paid fairly.
But sports is a weird thing - I think most fans want a system that is inherently unfair, at least on some level. For example, if Pepsi and every other soft drink company besides Coke were to go out of business that would be good for Coke because they now would make more money. But if every team except the Yankees went out of business that would be bad for the Yankees because they would have no one to play. Fans in Kansas City want a system that is "rigged" enough to allow them to keep their good players on the team on not lose every superstar to the big market teams. So I don't think anyone wants a system where every player has complete freedom, but the reason is, ironically, what the 2 sides can't seem to understand - it would be bad for the game and in the long run everyone would make less money.
The only way I can see the system working is to do what some other leagues have done. That would be to implement some kind of a salary cap, but also one with a salary floor. Find a number based on a percentage of revenue and require every team to spend that amount. I looked up online and found a list of team payrolls from 2021 (based on the 26 man roster). It ranged from a little over $21 million spent by the Pirates to a little over $235 million spent by the Mets. It came out to a little over $2.5 billion and averaged out to about $85 million per team. 1/3 of the teams spent $137 million or more and 2/3 spent less than that. Imagine if both sides could agree to a proposal that each team had a salary cap of $150 million but had a salary floor of $140 million. That would mean that the teams would pay out a minimum of $4.2 billion in salary vs. $2.5B currently. Seems like a big win for the players, but they won't even consider that because a salary cap is a non-starter. I also think it would be a win for the fans because every team would be on equal competitive ground and it removes a lot of the incentive for tanking. I also don't think the owners would commit to an agreement like that because it would force them to spend money.
But it seems like there should be a simple set up that would benefit the game (and therefore the fans), resulting in more money for both sides to split. But since we have 2 sides fighting on how they can get the most money NOW we all lose.
I’ve always wondered what MLB would look like if it were operated as a total free market. Acuna would not only be fine but would flourish. But how many teams would that league realistically support? Your mass markets like LA, Philly, New York (maybe just one team?), Chicago (same), etc. could field teams but there’s no way teams like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincy, Minnesota, survive. It’d be very very good for Acuna and the top tier guys, but a lot of players would be out of jobs.
Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, etc. may not survive, but there would be additional teams in NY, and teams in Charlotte and San Antonio and Las Vegas. Or, there would be multiple leagues, independent or in a Euro-style pyramid, and some teams would be at the higher levels and others further down based on how they can compete with each other.
Great as always, Joe. I am a little disappointed, however, that you made a Houdini reference and did not simultaneously remind us that you wrote a great book about that legend. You are definitely slipping........
Great job of summarizing by Sheehan. The first paragraph of the conclusions "If the owners were to accept all of the players' numbers today..." should be the basis for the players to communicate if they want to win the battle in the eyes of the fans. Don't just disparage the owners - make it clear the balance has shifted since the last agreement and the correction is fair.
If bonuses paid out to Johnny Schlub and his coworkers were declining while the corporate revenue was increasing and corporate value was skyrocketing, there would be clear and logical grounds for demanding a correction and if the battle went public, they should get strong support.
I'm on board with the player proposal (assuming game improvements continue such as DH elimination, pace of play, increased action (higher batting average, more aggressive baserunning), etc. I'd be disappointed if team disparity and tanking wasn't addressed, but considering that would almost certainly involve a prolonged work stoppage, I'll let it go for this deal.
Well said.
"There is no larger fight here, no grander ambitions, no effort whatsoever to deal with the many issues baseball faces. The players have caved on all of that."
And THAT is why Marvin Miller belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I think the biggest hurdle in negotiating for all major sports leagues is the fact that there are a lot of them making a lot of money. So, they have a lot to lose if a strike drags on, because they're not drawing their big pay checks. When Marvin Miller was around, that wasn't the case. In a lot of cases, players could go get a regular job & make (at least close) to what they were making as players. The cost/benefit analysis was a lot different than it is now. The player's in Miller's era had little to lose and big upside potential benefit. The calculation today is the opposite.
It has gotten to the point where the ONLY thing about baseball that interests me is Joe (and Bill James) writing about it. I spent my college years in the right field bleachers at Fenway Park during almost every game during the Spring Semester for 5 years (5 years because of all the time at Fenway - but it was worth it.) Today, I would rather get a root canal then watch a baseball game. Bill Terry (and others) have said that "Baseball must be a great game to survive the fools who run it." I'm not sure that is true anymore.