I first want to thank you for your continued support of the great game of baseball. This past season, we were reminded of how the national pastime can bring us together and restore our hope despite the difficult challenges of a global pandemic. As we began to emerge from one of the darkest periods in our history, our ballparks were filled with fans; the games were filled with excitement; and millions of families felt the joy of watching baseball together.
That is why I am so disappointed about the situation in which our game finds itself today. Despite the league’s best efforts to make a deal with the Players Association, we were unable to extend our 26 year-long history of labor peace and come to an agreement with the MLBPA before the current CBA expired. Therefore, we have been forced to commence a lockout of Major League players, effective at 12:01am ET on December 2.
I want to explain to you how we got here and why we have to take this action today. Simply put, we believe that an offseason lockout is the best mechanism to protect the 2022 season. We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time. This defensive lockout was necessary because the Players Association’s vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive. It’s simply not a viable option. From the beginning, the MLBPA has been unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.
When we began negotiations over a new agreement, the Players Association already had a contract that they wouldn’t trade for any other in sports. Baseball’s players have no salary cap and are not subjected to a maximum length or dollar amount on contracts. In fact, only MLB has guaranteed contracts that run 10 or more years, and in excess of $300 million. We have not proposed anything that would change these fundamentals. While we have heard repeatedly that free agency is “broken” – in the month of November $1.7 billion was committed to free agents, smashing the prior record by nearly 4x. By the end of the offseason, Clubs will have committed more money to players than in any offseason in MLB history.
We worked hard to find compromise while making the system even better for players, by addressing concerns raised by the Players Association. We offered to establish a minimum payroll for all clubs to meet for the first time in baseball history; to allow the majority of players to reach free agency earlier through an age-based system that would eliminate any claims of service time manipulation; and to increase compensation for all young players, including increases in the minimum salary. When negotiations lacked momentum, we tried to create some by offering to accept the universal Designated Hitter, to create a new draft system using a lottery similar to other leagues, and to increase the Competitive Balance Tax threshold that affects only a small number of teams.
We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.
To be clear: this hard but important step does not necessarily mean games will be cancelled. In fact, we are taking this step now because it accelerates the urgency for an agreement with as much runway as possible to avoid doing damage to the 2022 season. Delaying this process further would only put Spring Training, Opening Day, and the rest of the season further at risk – and we cannot allow an expired agreement to again cause an in-season strike and a missed World Series, like we experienced in 1994. We all owe you, our fans, better than that.
Today is a difficult day for baseball, but as I have said all year, there is a path to a fair agreement, and we will find it. I do not doubt the League and the Players share a fundamental appreciation for this game and a commitment to its fans. I remain optimistic that both sides will seize the opportunity to work together to grow, protect, and strengthen the game we love. MLB is ready to work around the clock to meet that goal. I urge the Players Association to join us at the table.
Manfred
You think the Royals could keep a Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, Max Scherzer or Clayton Kershaw? Show me some examples of small market teams keeping generational talents. Closest I got is Christian Yelich and Joey Votto - not quite generational talents imo. And those are exceptions, not the norm.
Meanwhile the Yankees never have to worry they'll lose Judge, Dodgers never have to worry about losing Bellinger and Kershaw. Yeah those teams might lose a Betts or a Seager sometimes. But again, those are exceptions for big market teams, not the norm. And when the Sox lose Betts, they sure as hell aren't losing him to the Royals.
Big market teams can afford to risk giving a huge contract to homegrown stars or free agent guys and them not living up to it. Small market teams have much less margin for error. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
You think the Royals could keep a Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, Max Scherzer or Clayton Kershaw? Show me some examples of small market teams keeping generational talents. Closest I got is Christian Yelich and Joey Votto - not quite generational talents imo. And those are exceptions, not the norm.
Meanwhile the Yankees never have to worry they'll lose Judge, Dodgers never have to worry about losing Bellinger and Kershaw. Yeah those teams might lose a Betts or a Seager sometimes. But again, those are exceptions for big market teams, not the norm. And when the Sox lose Betts, they sure as hell aren't losing him to the Royals.
Big market teams can afford to risk giving a huge contract to homegrown stars or free agent guys and them not living up to it. Small market teams have much less margin for error.
Yes, if the Royals had a generational talent they could keep them. [Reply]
So why did we lose Beltran, Damon, Hos, Moose, Cain? All just mismanagement? You think we could have competed on Greinke even if he wanted to stay? Do you think we could have kept Salvy if his contract was up in 2017?
Mike Sweeney and Alex Gordon seem to be the talent level that teams like the Royals can keep for life in today's world. Ring of Honor guys, but not sniffing the HOF. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
You think the Royals could keep a Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, Max Scherzer or Clayton Kershaw? Show me some examples of small market teams keeping generational talents. Closest I got is Christian Yelich and Joey Votto - not quite generational talents imo. And those are exceptions, not the norm.
Meanwhile the Yankees never have to worry they'll lose Judge, Dodgers never have to worry about losing Bellinger and Kershaw. Yeah those teams might lose a Betts or a Seager sometimes. But again, those are exceptions for big market teams, not the norm. And when the Sox lose Betts, they sure as hell aren't losing him to the Royals.
Big market teams can afford to risk giving a huge contract to homegrown stars or free agent guys and them not living up to it. Small market teams have much less margin for error.
They also die by the sword by getting saddled with bad contracts. It made the Yankees irrelevant for many years because they were stuck paying for guys like ellsbury, teixiera, arod. There are some things you can tweak for sure. I think the bigger issue still continues to be cheapskate owners and the mlb needlessly screwing with the game to generate more offense so they can get ratings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
So why did we lose Beltran, Damon, Hos, Moose, Cain? All just mismanagement? You think we could have competed on Greinke even if he wanted to stay? Do you think we could have kept Salvy if his contract was up in 2017?
Mike Sweeney and Alex Gordon seem to be the talent level that teams like the Royals can keep for life in today's world. Ring of Honor guys, but not sniffing the HOF.
Beltran and Damon were a different time. Has no relevance today.
We did keep Moose. He had no market.
Cain was 32 years old who was injury prone with his legs. It was a very smart business decision not to offer him a contract. He had a couple good seasons with the Brewers and is now declining big time. But his contract he got with the Brewers the Royals could have easily paid. It wasn't about the money it was about the production for the buck.
Hosmer the Royals offered the same money as the Padres. Padres contract was front loaded, the Royals back loaded deal. Money was the same, just got paid up front. And the Royals look like they have avoided a major disaster how Hosmer has played with the Padres.
Royals paid Gordon. Royals locked both Salvy and Ventura up long term. The money is there for the right player. [Reply]
Why would he stay when he knew we couldn't also sign Cain and Moose? Everyone know 2018 was going to be a rebuild. The Dodgers never have to do that.
No one I followed for years before 2017 seriously thought we were going to keep Hos. It was just assumed him and everyone else leaving was a done deal. If we can't even keep a Hosmer, we're never keeping a true generational talent like Bryce Harper.
And yeah he sucks now. But I still loved rooting for him and Cain and Moose (Esky could go) and I would have stayed interested longer if we could have kept those guys and added more to try to stay competitive, instead of dumping them and rebuilding (tanking). Maybe Hos wouldn't suck as bad in KC where he was the top dog and loved his teammates. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rasputin:
I don't even know who won the 2021 world series.
I can tell you who won the 2015 World Series THE ROYALS :-)
Since they got rid of Hosmer my interest in the sport has withered. Still love my Royals oh yeah now I remember other reason i quit watching is Joe Buck . It was intolerable to listen to Joe Buck. So if there is a lockout MLB can go Buck themselves.
Last year's Braves vs. Astros World Series wasn't that compelling. All the games were longer than four hours and the team with the advantage each night is the one with the fresher bullpen. If you're not a fan of either team, you typically don't tune into the World Series until it gets to a Game 6 or Game 7 these days. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Yeah, I think a lot of the competitive balance stuff is overblown. One of the unique things about baseball is that teams get punished for bad long term deals by getting saddled with the contract. Like Bobby Bonilla, but usually it’s more like pujols (paying a guy way too much at the end of his career) or jacoby elsbury (paying a ton for a guy who doesn’t even play). It’s not like the 2000s when the Yankees and Red Sox were unstoppable. Frankly, the nfl and nba have a way bigger parity issue with dynasties dominating for decades. The variety of World Series teams and winners has been very good.
The bigger problem is a salary floor. The reason I’m more sympathetic with players is that owners should want a team because they’re hungry to win. Not an investment opportunity, and not winning just enough to make money. Keeping owners accountable for not spending enough is the bigger deal to me. People hated George Steinbrenner but the dude flat out wanted to win and spared no expense to do it.
The game is more competitive balanced than people give it credit for. The bigger crime is when dipshits like Manfred mess with the game to juice up ratings. Like juicing the ball a few years ago. And this season messing up pitchers arms because they stupidly decided to change the rules mid year about doctoring baseballs. Or selig and the steroid era. More offense tends to favor high payroll teams because a few great hitters can make up for mediocre pitching. Without offense, teams are rewarded for depth and bullpens and coaching, which tends to favor well run teams.
Joe Sheehan thinks baseball should just allow all the teams to spend as much as they want like the 1980s, no penalties. I think that's extreme but like you mention many big market teams have been burned by bad, longterm deals.
It doesn't matter if it's the Yankees or the Dodgers, a bad contract sucking up $30 million of the payroll is an opportunity cost to replace that stiff with a better ballplayer. And the Rays have shown they can turn a $40 million payroll into a 100-win roster. They maximize every cent, every roster space.
The one argument that I think holds water when it comes to competitive balance is the feeling from small-market fans that the Yankees have a .520/.530 floor no matter how incompetent their management is. The Yankees currently have 29 straight seasons and there's a feeling that they never get punished for subpar moves because they can piece together a winning ballclub by just simply spending on safe veterans. They don't have to take on the risk of a small-market club. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Thanks this is some good info I didn't have. FWIW I don't blame the players any more than the owners. My position is simple - the game sucks right now. I don't care whose fault it is. I do get annoyed with baseball twitter, which seems to almost universally take the players side on every position. It feels like a bunch of reporters and pundits worrying about losing access and/or being bullied by Boras.
Knowing that today's Royals could never keep a generational talent like George Brett past his rookie deal, and Salvy might be the Royals' last shot at a homegrown HOFer who stays with the team (and only because of a terrible fluke contract) make the game a lot less fun for me. When Damon and Beltran left is when the new reality sunk home for a lot of KC fans. The '75-85 Royals were so fun - largely because they kept the core group of Brett, McRae, Wilson, White, and Otis together. That could never happen now.
That stuff matters to me as a fan. I went to Brett's last game. I flew back to KC for Cain/Hos/Esky/Moose's last game. I will go to Salvy's last game. I don't want to root for a bunch of Kevin McReynolds/Jeff King retreads. Knowing the 2014/2015 core was always going to be gone was bittersweet. The wins were still amazing, but there was always this sad pall hanging over the team. Imagine knowing the Chiefs were going to lose Mahomes in a couple years. It wouldn't be the same and would be a much shittier fan experience.
And tanking. The players say it's greedy owners, the owners say it's necessary. The only thing not in doubt is that it sucks for the fans. Maybe both sides need a real scare that they could actually kill the golden goose, before it dawns on them that w/o fans there is no money to fight over.
Baseball Twitter is so gross. Baseball writers are easily the worst segment of the sports media universe.
I feel you about the feeling of the Royals being unable to keep a generational talent. Even though I'm not a fan of these teams, I got bummed when the Indians lost Francisco Lindor, the Nationals lost Bryce Harper, the Diamondbacks lost Paul Goldschmidt, the Rockies traded Nolan Arenado, the Marlins lost Giancarlo Stanton. I root for every market team to keep their homegrown star.
It's going to be sad when the Athletics trade Matt Chapman and Matt Olson this spring. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
You think the Royals could keep a Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, Max Scherzer or Clayton Kershaw? Show me some examples of small market teams keeping generational talents. Closest I got is Christian Yelich and Joey Votto - not quite generational talents imo. And those are exceptions, not the norm.
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
The Padres with Fernando Tatis Jr.
The Padres seem to be doing what Ewing Kauffman did in the last years of his life - go all out to buy a title. It's also what the players expect all small market owners to do. But I'm dubious the owners can all be shamed into spending like the Padres or Kauffman trying to get one last title before he dies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
The Padres seem to be doing what Ewing Kauffman did in the last years of his life - go all out to buy a title. It's also what the players expect all small market owners to do. But I'm dubious the owners can all be shamed into spending like the Padres or Kauffman trying to get one last title before he dies.
The Padres did build a strong farm system in the first place and then were aggressive when the time was ripe. But San Diego is a unique situation now because the Padres are the only show in town with the Chargers gone. That might have more to do with their spending than anything. [Reply]
MLB is planning to make a new proposal following the owners meeting which ends tomorrow. It is expected to involve core economic issues, and hope remains that it could trigger something to get a deal done on time for the regular season to begin as scheduled, or close.
