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
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The CBT threshhold will have a nominal impact on the overwhelming majority of players.
Bullshit. The CBT threshold allows all the owners an excuse to limit their payrolls. Not raising it, (proposed 5% then stays stagnant for 4 years then raises 1% a year after) allows them to keep payrolls stagnant as revenues skyrocket.
I'll give you that there should be a cap and a floor, but they're not even trying to negotiate the current system in good faith, let alone talk about a floor.
KC connection is right, the owners didn't do squat for months after locking them out, then pushed the narrative the night before saying they were making progress just to say the.players are the ones that backed out.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk [Reply]
Originally Posted by kstater:
Bullshit. The CBT threshold allows all the owners an excuse to limit their payrolls. Not raising it, (proposed 5% then stays stagnant for 4 years then raises 1% a year after) allows them to keep payrolls stagnant as revenues skyrocket.
I'll give you that there should be a cap and a floor, but they're not even trying to negotiate the current system in good faith, let alone talk about a floor.
KC connection is right, the owners didn't do squat for months after locking them out, then pushed the narrative the night before saying they were making progress just to say the.players are the ones that backed out.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
There were 6 teams within $2 million of the CBT last year. So 20% of the league. There were only 8 that got within $25 million of it. Funny how a union is suddenly arguing trickle down economics to claim this will do anything but help the very top of the market get paid a little more by the handful of teams that are willing to work in that end of the pool.
There are DOZENS of things that would far more directly impact the overwhelming majority of the players in the league. Including salary floors and more robust revenue sharing.
The owners did a shitload. They kept proposing ideas and MLB wasn't even countering. They tried to do a federal mediation and the union declined. Calling MLB's bullshit 'proposals' early on anything other than the sort of anchoring that seems purpose built to end dialogue is crazy.
Yes, the players are the ones that got locked out. Because last time things looked like this the owners didn't take initiative and the players went on strike. The owners weren't willing to risk that. And now that we're seeing how the players handled at least the early stages of this negotiation, the owners were absolutely right to do so.
Nobody's hands are clean in this, but to pretend like the players are angels here is absurd. And the reports of the agents getting involved Monday were just icing on the cake - because two squabbling parties isn't enough, you gotta get the vultures in there attacking the carcass as well.
If you put any stock in anything that's been reported, the owners have come a hell of a lot further to the players than the players have come to the owners. And if you DON'T believe what's been reported, then how can you say with any level of certainty that the owners are at fault for operating in bad faith? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Raiderhader:
If Moose could make the adjustment, Brett unquestionably would have been able to.
In Mike Moustakas last year in KC his numbers were virtually identical against the shift as they were against a straight up infield.
In '18 and '19 they were worse, in '20 they were better, in '21 they were again virtually identical and he saw a shift in nearly 2/3 of his ABs.
Moustakas didn't 'make an adjustment' to the shift - he just became a better hitter.
The idea that guys are just going to start taking 98 mph fastballs in to the opposite field is silly. Moreover, in an era again where singles don't move the needle at all, allowing a guy to punch a ball into the opposite field in exchange for him not taking a full hack and potentially doing more damage is a trade you make almost every time. Now the hitter is letting the defense dictate his approach and in so doing the defense wins even if it doesn't.
Brett is being Brett - full of his typical bravado. Its not that easy to just start poking balls opposite field. At most you can ambush pitchers a few times. But the instant that catcher sees your hips open early, he's going to note it, the shift will be back and you're going to start getting attacked by the shift again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
In Mike Moustakas last year in KC his numbers were virtually identical against the shift as they were against a straight up infield.
In '18 and '19 they were worse, in '20 they were better, in '21 they were again virtually identical and he saw a shift in nearly 2/3 of his ABs.
Moustakas didn't 'make an adjustment' to the shift - he just became a better hitter.
The idea that guys are just going to start taking 98 mph fastballs in to the opposite field is silly. Moreover, in an era again where singles don't move the needle at all, allowing a guy to punch a ball into the opposite field in exchange for him not taking a full hack and potentially doing more damage is a trade you make almost every time. Now the hitter is letting the defense dictate his approach and in so doing the defense wins even if it doesn't.
Brett is being Brett - full of his typical bravado. Its not that easy to just start poking balls opposite field. At most you can ambush pitchers a few times. But the instant that catcher sees your hips open early, he's going to note it, the shift will be back and you're going to start getting attacked by the shift again.
I believe in my initial post I correlated adjusting to the shift with becoming a better hitter. Adjusting to the shift, learning to take what the defense gives you, is becoming a better hitter just as Mahomes learning to take what the defense gives him is him becoming a better QB. And Moose did this for a little while, I know, I was watching him hit to the opposite field.
Brett hit to all fields as it was, to suggest that he couldn’t take advantage of the shift is just silly. He was not just a product of his era, he was a legit hitter and competitor who would find success at any point in MLB history. [Reply]
The shift is so overrated. Hitters that barrel the ball, get their line-drive rate in the 23-25 percent range and hit flies as opposed to ground balls are going to beat the shift and beat the percentages in the longterm.
Even though Wee Willie Keeler said it you hit it where they ain't, it's quality of contact that matters and contact quality is going to find grass and extra-base hits in the aggregate when luck is taken out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
If you threw 92 in Brett’s day you were a fire baller. You can’t be a mop up man in the low 90s anymore.
Nobody knew about spin rates or pitch tunneling. Sliders were barely utilized due to the fear of arm injuries. For most of Brett’s career there was no real bullpen specialization.
Hitters face a MUCH larger challenge now than when he played.
Oh, and George Brett is an arrogant drunken asshole. Why would anyone take what that guy has to say about anything seriously? Whatever the discussion, Brett’s conclusions are that he’s the solution. **** that guy.
Thank you! It's baffling why people still kiss Brett's ass. He's a gigantic prick. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
The shift is so overrated. Hitters that barrel the ball, get their line-drive rate in the 23-25 percent range and hit flies as opposed to ground balls are going to beat the shift and beat the percentages in the longterm.
Even though Wee Willie Keeler said it you hit it where they ain't, it's quality of contact that matters and contact quality is going to find grass and extra-base hits in the aggregate when luck is taken out.
Statistically the infield shift is overblown, yes.
But stationing an infielder in the short grass to the pull side has a pretty significant impact even on quality contact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Raiderhader:
I believe in my initial post I correlated adjusting to the shift with becoming a better hitter. Adjusting to the shift, learning to take what the defense gives you, is becoming a better hitter just as Mahomes learning to take what the defense gives him is him becoming a better QB. And Moose did this for a little while, I know, I was watching him hit to the opposite field.
Brett hit to all fields as it was, to suggest that he couldn’t take advantage of the shift is just silly. He was not just a product of his era, he was a legit hitter and competitor who would find success at any point in MLB history.
Look at how Moose performed against the shift - the adjustments he made were not to hit against it. And he’s not beating it with any great regularity. Not are teams shying away from using it against him. There’s nothing in the data to support the idea that he became a superior hitter by learning to hit against the shift or that it doesn’t remain an effective weapon against him.
As for Brett - yeah, he’s an all time great hitter. But saying that he’s just gonna take inside heat into RF when the best hitters in the modern game aren’t even routinely doing so without sacrificing significant run production ability is being far too presumptuous. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kstater:
Bullshit. The CBT threshold allows all the owners an excuse to limit their payrolls. Not raising it, (proposed 5% then stays stagnant for 4 years then raises 1% a year after) allows them to keep payrolls stagnant as revenues skyrocket.
I'll give you that there should be a cap and a floor, but they're not even trying to negotiate the current system in good faith, let alone talk about a floor.
KC connection is right, the owners didn't do squat for months after locking them out, then pushed the narrative the night before saying they were making progress just to say the.players are the ones that backed out.
Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
I don’t want to defend these asshole billionaire owners but lest we forget…..
the players already have the best deal in all of sports. No other sport has such a player friendly deal.
If they accepted a salary cap, the game would be a way way better sport. The players are keeping the fans from enjoying a more competitive sport. That falls on them and them alone.
All this other stuff is fringe stuff. And they are postponing or canceling games for money on the edge of the whole financial pie. They are all idiots in this situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
I don’t want to defend these asshole billionaire owners but lest we forget…..
the players already have the best deal in all of sports. No other sport has such a player friendly deal.
If they accepted a salary cap, the game would be a way way better sport. The players are keeping the fans from enjoying a more competitive sport. That falls on them and them alone.
All this other stuff is fringe stuff. And they are postponing or canceling games for money on the edge of the whole financial pie. They are all idiots in this situation.
You're completely wrong on this. A salary cap doesn't change anything other than encouraging owners to spend less.
The reason owners want to expand to 12 team playoffs? Because they want to be able to spend less, make more money, and have a chance at competing for a title without trying to win.
Owners/front offices legit **** with players playing time to have an additional season of contract control.
I don't see how you view this as the players fault.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
If you put any stock in anything that's been reported, the owners have come a hell of a lot further to the players than the players have come to the owners. And if you DON'T believe what's been reported, then how can you say with any level of certainty that the owners are at fault for operating in bad faith?
I have trouble with taking Manfred's words at face value when he said he wanted to preserve a 162 game season back in December and they didn't even propose an offer until February 14th and didn't do real negotiating in person until last week. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Look at how Moose performed against the shift - the adjustments he made were not to hit against it. And he’s not beating it with any great regularity. Not are teams shying away from using it against him. There’s nothing in the data to support the idea that he became a superior hitter by learning to hit against the shift or that it doesn’t remain an effective weapon against him.
As for Brett - yeah, he’s an all time great hitter. But saying that he’s just gonna take inside heat into RF when the best hitters in the modern game aren’t even routinely doing so without sacrificing significant run production ability is being far too presumptuous.
I have continually stated that Moose did it for a short time. For whatever reason he allowed himself to fall back into his old tendencies. But I watched him beat the shift by going opposite field for a little while. It happened. I witnessed it.
And I maintain my original point that if Moose can make that adjustment a pure hitter like Brett certainly could. In fact, he wasn’t hitting all fields when he first came up. Charley Lau taught him to (and to his credit Brett was actually open to instruction). Would his career numbers be as high playing today? Probably not. But again, that doesn’t mean that the talent is/was not there to still be one of the better hitters playing today.
Pure talent, if actively honed, transcends eras. Brett had the talent and the competitive drive to hone it to be successful into today’s game… and that includes beating the shift. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
You're completely wrong on this. A salary cap doesn't change anything other than encouraging owners to spend less.
The reason owners want to expand to 12 team playoffs? Because they want to be able to spend less, make more money, and have a chance at competing for a title without trying to win.
Owners/front offices legit fuck with players playing time to have an additional season of contract control.
I don't see how you view this as the players fault.
You can tell a person MLB is no less competitively balanced than any other sport. You can show them the statistics of teams that have played in a playoff game in recent years that it's no less competitively balanced than any other sport. You can show them statistics of teams that have won their respective championships that it's no less competitively balanced than any other sport. Ultimately, it's up to that person to see the forest for the trees. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
You can tell a person MLB is no less competitively balanced than any other sport. You can show them the statistics of teams that have played in a playoff game in recent years that it's no less competitively balanced than any other sport.You can show them statistics of teams that have won their respective championships that it's no less competitively balanced than any other sport. Ultimately, it's up to that person to see the forest for the trees.
Name an example from any other sport where a team that consistently competes and develops their talent at very high levels consistently sells off their talent similar to the Rays or the A's in the NHL, NBA, or NFL. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
You're completely wrong on this. A salary cap doesn't change anything other than encouraging owners to spend less.
The reason owners want to expand to 12 team playoffs? Because they want to be able to spend less, make more money, and have a chance at competing for a title without trying to win.
Owners/front offices legit **** with players playing time to have an additional season of contract control.
I don't see how you view this as the players fault.
I have trouble with taking Manfred's words at face value when he said he wanted to preserve a 162 game season back in December and they didn't even propose an offer until February 14th and didn't do real negotiating in person until last week.
You're just assuming things without any real idea of how it could shake out.
While the Yankees and Red Sox would be capped, the salary cap also comes with a salary floor that requires the Marlins etc. to spend a minimum.
Bonding as one whole unit with a cap and revenue/joint TV deal would probably enrich teams in ways that aren't even conceivable currently.
All these networks are dying to fill slots over the week and would go bonkers to have programming that's consistent.
Vince McMahon is a total failson and Fox gave him a billion dollars so they can forget about how to fill Friday nights.
The league as a whole is missing out on billions because half of the league has a TV deal with NW Fred's Happy Sports Channel SW Idaho HD.
They need to take lessons from the NFL when it comes to revenue generating.
When every team is pulling in more on avg than they ever did and are required to spend a minimum percentage on the roster, it will work out for the players. [Reply]