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 BryanBusby:
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.
I don't think a salary cap would solve the fundamental issues of players in arbitration years getting completely screwed over with playing time manipulation as well as impacting their first contract after arbitration as well as teams selling off guys as they get close to arbitration.
Regarding the TV deals, you are correct.
But I still don't see that changing the fundamental issue of owners not wanting to spend money. They cry poor even though they still make millions and also experience some spillover with owning surrounding real estate properties like in Atlanta, Arlington, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
I don't think a salary cap would solve the fundamental issues of players in arbitration years getting completely screwed over with playing time manipulation as well as impacting their first contract after arbitration as well as teams selling off guys as they get close to arbitration.
Regarding the TV deals, you are correct.
But I still don't see that changing the fundamental issue of owners not wanting to spend money. They cry poor even though they still make millions and also experience some spillover with owning surrounding real estate properties like in Atlanta, Arlington, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.
That's a concession they can get in return for allowing a cap on the arbitration front.
Teams not spending money will solve itself if they fail to meet the floor and part of their revenue cut will go to the rest of the league that will be glad to spend the free money. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
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.
MLB tried the NFL approach with the regionally nationally televised games in the mid 90s and it failed big time. Regional sports networks aren't bad. Every team plays every night which is the reason why a nationally televised package really doesn't work. Baseball has a big chance though in the streaming market if they play their cards right for that reason though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
MLB tried the NFL approach with the regionally nationally televised games in the mid 90s and it failed big time. Regional sports networks aren't bad. Every team plays every night which is the reason why a nationally televised package really doesn't work. Baseball has a big chance though in the streaming market if they play their cards right for that reason though.
The market today is much different compared to 1995... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Raiderhader:
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.
Teams probably adjusted back and he realized he was robbing Peter to pay Paul so he got away from it.
Over any appreciable period of time, giving up a solid stroke to start poking pitches oppo is a losing bet. And yes, George Brett would’ve figured that out as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
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.
And the owners have - repeatedly - offered a hard revenue split where the cap and floor are based on revenues and the players are guaranteed a certain percentage of spending that goes up as revenues do.
But they REFUSE to consider a cap or anything that diminishes guaranteed contracts. To the overwhelming detriment of the vast majority of players.
Originally Posted by Rams Fan:
I don't think a salary cap would solve the fundamental issues of players in arbitration years getting completely screwed over with playing time manipulation as well as impacting their first contract after arbitration as well as teams selling off guys as they get close to arbitration.
Regarding the TV deals, you are correct.
But I still don't see that changing the fundamental issue of owners not wanting to spend money. They cry poor even though they still make millions and also experience some spillover with owning surrounding real estate properties like in Atlanta, Arlington, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.
Put a ceiling and a floor in and you’ll see a TON of teams that offer extensions that pay their young guys more up front to keep things with the cap/floor situation on an even keel.
There’s a clear answer here and the players, due to 30 years of mindlessly parroting shit preached by Donald Fehr that has been roundly disabused since then, refuse to even consider it.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Teams probably adjusted back and he realized he was robbing Peter to pay Paul so he got away from it.
Over any appreciable period of time, giving up a solid stroke to start poking pitches oppo is a losing bet. And yes, George Brett would’ve figured that out as well.
The irony in all of this is that we’re he playing today teams likely wouldn’t try the shift with Brett because he did hit to all fields, making it pointless to try it. Which goes back to my initial point: hitters should become more complete in their craft and the shift largely disappears naturally. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And the owners have - repeatedly - offered a hard revenue split where the cap and floor are based on revenues and the players are guaranteed a certain percentage of spending that goes up as revenues do.
But they REFUSE to consider a cap or anything that diminishes guaranteed contracts. To the overwhelming detriment of the vast majority of players.
Yes, this IS the players fault.
a salary cap without a cap floor would never happen. No owners would be allowed to just pocket the money.
The lack of a salary cap is all on the players. [Reply]
The national baseball writers and pundits have done an incredible job of never explaining to their audience that a cap comes with a floor. I bet they get instantly cut off from access if they even discuss the topic. Only retired writers like Flanny can afford to tell it like it is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
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.
Teams are already reducing the amount of shifts against right-handed hitters across the board.
I went and looked at some of the so-called lefties that have been hurt by the shift, Jay Bruce, Anthony Rizzo, Kyle Seager. Tom Verducci even wrote a story about how the shift forced Bruce's premature retirement.
Looking at the data, all three of these guys have easily explainable reasons why they're not as effective. Bruce saw his line-drive rate plummet from mid-20s to the teens. That will kill anyone's batting average. Rizzo's line-drive rate sunk to 19% in 2021. He's also seen drop off in his plate skills. Seager sold out for more power, which in turn impacted his plate skills.
There's also bad luck in a vacuum but over the long run, if players avoid ground balls, generate hard contact and get line drives, outcomes are going to work in their favor. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Ocotillo:
Teams are already reducing the amount of shifts against right-handed hitters across the board.
I went and looked at some of the so-called lefties that have been hurt by the shift, Jay Bruce, Anthony Rizzo, Kyle Seager. Tom Verducci even wrote a story about how the shift forced Bruce's premature retirement.
Looking at the data, all three of these guys have easily explainable reasons why they're not as effective. Bruce saw his line-drive rate plummet from mid-20s to the teens. That will kill anyone's batting average. Rizzo's line-drive rate sunk to 19% in 2021. He's also seen drop off in his plate skills. Seager sold out for more power, which in turn impacted his plate skills.
There's also bad luck in a vacuum but over the long run, if players avoid ground balls, generate hard contact and get line drives, outcomes are going to work in their favor.
One major benefit to a heavy shift is that players can effectively ignore the outer 1/3. Pitchers are terrified to throw out there when they don’t have an infield on that side. So the shift, in some ways, fuels the ‘balls or bust’ approach from hitters.
They know they’re going to get thrown inside so their steer into the skid and look for pull power. It’s something of a vicious cycle but again - you’re just not going to poke and inside fastball or a back foot slider to the opposite field unless you’re Ted Williams.
And to build on the floor discussion - realize that if the Marlins are forced to spend an additional $30 million, they’re NOT going to get in the market for Gerrit Cole. They can’t afford to take that kind of risk because they don’t have the financial wherewithal to absorb it if it goes wrong.
They’re going to spend it on 3 guys making $10 million. Again - baseballs middle class would benefit.
The rank and file players are allowing themselves to be dragged into the muck by the wealthiest few in the union. They’re focusing on the wrong things and allowing big names and power agents to turn this into class warfare when in fact the owners have offered options that would create more benefits to more players than ANY of this shit they’re going to war over. They’re being idiots. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
]It’s something of a vicious cycle but again - you’re just not going to poke and inside fastball or a back foot slider to the opposite field unless you’re Ted Williams.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
O
And to build on the floor discussion - realize that if the Marlins are forced to spend an additional $30 million, they’re NOT going to get in the market for Gerrit Cole. They can’t afford to take that kind of risk because they don’t have the financial wherewithal to absorb it if it goes wrong.
They’re going to spend it on 3 guys making $10 million. Again - baseballs middle class would benefit.
If I was a Marlins fan, I wouldn't want them to spend it on a second-tier free agent anyway.
The Marlins should be saving that type of contract to extend Trevor Rogers or Pablo Lopez or Sixto Sanchez or Eury Perez. They already gave five years, $56 million to Sandy Alcantara last winter.
I actually don't have a problem with a rebuilding franchise saving its dollars, as long as it aggressively extends its homegrown talent when the time comes. [Reply]