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 jd1020:
The Royals may not have the TV contract of a Yankees or Dodgers but their contract brings in damn near as much money as their active roster costs. Before any kind of revenue brought in from ticket sales, concessions, etc... their team is pratically fucking paid for.
When they're rebuilding, sure. But when they're attempting to maintain a roster for the purposes of extending a competitive window, the TV contract won't even cover half the roster costs. I'm curious...in the best of attendance years, what is the approximate income from ticket sales, stadium advertising, parking, concessions, merch sales plus whatever cut they get from competitive balance funds, MLB-wide (shared) TV deal income, etc. minus the total organization's operational costs ? I don't actually know the answer, but if that number is less than 50+ million, there's no way they're in the black during a competitive window. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan:
When they're rebuilding, sure. But when they're attempting to maintain a roster for the purposes of extending a competitive window, the TV contract won't even cover half the roster costs. I'm curious...in the best of attendance years, what is the approximate income from ticket sales, stadium advertising, parking, concessions, merch sales plus whatever cut they get from competitive balance funds, MLB-wide (shared) TV deal income, etc. minus the total organization's operational costs ? I don't actually know the answer, but if that number is less than 50+ million, there's no way they're in the black during a competitive window.
Believe it or not, revenues go up when a team is actually successful and there's something for fans to root for, beyond the extra money teams get for making the playoffs.
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Another shortened season.
MLB circling the toilet bowl.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we really go short-season/regular/short/regular, it might actually hasten the end of traditional starting pitching. It would screw with the game’s stats for years.
Originally Posted by jd1020:
Believe it or not, revenues go up when a team is actually successful and there's something for fans to root for, beyond the extra money teams get for making the playoffs.
If that site is to be believed then just from 2013 to 2015 revenue went up $100M and hasn't really come back down.
Of course. I'm not sure I was disputing that. It's only logical. My question was more along the lines of how much they actually take in that does not go straight back out into operations, salaries, etc. It would be interesting to know where that site gets its figures, because both the union and the owners don't seem to have figures they're willing to present. Owners cry that they bleed red for years in a row...players say owners are raking it in. ZERO facts from anyone, including the cited web site. This is simple math.
Big picture - nothing will change substantively until/unless MLB becomes the brand in the same manner as the NFL. As is, MLB is a confederation of local brands...the local brands being primary. While the Chiefs are their own brand, there's no question Clark and the other owners are NFL-first...because as the NFL rises, each franchise rises. Unless MLB changes their business model, little will change. The large-city owners don't want that...they want their city/brand dollars for themselves. And since the largest amount of wealthy and guaranteed contracts belong to the mega-stars from MLB, I doubt they want to see a system where everyone else's contracts go up, but their mega-deals become less common, since there is no equivalent to a QB-type difference maker on a baseball field. So...we are left with a system where the MLB owners fight for terms that benefit the bottom line of their lowest revenue franchises, which will obviously make the highest revenue teams flush with ungodly amounts of profit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dallaschiefsfan:
Of course. I'm not sure I was disputing that. It's only logical. My question was more along the lines of how much they actually take in that does not go straight back out into operations, salaries, etc. It would be interesting to know where that site gets its figures, because both the union and the owners don't seem to have figures they're willing to present. Owners cry that they bleed red for years in a row...players say owners are raking it in. ZERO facts from anyone, including the cited web site. This is simple math.
Big picture - nothing will change substantively until/unless MLB becomes the brand in the same manner as the NFL. As is, MLB is a confederation of local brands...the local brands being primary. While the Chiefs are their own brand, there's no question Clark and the other owners are NFL-first...because as the NFL rises, each franchise rises. Unless MLB changes their business model, little will change. The large-city owners don't want that...they want their city/brand dollars for themselves. And since the largest amount of wealthy and guaranteed contracts belong to the mega-stars from MLB, I doubt they want to see a system where everyone else's contracts go up, but their mega-deals become less common, since there is no equivalent to a QB-type difference maker on a baseball field. So...we are left with a system where the MLB owners fight for terms that benefit the bottom line of their lowest revenue franchises, which will obviously make the highest revenue teams flush with ungodly amounts of profit.
You were making it sound like if their profits are so low now then if they spent just a little more money to be competitive they would be taking a loss. That's true for every team if they are stupid with money, but there's no reason the Royals or any franchise in baseball can't swing probably $120M minimum on payroll.
And this isn't directed at you, but the whole thing with Patrick Mahomes staying in KC because of a salary cap is the dumbest fucking argument to make. The Chiefs made Mahomes the first ever $500M athlete, in any sport. He's not staying in KC because the Jets can't offer more. He's staying in KC because no one has ever offered more. The Chiefs ponied the fuck up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
The Royals may not have the TV contract of a Yankees or Dodgers but their contract brings in damn near as much money as their active roster costs. Before any kind of revenue brought in from ticket sales, concessions, etc... their team is pratically ****ing paid for.
Imagine if the Chiefs let Patrick Mahomes walk after decades of retread backup trash when they could afford to keep him. That's one of the bigger problems with baseball owners, not the spending of the Yankees and Dodgers. Baseball is no more or less balanced than any other ****ing sport, look at the numbers.
Your very own Whit Merrifield said owners need to stop crying poor when they aint broke.
So give them a salary floor. That's the only solution I can see to make them spend more. Shaming them doesn't seem to be working. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jd1020:
You were making it sound like if their profits are so low now then if they spent just a little more money to be competitive they would be taking a loss. That's true for every team if they are stupid with money, but there's no reason the Royals or any franchise in baseball can't swing probably $120M minimum on payroll.
If that's true, then yeah...they should be able to push that payroll up when they are needing to lock up some of their guys. The issue for me is this - I have no clue how anyone is certain of what any of these franchises pocket. Apparently the Braves opened their books to some extent? And they supposedly made 100 Million on the year. If this is true (and I don't know for certain whether this is a good faith, legit opening of their books), you can likely extrapolate an approximation of what others are making based on where they fall on the TV contract and payroll spectrum in contrast with Atlanta. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
So give them a salary floor. That's the only solution I can see to make them spend more. Shaming them doesn't seem to be working.
I wonder if they would go for a soft floor kind of like the soft ceiling. So for the smaller markets who receive benefits like picks and profit shares, if they dont meet the minimum then they start losing freebies. [Reply]
Today's supposedly the deadline to start cancelling actual games. Looks like the owners are going to play hardball and try to put the squeeze on.
MLB today indicated a willingness to miss a month of games and took a more threatening tone than yesterday, sources briefed on the day’s first meeting between MLB and the Players Association tell me, @Ken_Rosenthal and @FabianArdaya. Full context of conversation not yet known.
Both sides don't care about the average fan. So why should I care if players who if they weren't blessed by elite skills would be making 50,000 at a regular job and billionaire owners who only have the teams as play toys miss out? [Reply]
Players nor Owners give a shit about the fans or they would have gotten things done and not miss a game.
I think it be funny once they resume playing in a month or two or three that they go back to empty ball parks and fans just don't show up because it's their hard earned money paying for tickets. [Reply]
In talking to someone in management recently, I floated my theory that I didn't think owners wanted baseball in April, MLB's worst month That's why there's been no rush. And I was told that'd be news to him. That he believed both sides wanted to start season on time. Now this: https://t.co/kkWxjChh0s
Really tired of this. Since MLB locked out the players, I think it's time for the fans to give MLB a taste of their own medicine.
It looks like 7.5 million people have liked MLB on Facebook and 8.5 million are following them. It would be great to see fans unfollow/unlike MLB on social media to make that number fall. Anyone willing to start this movement?
Will it have a great impact? Probably not, but neither does anything MLB is doing (like removing players images/stats from their team websites). [Reply]