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 Vladimir_Kyrilytch:
While I agree with you overall, the Rays (tiny payroll) and their newly-signed-for-life superstar Wander Franco are the counterpoint.
And if Wander doesn't work out, they're sunk for a decade. If the Dodgers sign a hopefully generational talent and it doesn't work out, they can just shrug it off and pick up a few more Betts's and Scherzers.
If Wander turns out to be generational, then he signed a dumb contract for his actual worth, like Salvador Perez. And unlike Salvy, Wander might become disgruntled eventually.
These are the risks of locking someone up really early. The Dodgers don't have to take those risks. They can wait until the time is right, then offer market value - to their own talents and any other talents on the market they fancy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, I worry about that a lot with gymnastics and baseball. For right now we're only going around Missouri but shit, that started in gymnastics when she was 6.
I played on a few traveling baseball teams as a kid but not enough of them. Part of it was just that I wasn't a great player and didn't really want to go to Texas to be a utility infielder and part-time catcher and maybe get 2 starts and 8-10 ABs over 4 days. I wasn't starting at a super-high level as it was.
But once my teammates started going to 2-3 times as many of those events as I did, they just tore away from me. By my last season I couldn't get on the field at all. And I was at least good enough to play on some traveling squads until my teens. That made me as good/better than 80% of the guys I was typically playing against (especially defensively). In 3 years I went from the no-doubt starting SS to a mopup player.
And that was in the mid 90s. It's orders of magnitude worse now. We weren't looking at traveling until 11-12 yrs old. They have 8-9 yr old traveling squads now. Shit, we were just happy throwing strikes at that age. Worse, many HS coaches have traveling teams they organize and if you're not on that team, it's damn near impossible to get any attention at the HS level unless you're just clearly better than everyone. If you're just a good player, that kid that traveled with your coach all season is gonna get more opportunity than you will.
But hell man, it's no better in basketball or football. All the organized sports have gone haywire in that regard. At least in Hockey you've gotta spend a billion dollars in year 1 so you kinda understand what you're getting into...
Yeah, it's fairly horrifying as a parent.
I was shit at anything athletic until 6th or so grade, and while I didn't amount to anything as an athlete, your boy here needed sports. I'm not sure exactly what itch it scratched for me, whether it was competitive, just burning out the testosterone, seeing my skills grow, or some contrived need to win, or grind, or something. Probably some combination of all of it, but I needed it. Bad. Still do to some extent, I think. My knees are shit now and I can't run or jump so I'm not doing anything to speak of athletically. I guess I still get on the bike and let out some hate. But even then, there's still an edge, a little hostility, something that isn't getting addressed that used to with sports. These days, I probably let most of it out through working like a fucking maniac and at least leveraging it into (hopefully) gross revenue.
I'm self aware enough to know that I'm not going to adequately solve the problem from a psychology standpoint, so I'll leave it there. The problem is, if I were operating in today's world, I might have been too far behind by 6th or so grade to even make anything happen, even to the extent that it did. Then it's hard to imagine what my life would have been like without sports. I'm deficient - something - as a broke down 38 year old. What the hell would my life have been without sports to take whatever edge off? Especially as a teenager when I was burning pretty hot.
I'm finding myself as a parent, finding it hard to get behind diving into sports as a 100% of the time activity at young ages. Philosophically, it's better to not waste their time on something that won't materialize. Especially if you have to be all in at a young age. But then I think about how important even middling sports were for me and I'm torn.
Now my daughter is 7 and at least right now, is horrible at everything sports, and doesn't seem to have much of an edge. Son is 3 and has a little fuck you in him. Who knows what he'll become, but it's possible he needs sports in the same way I did.
So we'll see what happens. I just hope they have an outlet for whatever drives they have. And most importantly, I hope I don't fuck it up for them. [Reply]
Salary cap would fix all my issues with the sport along with a shortened season and more playoff teams.
Why a team like the Dodgers or Yankees can have 3x the payroll of others is just crap. Last year the Dodgers were getting their butts hammered so they decided to just buy Scherzer and Turner (total crap)…funny that the Dodgers were whining about the Astros cheating yet they have “cheated” the past 10+ years with the way they just buy players.
The game is broken…hate to say it but the NFL has the most equitable sport (other than golf) around. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Yeah, it's fairly horrifying as a parent.
Now my daughter is 7 and at least right now, is horrible at everything sports, and doesn't seem to have much of an edge. Son is 3 and has a little **** you in him. Who knows what he'll become, but it's possible he needs sports in the same way I did.
So we'll see what happens. I just hope they have an outlet for whatever drives they have. And most importantly, I hope I don't **** it up for them.
I managed a competitive youth baseball team for about 10 years. Too many parents think their kid is the next Griffey jr. instead of letting the kid just develop to their potential. We would travel for tournaments but only ones we could make the drive to and back. That hurt my recruitment of the top players because the parents thought they had to travel and spend every weekend all over the USA to give their kid the best chance at success.
We did make it to one World Series. But. I have no regrets and the kids, who are now adults appreciated my approach. Most are successful in life. Thats the goal isn't it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
I managed a competitive youth baseball team for about 10 years. Too many parents think their kid is the next Griffey jr. instead of letting the kid just develop to their potential. We would travel for tournaments but only ones we could make the drive to and back. That hurt my recruitment of the top players because the parents thought they had to travel and spend every weekend all over the USA to give their kid the best chance at success.
We did make it to one World Series. But. I have no regrets and the kids, who are now adults appreciated my approach. Most are successful in life. Thats the goal isn't it?
It is. I doubt my kids will make it to the level of your baseball team. I'm worried they'll never get a look at even high school sports if they don't flash enough to experience some success earlier than I did.
No point in worrying too much about it until it happens, but I spend most of my worry about my kids (well, and my baby - the farm :-) ). [Reply]
The Pirates are about to go on another mid-2010s type run with the likes of KeBryan Hayes, Nick Gonzales, Henry Davis, Lioner Peguero, O'Neil Cruz, Roansy Contreras, Quinn Priester. I'm excited for them. I would go down to Bradenton to see these kids on the backfields. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wbbonneriii:
Salary cap would fix all my issues with the sport along with a shortened season and more playoff teams.
Why a team like the Dodgers or Yankees can have 3x the payroll of others is just crap. Last year the Dodgers were getting their butts hammered so they decided to just buy Scherzer and Turner (total crap)…funny that the Dodgers were whining about the Astros cheating yet they have “cheated” the past 10+ years with the way they just buy players.
The game is broken…hate to say it but the NFL has the most equitable sport (other than golf) around.
I dont understand the parity thing. Baseballs parity is pretty good. A lot of different teams in the World Series. Better than the nfl where the pats owned 2 decades of Super Bowls. If you have a well run organization you can be plenty competitive on a small payroll. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I dont understand the parity thing. Baseballs parity is pretty good. A lot of different teams in the World Series. Better than the nfl where the pats owned 2 decades of Super Bowls. If you have a well run organization you can be plenty competitive on a small payroll.
Because the variance of any given baseball game is so high that the playoffs are a crapshoot. And the perennial playoff teams like the Yanks, Sox and Dodgers haven't performed very well over the small sample size of the playoff lottery since 2000 or so, when the disparity in local revenue really went nuts.
Look at winning seasons instead of World Series winners.
In the NFL the haves and have nots are the teams with top 10 QBs vs. the teams with Kirk Cousins. It's not fair either, but at least if a team like KC or GB lands a generational QB talent, they don't automatically lose him to the Giants or Rams after his rookie deal. The Royals could never keep a Mike Trout or a George Brett in 2020. That sucks for the fans.
Also most mid and small market teams tank so they can be good for a short 4-5 year window (like the Royals did and are doing now). So you get a lot of variety. But that doesn't mean the Royals and Pirates have the same chance to be competitive year in/year out like the Dodgers and Yankees.
Most national baseball writers seem to think it's better for the game if the Dodgers and Yanks are in the playoffs every year. Small market teams should be happy with taking their shot once a decade or so. But they won't come out and say that, so instead they do all this sleight of hand stuff trying to claim that one team having $400M in revenue more than another doesn't matter to competitive advantage. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Because the variance of any given baseball game is so high that the playoffs are a crapshoot. And the perennial playoff teams like the Yanks, Sox and Dodgers haven't performed very well over the small sample size of the playoff lottery since 2000 or so, when the disparity in local revenue really went nuts.
Look at winning seasons instead of World Series winners.
In the NFL the haves and have nots are the teams with top 10 QBs vs. the teams with Kirk Cousins. It's not fair either, but at least if a team like KC or GB lands a generational QB talent, they don't automatically lose him to the Giants or Rams after his rookie deal. The Royals could never keep a Mike Trout or a George Brett in 2020. That sucks for the fans.
Also most mid and small market teams tank so they can be good for a short 4-5 year window (like the Royals did and are doing now). So you get a lot of variety. But that doesn't mean the Royals and Pirates have the same chance to be competitive year in/year out like the Dodgers and Yankees.
Most national baseball writers seem to think it's better for the game if the Dodgers and Yanks are in the playoffs every year. Small market teams should be happy with taking their shot once a decade or so. But they won't come out and say that, so instead they do all this sleight of hand stuff trying to claim that one team having $400M in revenue more than another doesn't matter to competitive advantage.
The guaranteed contracts offset some of that because many of these teams inevitably get saddled with really bad contracts. The dodgers run is pretty recent. The Yankees have been a bubble playoff team at best for a while. Mets are a great example of how badly spending unwisely can hurt.
I agree it creates competitive advantage. But as you pointed out it also happens to be a league where small to mid market teams can put together big runs. Hard to do that in the nfl without an elite qb. Hard to do that in the nba if you’re not in a major media market.
So I don’t think the advantage is nearly as big as some claim. Now, where I think payroll becomes a huge issue is when the league manipulates baseball by creating offense. Like juicing balls and looking the other way on PEDs. There’s a reason the royals and Indians had great runs when defense was up and offense was down. Big offense favors pay payrolls. [Reply]
For me as a fan, losing homegrown stars is a bigger deal than the competitiveness. Obviously in a perfect salary cap world, it's not like the Royals would be playoff contenders every year anyway.
But they did have a nice run from the mid 70s to mid 80s that probably wouldn't be possible today because they'd have lost Brett, Willie Wilson, probably McRae and Frank White, Dennis Leonard, Quiz.
When the Royals lost Damon and Beltran, my fandom cooled, as did a lot of fans. The Joe Sheehans of the world will point to Wander, Christian Yelich, or Joey Votto. Those are few and far between though, and very risky by the small market teams - and none are a top 5 player in baseball like Brett was for a decade.
The smart play for small market teams is usually to try to get a haul for the mega-star, which often may be a good deal for competitiveness. But it takes out a lot of the fun of being a fan when you know your team is essentially a minor league feeder, at least when when it comes to superstars. [Reply]
The first week of 2022 is resembling the last month of 2021: There are no negotiating sessions currently scheduled between MLB and the players association. They have met twice in the last month since the lockout, but strictly on non-core economic issues.
