Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

How can the MLB lockout end? Baseball insiders weigh in on potential compromises

What insiders say: These issues are where many believe that the players won’t make as much progress as they’d like. They’ve asked for flexibility on how service time is calculated, particularly for players who get accolades or awards in early season. But that’ll be hard to get through the owners—some executives believe the union should accept the league’s proposal, which gives out extra draft-pick incentives for keeping top prospects on the big league clubs.

With everything else on the line, there’s simply not enough energy to fix the tanking issue in one negotiation—though a payroll-floor CBT-style tax wouldn’t be a bad idea (so far, the league has offered only one along with a significantly-lower CBT ceiling). Small-market teams would never vote for it, though.

The draft lottery is an attempt to disincentivize tanking, but a four-team system isn’t enough according to sources on the players’ side. The union would like to see an eight-team lottery to prevent a race to the bottom of the standings each season.

There isn’t a great, doable avenue to completely avert the tanking cycles without payroll floors and caps. It’s why many believe the players need built-in ways to make money, like the pre-arb pool.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 23, 2022 at 01:30 PM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: labor issues, luxury tax, service time

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Jose Canusee Posted: February 24, 2022 at 04:46 AM (#6066036)
payroll floor will not do anything to stop tanking. It will just incentivize rebuilding teams to take a bad contract and prospects for their productive vet.
   2. sunday silence (again) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 04:50 AM (#6066038)
is there any one issue that's the main stumbling block or is it really a confluence of like three issues?
   3. Ron J Posted: February 24, 2022 at 08:15 AM (#6066045)
#2 I think that's one of the big issue. Neither side has clearly articulated priorities.

And there's a sizeable group on MLB's side (I doubt it's anything like a majority, but in this situation a motivated minority has an awful lot of influence) whose position would be broadly, break the union and figure out the details later.
   4. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 08:21 AM (#6066047)
I think the CBT is the biggest issue, and they haven't even touched that this week. The min. wage is a big deal, the union wants more money to 0-3 players by revising arb. I'd say those are the big three, but CBT is probably the biggest.
   5. Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful Posted: February 24, 2022 at 10:20 AM (#6066061)
"How can the lockout end?"

Ownership lifts the lockout.
   6. The Duke Posted: February 24, 2022 at 02:53 PM (#6066103)
I just don’t believe there is a “floor” that can’t be agreed. Let’s peg it at $90 million. Who’s spending below that? Teams that are temporarily tanking for draft picks. They have the capacity to spend $90 - they just see more value in stocking the game and making a run in a few years. I don’t buy that there’s any team that couldn’t sustain a $90 million payroll. But if you don’t like 90 - try 80. There’s a number that can be found.

I personally think $100 million is the right number but I’d be happy at $85 to start.

If there is a team in the room saying they can’t sustain a number like this then a) the league needs to find them a better city and /or b) the league needs to find a more well capitalized owner.
   7. The Duke Posted: February 24, 2022 at 02:54 PM (#6066104)
To follow on, it might be ok to to say a 3 year average of 80-100. You want to drop down to 50 for a year - fine, just make sure you ramp up the next two years.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 03:14 PM (#6066106)
I think $100M is too low. The NBA and NFL both have a floor that is 90% of the cap. MLB should follow suit. You'd have to do more revenue sharing.

I don't think teams should drop down. I'd like to see a market for bad contracts. If a team tanks and wants to go young, maybe they trade for Eric Hosmer and the Padres sent a prospect (or a draft pick - maybe we start allowing that?). Or just have a team that wants go to below the floor spend the money on the MLBPA pension fund or something like that.
   9. cookiedabookie Posted: February 24, 2022 at 03:26 PM (#6066108)
Or just have a team that wants go to below the floor spend the money on the MLBPA pension fund or something like that.

Or have them make up the difference at the end of the season with one time bonuses to the players on their roster (Floor minus ending payroll divided by total days on 25 man roster)
   10. Karl from NY Posted: February 24, 2022 at 03:35 PM (#6066109)
The NFL can have that floor because they split almost all revenue equally; they don't have the wide disparities in revenue between franchises as MLB does.

The NBA floor is 90% of the nominal cap but it's maybe 70% of the real salaries paid out, since the cap is so soft. The floor is a lot lower than it looks.

MLB could do more revenue sharing, but the players don't want to. It depresses player salaries since the team has to give away some of the marginal value. If Mike Trout produces 10 WAR at $10m revenue per, but the Angels have to give away 30% of that, then the contract they offer Trout will be only $70m not $100m.
   11. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 24, 2022 at 03:52 PM (#6066111)
is there any one issue that's the main stumbling block or is it really a confluence of like three issues?
Money.
   12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 04:24 PM (#6066117)
MLB could do more revenue sharing, but the players don't want to. It depresses player salaries since the team has to give away some of the marginal value. If Mike Trout produces 10 WAR at $10m revenue per, but the Angels have to give away 30% of that, then the contract they offer Trout will be only $70m not $100m.


But there will be more bidders for middle class FA. You're not going to have situations where Mike Moustakas can't find anyone to sign him. That should be the biggest priority for the union right now. Corey Seager is still getting paid, but the market is really drying up for non-elite FA.
   13. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 04:50 PM (#6066121)
The NFL can have that floor because they split almost all revenue equally; they don't have the wide disparities in revenue between franchises as MLB does.

Every MLB team gets $250M from central and shared revenue, plus 53% of their local revenue. Every team can run a $150M payroll and at least break even. A $100M floor is a no brainer.
   14. sunday silence (again) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 05:47 PM (#6066123)
Do the players have an agreed upon priority? or are they also not very clear about what their main goal is?
   15. Ron J Posted: February 24, 2022 at 05:55 PM (#6066125)
#14 Maybe service time manipulation, but if it is their priority, they're doing a poor job of communicating it.

Right now they're ... I guess sort of OK with status quo with nothing in the current setup that they see as worthy of a work stoppage.
   16. sunday silence (again) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 06:02 PM (#6066126)
having read lots of comments from primates before the talks I was thinking an age based free agency system was progressive and would be a huge improvement. But they seemed to drop that right from the get go. I thought that was odd. Wasnt there any significant portion of the union that wanted that?
   17. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 06:27 PM (#6066127)
payroll floor will not do anything to stop tanking. It will just incentivize rebuilding teams to take a bad contract and prospects for their productive vet.


Sure, but from a player perspective that's fine. Someone is getting paid. The problem from the MLBPA viewpoint is teams tanking by not spending money at all.
   18. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 24, 2022 at 06:45 PM (#6066130)

Sure, but from a player perspective that's fine. Someone is getting paid. The problem from the MLBPA viewpoint is teams tanking by not spending money at all.


Right, we can live with tanking if it's not super profitable. The problem today is tanking is the best way to earn a guaranteed profit.
   19. The Duke Posted: February 24, 2022 at 07:25 PM (#6066132)
17. This is a great point. Players talk about the floors as a competitiveness issue. What they want is to shift more overall cash to their side of the ledger. If an owner chooses to spend it badly, the union doesn’t care. Go ahead and pay Andrew Miller a bunch of cash instead of your pre-arb stars - as long as a union member gets paid

As an aside the two other issues: pre-arb bucket and minimum salary are not really union/owner issues. It’s just re-allocating money from older to younger. The real issue is the CBT and floors. These issues actually push aggregate dollars to the union. And not surprisingly, there’s no movement on that issue.
   20. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: February 24, 2022 at 07:38 PM (#6066134)
Every MLB team gets $250M from central and shared revenue, plus 53% of their local revenue.


I know Snapper, Walt and the guys over at FG look at this regularly and revenue is listed as anywhere from $210 to $250 million....a big number either way. The players really should be asking for a $150 mil floor and compromise down to say $125 mil.

As posted above, at least someone is going to get paid or some players will just be paid more. Either way, the funds are going to the players and not the owners.
   21. Karl from NY Posted: February 24, 2022 at 07:45 PM (#6066135)
But there will be more bidders for middle class FA. You're not going to have situations where Mike Moustakas can't find anyone to sign him.

Does this follow? I don't see how it would. Middle class FAs are affected by revenue sharing the same as anyone else - if the team gives away 30% of the marginal revenue, the contract offers will be that 30% less.

And Mike Moustakas's problem isn't any form of revenue sharing, it's that he's barely replacement level.
   22. Karl from NY Posted: February 24, 2022 at 07:47 PM (#6066136)
Every MLB team gets $250M from central and shared revenue, plus 53% of their local revenue. Every team can run a $150M payroll and at least break even. A $100M floor is a no brainer.

This is true, but it's a significant difference from what I was replying to - a floor of 67% is quite a bit lower than the NFL floor of 90%.
   23. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: February 25, 2022 at 06:13 AM (#6066153)
To follow on, it might be ok to to say a 3 year average of 80-100. You want to drop down to 50 for a year - fine, just make sure you ramp up the next two years.


I would go even further and suggest a 5-year rolling average. Tanking for a year or two is immensely frustrating for fans and players, but then at least there's some real reason to think that things will turn around in the near future. Takes away any pretense from the owners that tanking is just about rebuilding if you do it for more than a couple of years - and if you manage your rebuild poorly, then the punishment is on the owner having to spend more money for little result, rather than the fans having to sit through year after year of bargain-basement pain.
   24. TomH Posted: February 25, 2022 at 08:00 AM (#6066155)
I'm with Clapper's #11, $$

The players want more of the big pot the owners are getting. The owners want status quo.

The owners are *not* incentivized to give in, *until* the entirety of the season is at risk, which would cost them their huge post-season income.

So, my prediction: the owners will not budge much until we get to late April.

Sigh
   25. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 25, 2022 at 09:02 AM (#6066158)

Does this follow? I don't see how it would. Middle class FAs are affected by revenue sharing the same as anyone else - if the team gives away 30% of the marginal revenue, the contract offers will be that 30% less.

And Mike Moustakas's problem isn't any form of revenue sharing, it's that he's barely replacement level.


If you look at NBA and NFL salaries I think it's hard to say the cap has been a drag on them. Top clubs earn a LOT of money.

I should have used a more recent example than Moustakas - I was referring to when he he hit 38 home runs and found no takers, so he slinked back to the Royals on a 1 year deal. That sort of free agent is increasingly getting squeezed. Adding bidders that are required to spend more money would boost that market back up.


I would go even further and suggest a 5-year rolling average


I guess this doesn't make sense to me, and just allows a team to be cheap for several years, only to spend when they were probably going to spend anyway. If you're going to allow this, then the cap should definitely be a 5-year rolling average to allow teams to over at times, and if that's the case, I'm not sure the floor and cap are going to do what they were intended to do. Spending money can aid a rebuild greatly. You sign good players, trade them at the deadline for prospects.
   26. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 25, 2022 at 08:40 PM (#6066215)
I should have used a more recent example than Moustakas - I was referring to when he he hit 38 home runs and found no takers, so he slinked back to the Royals on a 1 year deal. That sort of free agent is increasingly getting squeezed. Adding bidders that are required to spend more money would boost that market back up.
Moustakas was worth 1.6 WAR that year. Thinking players like that were entitled to bidding wars and massive contracts is a big party of how the players got into this mess in the first place.
   27. Bad Fish Posted: February 27, 2022 at 02:24 PM (#6066324)
I'm in big favor of salary floors as well as better compensation for team control. I don't have as much heartburn with control term, the owners are financing a sizable development program, something that both basketball and football have figured out how to make the state college system finance, but at this point salary floors are IPA pissing unicorns. However, I wonder if the owners would be more incentivized to consider items like these if the players were willing to bend on guaranteed contracts.
   28. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 27, 2022 at 04:12 PM (#6066340)
Why not get rid of service time and base it on player age? If you are 22, you become eligible for arbitration. At 26, you are eligible for free agency.

Teams can then bring up young stars early without penalty and players can look at a calendar and know when they can cash out no matter what their team chooses to do. If they hate their team, they will be able to become free agents during their prime.
   29. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2022 at 04:20 PM (#6066341)

Why not get rid of service time and base it on player age? If you are 22, you become eligible for arbitration. At 26, you are eligible for free agency.


Both sides have proposed this, only the owners want it to be 30.5 years old, and players want it to be 6 years OR 30.5 years old.

the owners will not go for something that allows players to be FA at age 26.
   30. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 27, 2022 at 04:29 PM (#6066343)
I was just spitballing an age out there. Obviously the specifics would be negotiated.

If FA starts at 30.5, when would arbitration start?
   31. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 27, 2022 at 07:24 PM (#6066352)
If FA starts at 30.5, when would arbitration start?

Manfred: "30"
   32. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 27, 2022 at 11:38 PM (#6066366)
I'm not going to pretend that the owners are the only greedy bastards in this scenario. I can't afford to go to a game anymore, much less take my family.
   33. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 28, 2022 at 12:00 AM (#6066367)
I'm not going to pretend that the owners are the only greedy bastards in this scenario.

Perhaps not, but it's only the ownership cartel that has been found to be illegally colluding on multiple occasions against the union, been found guilty of unfair labor practices for negotiating in bad faith with the union, and who currently has the union locked out.


I can't afford to go to a game anymore, much less take my family.

Feel free to blame the owners for that too since they set the ticket prices. If player payroll were a significant factor in ticket pricing, then NCAA games -- including bowls, playoffs, and championships -- would pretty much be free.
   34. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 28, 2022 at 01:22 AM (#6066368)
It's really funny how owners acting in unison are an illegal cartel, but players acting in unison is a perfectly fine union. Is it even possible for the owners to sign a non-union player to an MLB contract?

The only people who get uniformly screwed by greed on both sides are the fans.

If player payroll were a significant factor in ticket pricing


What are you even talking about? The Houston Astros payroll is currently sitting at just under $160 million annually. Attendance in peak seasons is right at 3 million tickets sold. That's about $53 per ticket, and the average ticket cost in 2019 was $73. Ticket revenue is easily the largest source of revenue for the team and player payroll is easily the largest expense.
   35. Stevey Posted: February 28, 2022 at 08:35 AM (#6066375)
What are you even talking about?


Prices are set by how much the owners think they can get away with, not by how much it cost them to field a team that night. How much an owner is willing to pay a FA depends on how much extra revenue the player will bring in. You've got the causation backwards.
   36. Ron J Posted: February 28, 2022 at 08:35 AM (#6066376)
#34 That goes on the delusion that teams set their ticket prices based on their labor costs rather than a calculation of what the market will bear.

Put it this way. We've seen teams do fire sales. Did they reduce ticket prices at the same time? No.
   37. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 28, 2022 at 09:57 AM (#6066382)
It's really funny how owners acting in unison are an illegal cartel, but players acting in unison is a perfectly fine union.

But the players aren't acting in unison. Players acting in unison is what Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale did in the spring of 1966 when they simultaneously held out seeking a deal from the Dodgers that would pay them a combined million dollars over the life of the contract or they would both retire. Now that the players have an actual union, such an action would also be illegal collusion under US labor law which is why you don't see combined holdouts any more.
   38. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2022 at 10:07 AM (#6066383)

What are you even talking about? The Houston Astros payroll is currently sitting at just under $160 million annually. Attendance in peak seasons is right at 3 million tickets sold. That's about $53 per ticket, and the average ticket cost in 2019 was $73. Ticket revenue is easily the largest source of revenue for the team and player payroll is easily the largest expense.


The team was good, demand went up, prices went up. If ticket prices were linked strongly to payroll, you'd see lots of falling ticket prices when teams cut payroll, and yet that never seems to happen.
   39. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 28, 2022 at 10:18 AM (#6066384)
Prices are set by how much the owners think they can get away with, not by how much it cost them to field a team that night. How much an owner is willing to pay a FA depends on how much extra revenue the player will bring in. You've got the causation backwards.


I don't think so. I think they are interrelated.

Look, I don't doubt that owners a greedy money-hungry bastards. The problem is that is what the Player's Union has become as well. These are not blue-collar workers fighting for a living wage against oppressive masters. They are all lucratively wealthy elites who make more in a season, as "minimum" wage, than many actual blue-collar workers will make in their lifetimes.

To pretend that ticket prices are completely disconnected from their astronomical salaries is insanity.

Look at two scenarios:

1) The players decide, unilaterally, to all take a 50 pct cut in pay so that owners can lower ticket prices. Do the owners do that? Hell no, they are greedy bastards.

or 2) The owners decide, unilaterally, to lower ticket prices by 50 pct. Do the players agree to accept lower wages to compensate? Hell no, they will go on strike and refuse to play becuase they, too, are also greedy bastards.

Both owners and players are locked in a circle of greed and that's why it costs $300 to take a family of four to a single ballgame now.
   40. Stevey Posted: February 28, 2022 at 10:22 AM (#6066385)
Both owners and players are locked in a circle of greed and that's why it costs $300 to take a family of four to a single ballgame now.


It costs that much because people will pay it. Period. Both sides want to fight over how much of that $300 they should get, but the demand sets the market price.

They are all lucratively wealthy elites who make more in a season, as "minimum" wage,


The PA could do a lot of good PR-wise by demonstrating what their actual minimum wage is - what the guys on split contracts make, because it sure as hell aint much more than a blue collar worker.
   41. Howie Menckel Posted: February 28, 2022 at 10:44 AM (#6066387)
It doesn't matter whether MLB teams lower their asking price if the team blows.

the season ticketholders lower it, as seen on the secondary ticket market (sometimes, so do the teams).

the specific price the owners list for a ticket can be well above the latter asking price.

it's not close to unprecedented for seats to go for under $10 on the secondary market - and maybe $25 for a good seat. depends on the weather as well as the quality of the team.

I believe the Yankees STILL offer $5 decent seats - MasterCard Night, or something - for April midweek home games. Probably a little chilly, and you have to do a little research to avoid paying $45 or so for the parking garage.

But the "costs $300 to take a family of four to a single ballgame" is almost always an exaggeration.

that is, unless you insist on a box seat for a Sunday afternoon game on a 78-degree day in June. yeah, that ticket might not be cheap. but in that case, it is the finicky ticket buyer's selection of games scenario that drives the bulk of the total cost - not the team owner.

take the New Jersey Devils NHL team that plays in Newark.
they suck, and they are playing host to Vancouver tonight.
"get in the door" price on Stubhub is... $6 for upper-deck center ice.
lower level near the ends is $19.
but fourth row, center ice, club level, includes free food and drink and deluxe lounge - that's $93.

depends on what you want/need.
   42. AstrosOldTimer Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:11 AM (#6066391)
Period.


lol. If there were only some sort of baseball-related website around that encouraged its contributors to make arguments because on data analysis rather than assertion.

One can dream.
   43. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:17 AM (#6066393)


lol. If there were only some sort of baseball-related website around that encouraged its contributors to make arguments because on data analysis rather than assertion.


MLB ticket prices are up 5 percent since 2018. MLB salaries are down 6 percent since 2017.
   44. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:26 AM (#6066395)
MLBPA share of revenues has been declining for 5 years. I can't wait to see 5 years of ticket price declines. Those Astros fans tell me its coming.

   45. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:26 AM (#6066396)
It's really funny how owners acting in unison are an illegal cartel, but players acting in unison is a perfectly fine union. Is it even possible for the owners to sign a non-union player to an MLB contract?

Let me guess. You're rooting for Putin? Not a big stretch after rooting for Crane.
   46. Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network) Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:29 AM (#6066398)
To pretend that ticket prices are completely disconnected from their astronomical salaries is insanity.

2021 Final Four ticket prices are 145% higher than any other Final Four in history

Tickets to the Final Four have always been pricey, but Saturday’s March Madness matchups are tracking to be the most expensive of all time. And Monday’s championship game is even pricier.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there’s a very limited number of seats for each game—roughly 100 each. And the laws of supply and demand have never been more pronounced. As of Friday morning, ticket prices for Final Four games were as high as $7,700 each, according to TicketIQ, which tracks the resale market. Championship ticket prices go as high as $15,000.

Those are, of course, the high end. The “get-in” price for the semifinals (the lowest priced ticket, often in the worst location) is $808. For the finals, it starts at $602. Still, both of those get-in rates are record highs. For the Final Four, it’s 145% higher than any previous Final Four in NCAA history. For the championship game, it’s 233% above past games.

"Official" player payroll totals: $0.00.
   47. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:31 AM (#6066399)
Those Astros fans tell me its coming.
No, that banging you're hearing is just your weekly garbage pickup.
   48. BDC Posted: February 28, 2022 at 11:46 AM (#6066405)
Do people ever feel the same way about other entertainers? "That Tom Holland makes more for one movie than I will in five lifetimes, I'm not going to spend $60 for a family of four to see Spider-Man!!" Maybe they do. The labor situation is somewhat analogous, after all (unionized industry where stars can negotiate to make many times scale; plutocrat owners).

Or if not, why not … maybe acting does not seem so much like "play," though we use the same word for theater and for sports.
   49. Jay Seaver Posted: February 28, 2022 at 01:34 PM (#6066419)
48 -

They used to, for a while; there were big noises the first time someone got $20M for a movie or when the cast of Friends or Seinfeld got $1M each/episode. It mostly died down because things got a lot more opaque - compensation got more complicated, folks stopped publicizing it unless there was some sort of reason (mostly streamers wanting to look like major players). You really only hear about it now when Scarlet Johansson sues Disney. Unfortunately, every free agent is basically an auction and their salaries are germane to other moves the team makes.

And, wow, are there a lot of people who feel like they're being ripped off until they can see a $250M movie as one of a couple dozen they watch for a $15 subscription fee, now, rather than after any sort of theatrical window, and they've gotten more strident over the past couple years.
   50. Howie Menckel Posted: February 28, 2022 at 01:41 PM (#6066420)
Evan Drellich
@EvanDrellich
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.
1:26 PM · Feb 28, 2022
   51. BDC Posted: February 28, 2022 at 02:17 PM (#6066423)
Very interesting, Jay, I agree that those feelings are in play, and lead to a slightly different discourse than the one about greedy ballplayers.

Music is different still. Concert tickets are expensive, and everybody knows that pop stars get paid. But people show up in droves and all seem to be having such a good time …
   52. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 28, 2022 at 03:08 PM (#6066427)
Music is different still. Concert tickets are expensive, and everybody knows that pop stars get paid. But people show up in droves and all seem to be having such a good time …
Well yeah, you don't have record labels saying "we can't give Harry Styles tour support this year because we're still paying Train $30 million a year on a guaranteed contract from 2012."
   53. Jay Seaver Posted: February 28, 2022 at 04:21 PM (#6066437)
Music is also just crazy bipolar: Folks on the one end just do not buy albums any more (vinyl is basically merchandise), and think how much you pay for Spotify or Apple Music or whatever floats your boat, divide that by the number of songs you listen to a month, and then realize that the artist(*) is getting less than 1% of that. On the other hand, concerts are more expensive but they're attended by big fans who are probably plugged in enough to know that this is the only way their favorite artist earns any real money, and they're okay with that.

(*) This kind of speaks to #52 as well: labels have made it more or less impossible for any album to enter profitability for the artist; the pittance from the streamers goes to the label and will almost never be enough to pay down the production cost and the advance. I gather there really aren't a lot of people getting rich as musicians these days unless they manage something close to Taylor Swift level success and savvy.

I do kind of wonder if it would be the same for sports if MLB managed to get onto the same sort of subscription model that other forms of entertainment have evolved into - nobody really cares how much actors/musicians/authors/etc. get paid because it feels completely decoupled from what you pay Netflix/Spotify/Kindle (heck, I'm paying AMC $25 for up to 12 movies a month these days) - although I also suspect it's impossible because there is such a hard limit on how many people you can fit in a stadium.
   54. TJ Posted: February 28, 2022 at 04:43 PM (#6066439)
I wish baseball fans had the stones to tell the owners, “OK, here’s the deal- we are going to cancel as many games as you are. Cancel the first month of games? Then we cancel the second month- we buy no tickets, no merchandise, nothing from the advertisers on your broadcasts, we won’t even bet on the games for that second month. We won’t show up for that month of games even if we have season tickets. See how that goes over with your accountants.”

I’m a lifelong fan who spends a ton on games and merchandise, but I’ve had enough. Personally I am going to try and do this. Only wish more would join me…
   55. BDC Posted: March 01, 2022 at 05:40 PM (#6066543)
OK, here’s the deal- we are going to cancel as many games as you are. Cancel the first month of games? Then we cancel the second month

I wanted to say how much I like this idea! I think I will try it. Baseball is going to be so disrupted this year anyhow, I am not sure I care much about how many games I get to – might as well see how much an expression of that indifference matters to the local club.
   56. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 01, 2022 at 06:00 PM (#6066546)

I wish baseball fans had the stones to tell the owners, “OK, here’s the deal- we are going to cancel as many games as you are. Cancel the first month of games? Then we cancel the second month-


I guess we should credit Rays fans for being ahead of the curve here.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for the week of August 8-15, 2022
(212 - 8:18pm, Aug 12)
Last: Banta

Newsblog‘A League of Their Own’: There’s Still No Crying in Baseball — Just Room for Fixing Old Errors
(64 - 7:40pm, Aug 12)
Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome

NewsblogMets Announce Old Timers’ Day Roster
(6 - 7:22pm, Aug 12)
Last: Banta

NewsblogRodolfo Castro loses phone while diving into third in Pirates’ loss
(28 - 2:58pm, Aug 12)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogThe Orioles' advantage is hiding in plain sight
(8 - 2:01pm, Aug 12)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Newsblog2022 MLB Field of Dreams Game: Four things to know with Cubs, Reds set to meet in Iowa
(14 - 11:55am, Aug 12)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogTrevor Bauer Faces Sexual Battery Allegations in New Countersuit
(13 - 10:24am, Aug 12)
Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

NewsblogQuite a Sho: Ohtani ties Ruth, passes Ichiro in same game
(19 - 8:47am, Aug 12)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogHow Government Devastated Minor League Baseball
(2 - 7:48am, Aug 12)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogJason Heyward, despite another year left on contract, won't be back with Chicago Cubs in 2023, Jed Hoyer says
(36 - 10:21pm, Aug 11)
Last: Sweatpants

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(4141 - 10:08pm, Aug 11)
Last: rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up

NewsblogAs they take the Field of Dreams, where do the Chicago Cubs stand in their latest rebuild?
(2 - 7:18pm, Aug 11)
Last: Brian C

NewsblogVaughn Grissom makes history with HR, steal in debut
(10 - 6:17pm, Aug 11)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogSI:Is Nationals Starter Patrick Corbin Having the Worst Pitching Season Ever?
(9 - 5:19pm, Aug 11)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(5 - 5:17pm, Aug 11)
Last: SoSH U at work

Page rendered in 0.8562 seconds
45 querie(s) executed