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

Monday, January 25, 2021

Sources: MLBPA rejects universal DH, expanded playoffs

The Major League Baseball Players Association has turned down latest MLB proposal for the universal designated hitter and an expanded playoff format, sources confirmed to ESPN.

The news was first reported by MLB Network.

The union’s stance has been all along that it did not want to talk about a trade of the universal DH—which benefits a group of players—in return for expanded playoffs. Nonetheless, MLB included the two items in its proposal, and that concept has been turned down, per sources.

The universal DH and expanded playoff format were implemented for 2020 during the 60-game shortened regular season due to the coronavirus pandemic.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 25, 2021 at 02:33 PM | 59 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: designated hitter, expanded playoffs

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 Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert Posted: January 25, 2021 at 02:48 PM (#6001662)
I am happy about this. I'm kind of resigned to universal DH and frankly don't hate it that much but I think the current playoff system is so good as to not be worth disrupting.
   2. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 25, 2021 at 03:12 PM (#6001667)
Good.
   3. . Posted: January 25, 2021 at 03:22 PM (#6001670)
Both ideas suck tailpipe, so this a good day for baseball. I wouldn't expect it to hold, though.
   4. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 25, 2021 at 03:59 PM (#6001676)
YES!!!

Edit: In response to the title of the article. I'm not sure what SBB wrote, so it's not a response to that.
   5. JRVJ Posted: January 25, 2021 at 06:04 PM (#6001700)
Let me see if I understand.

MLBPA is of the opinion that expanded playoffs will turn off certain teams from signing FAs, because those teams don't have to make as much of an effort to reach such playoffs (or alternatively, getting a playoff slot is no longer as valuable as it used to be).

And because of this, its unwilling to accept the Universal DH, which would almost certainly mean that NL teams would spend money on FAs to fill-out their rosters.

Huh.

   6. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2021 at 06:09 PM (#6001702)
And because of this, its unwilling to accept the Universal DH, which would almost certainly mean that NL teams would spend money on FAs to fill-out their rosters.


Perhaps the player's association realizes this isn't true.
   7. JRVJ Posted: January 25, 2021 at 06:24 PM (#6001707)
6, tell the Nelson Cruzes and Marcel Ozuna's that this isn't true, when their market is uncertain because of the lack of definition at DH.
   8. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2021 at 06:31 PM (#6001709)

6, tell the Nelson Cruzes and Marcel Ozuna's that this isn't true, when their market is uncertain because of the lack of definition at DH.


NL teams have been playing without a DH for almost 50 years. I don't know of any evidence that AL teams, on average, have outspent AL teams in that time frame.

Teams have budgets. If they spend money at DH, they will limit themselves elsewhere.
   9. JRVJ Posted: January 25, 2021 at 06:40 PM (#6001711)
8, I'm pretty sure AL teams have not outspent AL teams in the last 50 years.

But in any case, having your division rival sign a Nelson Cruz or a Marcel Ozuna, versus a team using the DH as a place to rest your fielders and/or as a way to get your 4th outfielder and back-up 1B some playing time, is a competitive disadvantage.
   10. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2021 at 07:05 PM (#6001713)
But in any case, having your division rival sign a Nelson Cruz or a Marcel Ozuna, versus a team using the DH as a place to rest your fielders and/or as a way to get your 4th outfielder and back-up 1B some playing time, is a competitive disadvantage.


If all else is equal, sure. The point is, all else isn't equal. If you sign a Nelson Cruz to play exclusively at DH, you're likely going to save somewhere else because you're operating under a budget. The DH has never been a competitive advantage.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: January 25, 2021 at 07:19 PM (#6001715)
Isn't this just negotiating 101? The owners want one thing, the MLBPA sees a chance to negotiate something for it, so they refuse it. I don't think this at all slows down the inevitable universal DH or an increased post season, I see the players association working to add language to the contract that their pay will not get reduced as much as it did in this current season or that if the pay is reduced, it's reduced and repaid back or something like that. (or even reduced at a lesser level, instead of saying 50% fewer games means 50% pay, they will argue that 50% fewer games means 30% fewer pay, as the games themselves doesn't represent the full work that the players put into preparing for the season etc... )
   12. cardsfanboy Posted: January 25, 2021 at 07:28 PM (#6001717)
If all else is equal, sure. The point is, all else isn't equal. If you sign a Nelson Cruz to play exclusively at DH, you're likely going to save somewhere else because you're operating under a budget. The DH has never been a competitive advantage.


Not sure I fully agree there, considering that where you are saving money in the AL, is on bench players who get less than 200 pa, or who are more there exclusively for defensive purposes, and that those players can be had at below league minimum by aggressively promoting minor leaguers who are not true prospects, and use them up for 3 or 4 years, while still getting a decent chunk of money to use for a 9th bat. In the NL, you might have to spend 3 mil per player to cover the same amount of pa from what the AL spends on a DH and a bench player, but in the AL, they are spending 5mil on the bat, and letting a kid cover the rest.

I can see the other side of the argument of course, and without data, and knowing that for the most part, even the AL very rarely has a full time dh on a super majority of their teams, there is some underlying reason for them to not spend fully on a dh, but at the same time, having a larger market of teams, that could hire a mostly full time dh, because they have a bunch of 4A players in their system, would help a couple of players out here or there. Ultimately it's something that adds payroll flexibility to the right teams.
   13. JRVJ Posted: January 25, 2021 at 07:28 PM (#6001718)
11, one would hope that's the case, but it sure seems to me like MLB & MLBPA are dead set on not negotiating the most basic things.
   14. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 25, 2021 at 07:38 PM (#6001720)
I could actually see the expanded playoff increasing at least some teams budgets. Like if you’re team is projected to win 70 games and you could sign a couple midlevel guys to get that up to 75 wins, well then you’re just a little luck away from grabbing a playoff berth. And with how random MLB playoffs are, could make a run. When I was a kid, the Pirates would sign guys like Randall Simon and Kenny Lofton not to make themselves competitive, but just to be somewhat respectable, but those kinds of signings aren’t much of a thing anymore.
   15. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 25, 2021 at 08:18 PM (#6001723)
MLBPA is of the opinion that expanded playoffs will turn off certain teams from signing FAs, because those teams don't have to make as much of an effort to reach such playoffs (or alternatively, getting a playoff slot is no longer as valuable as it used to be).

And because of this, its unwilling to accept the Universal DH, which would almost certainly mean that NL teams would spend money on FAs to fill-out their rosters.
I don’t think the issues are that related, at least from the Players Union perspective. It was the owners that linked them. I think the players believe expanded playoffs are worth more than just the universal DH, so they rejected the MLB proposal. A better offer from MLB gets a deal done.

   16. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 25, 2021 at 08:32 PM (#6001725)
Universal DH benefits older players more than younger players, so it should be something that the current MLBPA membership favors even if it is a wash for players overall. But I don’t blame them for thinking this is a relatively small concession from the owners in exchange for an expanded playoff.
   17. Astroenteritis Posted: January 25, 2021 at 08:34 PM (#6001726)
This is good, but likely just delays the inevitable. As much as I despise the DH, I'd rather see universal DH than expanded playoffs.
   18. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: January 25, 2021 at 09:02 PM (#6001729)
Universal DH benefits older players more than younger players...


Is/Would this remain true? I mean that's how the role has historically been viewed. But just off the top of my head are not-old players who could/already fill the position because teams view DH as the best use of them: Vlad, Jr., Schwarber, Giancarlo, Miguel Andujar, Ohtani (special case, obviously). Of course, there's also a decent likelihood teams would use DH as a partial-rest day among, say, their four outfielders.
   19. The Duke Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:15 PM (#6001743)
This seems like a losing position for the union. I have no doubt the owners have decided an NL DH is something they want. But how much do they really want it ? I assume they are willing to throw a bone to the union, but I assume their position is something like “We’ve lived without it for 50 years, if you are going to be dicks about it, we can just let the pitcher hit. “
   20. puck Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:21 PM (#6001746)
What leagues other than the NL have pitchers bat? High school ball, Babe Ruth ball?

And was there a point when NL teams' AAA clubs had pitchers bat? Or is my brain just making that up?
   21. Ron J Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:27 PM (#6001747)
Pretty sure the Reds were the last team to have their pitchers bad in the minors.
   22. SoSH U at work Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:28 PM (#6001748)
What leagues other than the NL have pitchers bat? High school ball, Babe Ruth ball?


Professionally, only the Japanese Central League.

The DH is available at the high school and Babe Ruth league levels, but isn't always (or possibly the majority of the time) used for pitchers. It can be used for any defender. Some leagues also offer a DH in addition to the starting nine, as an opportunity for an extra player to get in the game.

Little League has no DH, so I would guess close to a majority of games played in the U.S. do not employ a DH.

Many youth leagues employ full-roster batting, so that all players who are on the roster will hit regardless whether they're in the game.

   23. Buck Coats Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:32 PM (#6001749)
When I was a kid, the Pirates would sign guys like Randall Simon and Kenny Lofton not to make themselves competitive, but just to be somewhat respectable, but those kinds of signings aren’t much of a thing anymore


This is why I keep arguing that MLB needs to link revenue sharing to wins in some way - increase the marginal value of a win and teams will spend money to make that money!
   24. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: January 25, 2021 at 11:55 PM (#6001756)
This is why I keep arguing that MLB needs to link revenue sharing to wins in some way - increase the marginal value of a win and teams will spend money to make that money!


I don't think this would lead Cleveland, Tampa Bay, or Oakland to spend any differently. Or Miami, Pittsburgh, or Kansas City. Do you? On the flip side, spending hasn't helped the Angels, Phillies, or Giants for a while now. How would this help? Boston in 2018 (108 wins) had a payroll of about $227M. In 2019 (84 wins) payroll was about $2M more.

Money is a helpful thing, but the idea that spending it leads to more wins is just not that stable. Cleveland, Tampa Bay, and Oakland are a strong testament to the value of management being able to overcome budget constraints more than the reverse is true.
   25. BrianBrianson Posted: January 26, 2021 at 01:43 AM (#6001758)
This is why I keep arguing that MLB needs to link revenue sharing to wins in some way - increase the marginal value of a win and teams will spend money to make that money!


Increasing the revenue of the winning teams and decreasing the revenue of losing teams will cause winning teams to spend more and losing teams to spend less.

We could also re-order the draft, so the winningest team got the first pick, and the losingest team the last.

Teams with records under .500 could be forbidden from signing free agents. Maybe let the division winners draft the best players by WAR from teams with records under .500

That'd certainly give you good motivation to win.
   26. Rally Posted: January 26, 2021 at 08:33 AM (#6001768)
Little League has no DH, so I would guess close to a majority of games played in the U.S. do not employ a DH.


Maybe official little league that could result in a trip to Williamsport. But I think people refer to just about all organized baseball with young kids generically as little league. When my kids played, you had 9 in the field each inning, but if 15 kids showed up they all got to bat. So a multiple DH lineup.
   27. AndrewJ Posted: January 26, 2021 at 08:39 AM (#6001769)
As much as I despise the DH, I'd rather see universal DH than expanded playoffs.

Same here.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2021 at 08:48 AM (#6001770)
Maybe official little league that could result in a trip to Williamsport. But I think people refer to just about all organized baseball with young kids generically as little league. When my kids played, you had 9 in the field each inning, but if 15 kids showed up they all got to bat. So a multiple DH lineup.


I addressed that condition in the last sentence. It's not a DH though. Those kids (I assume this is true in your kid's case), all rotate into defensive positions, as well as hit, over the course of the game.
   29. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:10 AM (#6001774)
I mean, below a certain level, a real DH is counter-productive. At least through high school, your best pitcher is often also your best hitter. (And best SS or CF.)
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:14 AM (#6001777)

I mean, below a certain level, a real DH is counter-productive. At least through high school, your best pitcher is often also your best hitter. (And best SS or CF.)


A real DH in the sense of one who bats exclusively for the pitcher, absolutely. But most high school teams still employ one for their weakest hitter.
   31. bunyon Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:28 AM (#6001781)
Honestly, at this point, I'd be happy with a universal DH and 16 teams in the playoffs if they'd seriously pick up the pace of games. I figure universal DH is unavoidable (and I've grown used to DHs) and if you have any wild cards, I don't really see how more is that much worse.

But neither of those things affect my enjoyment of the game as much as the glacial pace. Get the ball in play more, shoot for a 4-3 game being a 2.5 hour affair and I'll let you have six DHs.
   32. Greg Pope Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:40 AM (#6001783)
Increasing the revenue of the winning teams and decreasing the revenue of losing teams will cause winning teams to spend more and losing teams to spend less.

Yeah, wins are zero sum. I don't think directly tying it is the way to go. Now if you did something that was not zero sum, like below a certain number of wins you lose money, that might work.

We could also re-order the draft, so the winningest team got the first pick, and the losingest team the last.

This is probably the best solution. One of the original ideas from the draft was that the worst teams needed the most help, so you give them the high picks. But now that teams have accepted tanking, it's time to remove that incentive. It's easy to chase the worst record, it's not so easy to chase the 15th worse record.
   33. winnipegwhip Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:52 AM (#6001787)


But neither of those things affect my enjoyment of the game as much as the glacial pace. Get the ball in play more, shoot for a 4-3 game being a 2.5 hour affair and I'll let you have six DHs.


And that is not going to change for the better with prop betting in the ballpark.
   34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:52 AM (#6001788)
This is probably the best solution. One of the original ideas from the draft was that the worst teams needed the most help, so you give them the high picks. But now that teams have accepted tanking, it's time to remove that incentive. It's easy to chase the worst record, it's not so easy to chase the 15th worse record.

With 30 teams and ten teams in the playoffs, I'd say the ten best teams that don't make the playoffs go into a lottery for the first 10 picks. Then we revert to worst to first.
   35. winnipegwhip Posted: January 26, 2021 at 09:55 AM (#6001789)
We could also re-order the draft, so the winningest team got the first pick, and the losingest team the last.

This is probably the best solution. One of the original ideas from the draft was that the worst teams needed the most help, so you give them the high picks. But now that teams have accepted tanking, it's time to remove that incentive. It's easy to chase the worst record, it's not so easy to chase the 15th worse record.


Or if we are going to limit what team's can spend in the draft do not reward teams with greater spending limits by finishing worse. This is as much an incentive to finish a few spots lower as anything else. Take away all team's restrictions on what they can pay out in bonus money (not going to happen) or make all team's bonus pools the same.
   36. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 26, 2021 at 10:13 AM (#6001790)
Isn't this just negotiating 101? The owners want one thing, the MLBPA sees a chance to negotiate something for it, so they refuse it.
"OK, we both want this thing to happen. Now: Who's going to sacrifice more to do it?" is not a healthy or productive negotiation stance on either side.
   37. Ron J Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:03 AM (#6001803)
#36 It's one of the reasons some kind of trust/good faith relationship kind of needs to be in place. If there's an actual meeting of the minds on something you can agree and move on without worrying about it.
   38. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:07 AM (#6001805)
"OK, we both want this thing to happen. Now: Who's going to sacrifice more to do it?" is not a healthy or productive negotiation stance on either side.

The owners have linked something the players are at least neutral towards, or like (universal DH) to something they hate (expanded playoffs). How is it confusing that the player would reject this?

It's like your boss said, "We both benefit from WFH, so I'm going to let you WFH three days a week, but you're going to lose a week of vacation, cool?". You'd probably say hell no. I would.

If we both benefit from WFH why should I have to pay for it? That's what the players are saying. If we both want the DH, why should I have to give something up to get it?
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:10 AM (#6001806)
#36 It's one of the reasons some kind of trust/good faith relationship kind of needs to be in place. If there's an actual meeting of the minds on something you can agree and move on without worrying about it.

The owners are the ones acting in bad faith. If they offered the DH without attaching expanded playoffs, the players would take it.

Why should the players agree to work more with no extra pay to get something the owners want too?
   40. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:29 AM (#6001810)
Universal DH benefits older players more than younger players...



Is/Would this remain true? I mean that's how the role has historically been viewed. But just off the top of my head are not-old players who could/already fill the position because teams view DH as the best use of them: Vlad, Jr., Schwarber, Giancarlo, Miguel Andujar, Ohtani (special case, obviously). Of course, there's also a decent likelihood teams would use DH as a partial-rest day among, say, their four outfielders.


I think adding the DH to the NL would be another step in validating it as a 'position' (along with the election of Edgard Martinez to the HOF and the soon to be elected Ortiz). The Dunn or Sheffield types that actively stay in the NL or express disdain for the role may be more willing to market themselves as DH's when they are in free agency.
   41. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:35 AM (#6001813)
It's like your boss said, "We both benefit from WFH, so I'm going to let you WFH three days a week, but you're going to lose a week of vacation, cool?". You'd probably say hell no. I would.

If we both benefit from WFH why should I have to pay for it? That's what the players are saying. If we both want the DH, why should I have to give something up to get it?
Agree. But the players are taking the same approach - they too want to trade the DH for something. Which is why I said it’s not productive on either side.

Edit: You asserted above that the players would simply accept a no strings attached universal DH. Do you have evidence for that? I know I’ve read articles in the past where they know it’s something the owners want too, and thus they see it as a bargaining chip.
   42. Der-K's emotional investment is way up Posted: January 26, 2021 at 11:53 AM (#6001814)
This is about money, like most things.
The owners really want an expanded playoffs. Players don't - most of the money from them goes to ownership, not labor, and it may depress demand (in that reaching the playoffs becomes easier and the playoffs are kind of a crapshoot once there, so why spend to go from e(w) = 85 to e(w) = 88?
Both parties want a universal DH. MLB thinks players want it more than does the league (they're probably right about this), so they see this as the bone to offer to get players to give in on the other thing.
---
On good faith, I saw a twitter thread yesterday which I think gets at a big part of why we don't have that in MLB - will try to find and post.
   43. Der-K's emotional investment is way up Posted: January 26, 2021 at 12:00 PM (#6001816)
This is a series of tweets from JJ Cooper, the exec editor of Baseball America. (Side comment: he's great.)

---

There is a current CBA for 2021 that establishes the rules by which owners and players operate. That current CBA had no DH for NL and the traditional (up to 2019) playoff system. If none of this gets negotiated, MLB system continues as normal, or what was normal in 2019.
One thing that stands out in all of this: Unlike NBA/NFL (and I believe NHL, but I know less about NHL), MLB and MLBPA CBA's have never started from the idea that players get a guaranteed percentage of (audited/agreed-to) revenue.
That creates complications for all of these talks. COVID is tougher to deal with in MLB than NFL/NBA because in those sports, players are guaranteed a percentage of revenue. As such, both sides can start from working to minimizing economic shocks of COVID revenue reductions.
So NFL/NFLPA quickly agreed to spreading reductions of salary cap over multiple years (benefits players and teams). NBA has an escrow system. But in neither case were the two sides fighting over share of the pie. The pie had already been divided up.
There is no agreed split of the pie for baseball. So when a massive financial shock like COVID arrives, the two sides end up (understandably) fighting over how much of the smaller pie each side gets.
At its core, the massive difference in local revenues makes it harder for MLB owners to ever get to a place to agree on salary floor/salary cap.
Also, MLBPA has long resisted a salary cap, to the point where now there is a defacto one (luxury tax) without the floor component.
Say a salary cap/salary floor comes to MLB (unlikely, but let's play with hypotheticals). In NFL, teams required to spend 89 percent of salary cap max over a four-year period. Say salary cap max was $175 million (which is a very low hypothetical). Floor would be $155.75 mil.
There are a number of MLB teams who would see that number as far beyond what they are comfortable spending. To make that work, would have to be massively more revenue sharing between MLB teams, which has been a contentious issue for decades.
That has always been a problem, but more so now when big market teams are valued in the billions of dollars. Benefit/valuation of big-market would be lessened significantly with much more significant revenue sharing.
Lot more that could be said about all this, but the reality is the big picture issues in MLB/MLBPA negotiations are more difficult than that of NFL or NBA because it doesn't start from both sides agreeing to what the pie is and how to divide the pie.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 12:32 PM (#6001821)
This is a series of tweets from JJ Cooper, the exec editor of Baseball America. (Side comment: he's great.)

Everything he says is true, but he misses the crucial economic fact underneath it all. A far larger proportion of MLB revenue is generated locally than for the NBA or NFL. That's what underlies to difference in structure, and why broad revenue sharing makes far less sense.
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 12:39 PM (#6001823)
Agree. But the players are taking the same approach - they too want to trade the DH for something. Which is why I said it’s not productive on either side.

Edit: You asserted above that the players would simply accept a no strings attached universal DH. Do you have evidence for that? I know I’ve read articles in the past where they know it’s something the owners want too, and thus they see it as a bargaining chip.


Have the owners offered it? There's a CBA in place. The players have no obligation to offer changes.
   46. Der-K's emotional investment is way up Posted: January 26, 2021 at 01:01 PM (#6001831)
44/snapper: he covered that in "At its core, the massive difference in local revenues makes it harder for MLB owners to ever get to a place to agree on salary floor/salary cap." and has talked about that elsewhere as well. So, you either need more revenue sharing or you accept wild disparities in payroll.
   47. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 26, 2021 at 01:02 PM (#6001832)
Have the owners offered it? There's a CBA in place. The players have no obligation to offer changes.
That doesn't answer my question - are you just assuming that if the owners offered it, the players would accept?
   48. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 01:40 PM (#6001839)
That doesn't answer my question - are you just assuming that if the owners offered it, the players would accept?

Isn't the hypothesis we've been working on that both sides want it? Based on that, I'd say yes.

If the players don't actually want it, then the whole discussion is moot.
   49. JRVJ Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:36 PM (#6001854)
43, good summary.

This is actually a very good point: "
Also, MLBPA has long resisted a salary cap, to the point where now there is a defacto one (luxury tax) without the floor component.


It does beg the question if at some point, MLBPA's cornerstone position (no salary floor or cap, other than theoretical floor of 25 minimum salary players) isn't harming its aims.
   50. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:51 PM (#6001859)
It does beg the question if at some point, MLBPA's cornerstone position (no salary floor or cap, other than theoretical floor of 25 minimum salary players) isn't harming its aims.


Has the MLBPA ever said they don't want a floor? I thought it went like this MLBPA: No salary cap ---> owners: well then, no salary floor either
   51. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:51 PM (#6001860)
Isn't the hypothesis we've been working on that both sides want it?
My hypothesis (backed up by others I've read) is that both sides want it, but both sides will nonetheless try to extract something from the other side in return.
   52. JRVJ Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:53 PM (#6001861)
50, I've long read that they're anti-floors and caps.
   53. Zach Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:54 PM (#6001862)
That creates complications for all of these talks. COVID is tougher to deal with in MLB than NFL/NBA because in those sports, players are guaranteed a percentage of revenue. As such, both sides can start from working to minimizing economic shocks of COVID revenue reductions.

The owners' first offer last summer was to tie salary to percentage of revenue, but the players' insistence on full pro rata probably killed that for the foreseeable future.
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 26, 2021 at 02:59 PM (#6001864)
The owners' first offer last summer was to tie salary to percentage of revenue, but the players' insistence on full pro rata probably killed that for the foreseeable future.

What was the %? I'm sure there's a number the MLBPA would accept, but that would also require a full opening of MLB's books, and an end to sweetheart deals with related entities.
   55. Zach Posted: January 26, 2021 at 03:00 PM (#6001865)
In the short run there are two big economic risks:
1) length of season
2) revenue per game.

Tying payroll to revenue would undoubtedly be in the players' interest in the long run, but in the short run it means they get exposed to risk #2.
   56. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: January 26, 2021 at 05:54 PM (#6001897)
I suspect the owners' push for money from expanded playoffs is the result of expansion being farther down the road than they'd like (especially with the pandemic revenue declines). Logically, it would be reasonable to think when there are more teams it would be a good time to expand the playoffs. Greed, though, has a logic of its own.
   57. DJS Thinks Apples and Oranges are Similar Posted: January 27, 2021 at 03:02 AM (#6002085)
I can't speak for players, but I know that agents and MLBPA leadership themselves are absolutely aware of how the value of players declines if success in baseball becomes more randomized. Front offices are also aware of this. I'm not able to make any advisory opinions -- I can only provide data for any party that asks, with no variation in price -- but even without getting anyone on the record, it's quite obvious from what data various parties want.
   58. jmurph Posted: January 27, 2021 at 09:45 AM (#6002118)
I can't speak for players, but I know that agents and MLBPA leadership themselves are absolutely aware of how the value of players declines if success in baseball becomes more randomized.

This is a very interesting point. Lots of implications.
   59. Hysterical & Useless Posted: January 29, 2021 at 01:24 PM (#6002644)
With 30 teams and ten teams in the playoffs, I'd say the ten best teams that don't make the playoffs go into a lottery for the first 10 picks. Then we revert to worst to first.

This I think is an interesting idea.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(1933 - 1:42am, Mar 08)
Last: NJ in NJ

NewsblogAlbert Pujols could keep playing to reach 700 career homers: 'If I’m close to it, why not?'
(161 - 12:48am, Mar 08)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogLos Angeles Dodgers' Trevor Bauer pitches shutout inning vs. San Diego Padres with one eye closed
(16 - 11:58pm, Mar 07)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJake Odorizzi reaches 2-year deal with Houston Astros, source says
(12 - 10:57pm, Mar 07)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogUniversal DH and expanded postseason unlikely for 2021 MLB season, per report
(35 - 8:07pm, Mar 07)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(12235 - 6:54pm, Mar 07)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(911 - 4:59pm, Mar 07)
Last: spivey 2

NewsblogWe found them: They're the worst team ever
(4 - 1:06pm, Mar 07)
Last: puck

Sox TherapyA Week Without Me
(3 - 10:18am, Mar 07)
Last: Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert

NewsblogMLB suspends free agent Sam Dyson for entire 2021 season
(8 - 2:54am, Mar 07)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogSource: Former Boston Red Sox CF Jackie Bradley Jr. to sign 2-year, $24M deal with Milwaukee Brewers
(28 - 11:58am, Mar 06)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBraves revenue fell by almost $300 million last year
(42 - 11:47pm, Mar 05)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 3-5-2021
(9 - 7:47pm, Mar 05)
Last: puck

NewsblogTrevor Story Rumors: Rockies Contract Extension Won't Happen 'Anytime Soon'
(17 - 12:38pm, Mar 05)
Last: Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight

NewsblogJoe Altobelli dies: Rochester's 'Mr. Baseball' led Orioles to last title
(14 - 9:49am, Mar 05)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Page rendered in 0.5182 seconds
48 querie(s) executed