Players may boycott spring training?

[Thelonebillsfan]

16 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

But they did sign it.  Honor the contract.  They want to re-up the share of their percentage in the next CBA?  I can support that.

They signed it with the understanding that the league would enforce some level of competitive balance.

The Rangers are starting Eric Goeddel in their rotation. Over half the league is basically tanking. There are no markets anymore wherein these guys are getting their market value. They shouldn't have to take less than they are worth because the league has figured out how to game the system.

[THE DUKE]

2 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

They signed it with the understanding that the league would enforce some level of competitive balance.

The Rangers are starting Eric Goeddel in their rotation. Over half the league is basically tanking. There are no markets anymore wherein these guys are getting their market value. They shouldn't have to take less than they are worth because the league has figured out how to game the system.

I have trouble believing Hosmer is worth that 8th year and other similarly aggressive player asks in contracts.  I'm not opposed to change.  I'm not in favor of a strike mid contract to get that change.

[ramssuperbowl99]

28 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

But they did sign it.  Honor the contract.  They want to re-up the share of their percentage in the next CBA?  I can support that.

This comes down to what you value. A few spring training games that even die hard fans don't care about, or the additional leverage the players can get by demonstrating that they are willing to potentially head to a strike/lockout in advance of this.

If the MiLB salaries and whatnot really bother you, it shouldn't be that hard to sacrifice a few meaningless March games.

[THE DUKE]

9 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This comes down to what you value. A few spring training games that even die hard fans don't care about, or the additional leverage the players can get by demonstrating that they are willing to potentially head to a strike/lockout in advance of this.

If the MiLB salaries and whatnot really bother you, it shouldn't be that hard to sacrifice a few meaningless March games.

I don't give a rip about spring training games.  Neither do the owners really.  I don't see how players spending less time prepping for the season changes anything other than maybe lose some fan goodwill with the threat of a strike.  Boycotting spring training games isn't about the spring training games, it's the threat of a strike.  MLB is already losing position amongst the major sports in prestige, a strike may hurt the owners, but it will hurt the players just as much if not more.

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 hour ago, THE DUKE said:

I don't give a rip about spring training games.  Neither do the owners really.  I don't see how players spending less time prepping for the season changes anything other than maybe lose some fan goodwill with the threat of a strike.  Boycotting spring training games isn't about the spring training games, it's the threat of a strike.  MLB is already losing position amongst the major sports in prestige, a strike may hurt the owners, but it will hurt the players just as much if not more.

So are you saying you are against a boycott because it would be ineffective? I think that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. Your post saying "they signed the contract" made me think it wasn't about whether or not a boycott could be successful.

[hrubes20]

1 hour ago, THE DUKE said:

I don't give a rip about spring training games.  Neither do the owners really.  I don't see how players spending less time prepping for the season changes anything other than maybe lose some fan goodwill with the threat of a strike.  Boycotting spring training games isn't about the spring training games, it's the threat of a strike.  MLB is already losing position amongst the major sports in prestige, a strike may hurt the owners, but it will hurt the players just as much if not more.

I get this.  A full-on strike by the players immediately after agreeing to the new CBA would be met with horrible public perception.  But I haven't seen anyone even threatening a regular season strike at this time.  Like I said in a different thread, all strike rumblings will quiet down substantially by this time next offseason, when a whole bunch of teams will be spending like crazy and blowing past the luxury tax.  

[THE DUKE]

31 minutes ago, hrubes20 said:

I get this.  A full-on strike by the players immediately after agreeing to the new CBA would be met with horrible public perception.  But I haven't seen anyone even threatening a regular season strike at this time.  Like I said in a different thread, all strike rumblings will quiet down substantially by this time next offseason, when a whole bunch of teams will be spending like crazy and blowing past the luxury tax.  

I agree.  I don't see why more people aren't saying what at least I see as the truth.  People aren't breaking the bank and signing overly long contracts because this free agent class just really isn't all that special.  The MLBPA won't get that much support from me while they fight to get the top end guys an extra $25 million all the while ****ting on the little guy.

[ramssuperbowl99]

6 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

I agree.  I don't see why more people aren't saying what at least I see as the truth.  People aren't breaking the bank and signing overly long contracts because this free agent class just really isn't all that special. 

I don't think the MLB is formally colluding or anything, but this isn't just about this year's FA class.

This trend has continued, and the rate of the trend has increased. For reference, most other major sports are in the high 40's or low 50's as a percentage of revenue.

6 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

The MLBPA won't get that much support from me while they fight to get the top end guys an extra $25 million all the while ****ting on the little guy.

3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

But this is an either-or situation. It would be like you saying you were rooting for the Colts in the Super Bowl last night (dunno if you're a Colts fan or not, sorry). Sure that's what you want in a perfect world, but they weren't playing. We've got 2 choices here, and I don't think there's any rational argument supporting the owners over the players as a means to get us closer to what you or I would envision as an ideal financial state for baseball. So that puts us on the players' side, which means even if we don't like the context of how we got here, why any player ratified this ridiculous CBA, or why Tony Clark has a job, starting from today, if we want to get closer to a more equitable, moral distribution of the money baseball makes, it comes with supporting things the players do to gain leverage.

Neither group represents the MiLB players here. We only have 2 choices. Neither are perfect, but one is better than the other.

[mission27]

Look, I'm sorry, no matter what the league does it will never makes sense for a team that does not have a realistic chance to win the World Series to shell out millions of dollars for a player like Eric Hosmer who is lucky to be in ******* baseball.  There are zero elite players in this free agent class.  There are a ton of nobodies who had a good season last year, or even worse two or three years ago, who Scott Boras et. al. made unrealistic promises to as always, and who are now mad because they turned down big extensions 2-3 years ago and waited there turn and are now being offered perfectly reasonable contracts.

Salary as a % of revenue has fallen because:

1. Front offices are getting smarter and avoiding bad deals, they realize its better to spend a little money on young players and build that way

2. The league didn't listen to mission, who said a decade ago they should institute a salary FLOOR with REVENUE SHARING rather than a CAP which is what the luxury tax has turned into

3. Superstar players are basically all signing extensions before free agency, or did between 2010 and 2016, so we haven't seen a big free agent class in a long long time... if you are going to be risk averse and sign an extension before you are a free agent you will make less money, that is the price of risk aversion 

The MLBPA can and should try to fix the above, but Eric ******* Hosmer is not your hill to die on.  Trust me.  I'm all for the players and I'm a semi-intelligent baseball fan who is in the know, and if the players strike because Eric ******* Hosmer who can't even hit 30 ******* home runs as a first baseman didn't get 200 million dollars, I will tell them to pound sand.  

If we are sitting here in a year and Bryce Harper doesn't have the net worth of a small Western European city state, and you want to talk about striking, I can get behind that.  But we are - again - talking about Eric Hosmer.  Get real.  He's a bleh player who nobody wants except the Padres and he should take his $150 million and go to Petco and keep not hitting home runs and shut up.

[mission27]

The funny thing is Eric Hosmer is a poor man's Tony Clark, who never made more than $5 million in a season and this wasn't that long ago.  

[mission27]

8 hours ago, Thelonebillsfan said:

Over half the league is basically tanking.

Isn't that what you'd want your team to do?  Isn't that what smart baseball fans would advocate?  Its not just baseball, tanking is the new reality in every sport.  It's not about the owners.  It's about smart people realizing the best way to build a sustainable winner in most markets is to be bad for 2-3 years and get a bunch of good young players. 

Honestly, baseball is out of whack with the other two major American pro sports leagues.  Eric Hosmer wants to be paid like Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Cam Newton, etc.  Thats ridiculous.  Eric Hosmer would generate basically no incremental revenue for the Boston Red Sox.  He might make them marginally more likely to make the playoffs, but only marginally, and there is not a single human being on the planet who would go to a Red Sox game to see Eric Hosmer who doesn't already get family tickets from Eric Hosmer.  Why should he get $200 million?  Just because of the salary as a % of revenue formula?  

I have sympathy for the low man on the totem poll in the minor leagues.  But I'd actually rather see owners keep their money than pay sorry *** players like Eric Hosmer more money.  If I had my way, guys like Hosmer would be taking a pay cut.

[mission27]

Quote

 

Financial data released by Major League Baseball to The Associated Press showed the big leaguers' share of net revenue was between 48.5 percent and 51.7 percent each year since 2006.

....

Counting signing bonuses for amateurs and minor league salaries, revenue devoted to players has ranged from 53.7 percent in 2012 to 57.5 percent last year.

 

And rams, I'm not sure what your source is, but some quick Googling dug up the above.

http://www.chroniclet.com/national-news/2016/03/21/AP-study-players-share-of-Major-League-Baseball-revenues-remain-stable-over-past-decade.html

I'm sure there's more than one way to cut it, but I have hard time believing players are getting screwed when fleas like Eric Hosmer are turning down $150 million contracts and Rick ******* Porcello is making $20 million plus a year to give up home runs. 

[mission27]

5 hours ago, hrubes20 said:

I get this.  A full-on strike by the players immediately after agreeing to the new CBA would be met with horrible public perception.  But I haven't seen anyone even threatening a regular season strike at this time.  Like I said in a different thread, all strike rumblings will quiet down substantially by this time next offseason, when a whole bunch of teams will be spending like crazy and blowing past the luxury tax.  

Yes, 100% agree. 

Teams will spend money when there are actually good baseball players on the market, rather than a bunch of scrubs.  Scott Boras can put lipstick on a flea, but its not fooling anyone.

[LuckyNumber11]

20 minutes ago, mission27 said:

The funny thing is Eric Hosmer is a poor man's Tony Clark, who never made more than $5 million in a season and this wasn't that long ago.  

Rattled about this steaming hot take. Dude has 4 gold gloves and hit 320 last year. He might not deserve 200M but but to compare him to Tony ******* Clark? 

[mission27]

Just now, LuckyNumber11 said:

Rattled about this steaming hot take. Dude has 4 gold gloves and hit 320 last year. He might not deserve 200M but but to compare him to Tony ******* Clark? 

Player A, first seven years: .277/.355/.502, .857 OPS, 112 OPS+, 156 HR, 11.5 fWAR

Player B, first seven years: .284/.342/.439, .781 OPS, 111 OPS+, 127 HR, 9.9 fWAR

Who's better?

Eric Flea Hosmer has a career sub-.800 OPS as a first baseman and has been statistically the worst defensive first baseman in baseball over the past two seasons.  The guy was worth -0.1 wins above replacement the year before last.  And he wants to be paid like Kevin Durant.  But sure, the owners are really screwing the players over.