MLB work stoppage almost certain on Dec. 2

[LadyStanley]

What would a lockout mean for MLB? Here's what happens next if baseball enters a work stoppage

Baseball's negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement are likely to result in a lockout on Thursday. Here's what you need to know.

Yahoo Sports primer.

In a nutshell.... most owners keeping profits, player salaries have been declining.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

 

[OG6ix]

Wow - the players seem to be going for it. This gives me 2004-05 NHL lockout vibes.

 

[LadyStanley]

MLB, players break off CBA negotiations ahead of deadline as baseball braces for lockout

MLB and the players have no further negotiations scheduled Wednesday. The current CBA expires at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Tick tock.

 

[OG6ix]

MLB, players break off CBA negotiations ahead of deadline as baseball braces for lockout

MLB and the players have no further negotiations scheduled Wednesday. The current CBA expires at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Tick tock.

I really don't see the owners caving - that potential Sinclair bankruptcy and losses of regional tv revenue is really startling the owners it seems. The Players Union apparently has built up a solid pot of union fees to wither the storm.

 

[LadyStanley]

On MLB-owned media, the players now barely exist. What's behind that decision?

Paywall

MLB is being advised by Proskauer Rose legal firm.

As of lockout, all player bios, names, likenesses have been removed from league and team sites.

Manfred say it is a legal reason, but has not said exactly what. Some speculation that its part of standard contract.

But as of today, MLB is still selling g jerseys with player names.

 

[OG6ix]

On MLB-owned media, the players now barely exist. What's behind that decision?

Paywall

MLB is being advised by Proskauer Rose legal firm.

As of lockout, all player bios, names, likenesses have been removed from league and team sites.

Manfred say it is a legal reason, but has not said exactly what. Some speculation that its part of standard contract.

But as of today, MLB is still selling g jerseys with player names.

Honestly, MLB owners are just as bad, if not worse, than some of the NHL owners. The website looks like it's a division 2 NCAA website.

 

[LadyStanley]

Sources: MLB, MLBPA unlikely to talk core economics until January

Paywall. The Athletic reports no "core economics" negotiations until January.

Guess they'd rather be home with family this season.

 

[OG6ix]

Sources: MLB, MLBPA unlikely to talk core economics until January

Paywall. The Athletic reports no "core economics" negotiations until January.

Guess they'd rather be home with family this season.

They seem so far a part should they not be using this time to get together in some capacity?

 

[LadyStanley]

Guess they wanted to spend holidays with family.

MLB negotiations likely to restart soon, but NBA history shows real movement waits

Paywall. Highly unlikely that players will report in February as normal. Spring training and paychecks in peril may be what drives final resolution.

 

[OG6ix]

Guess they wanted to spend holidays with family.

MLB negotiations likely to restart soon, but NBA history shows real movement waits

Paywall. Highly unlikely that players will report in February as normal. Spring training and paychecks in peril may be what drives final resolution.

Baseball needs some major changes. I remember when I was a little kid in the 80s/90s it was HUGE in the states when I visited family - competing with the NFL. Now, on twitter and even in person it faces a lot of backlash. "Baseball is too slow", "Baseball sucks", "Yawn", "I didn't even know baseball was locked out." This surprises me to some extent as it's literally culturally engrained in the country since it formed

 

[KevFu]

I honestly don't know how to solve this CBA problem the union and players have.

The players biggest complaints boil down to teams being smarter and not giving out bad contracts.

Total spending on players is trending DOWN for the first time ever, but the big contracts are still going up (From $28 million in 2014 to $43 million in 2022).

The owners/GMs stopped giving out LONG contracts to older veterans, and so DEAD MONEY had been cut.

The union has started to call "Fielding a team of controllable young players" TANKING, which is not what tanking actually is, but they want teams to spend money on free agents when it's a very stupid move.

GMs are now all acting on what Branch Rickey said it in the 1940s: "Son, we could have finished last without you."

 

[KevFu]

Of course, aligning into 2 divisions in each league won't work.

It's the Central Problem all over again. There are 6 teams in the Pacific, 2 in the Mountain (That's the West Half) and 8 in the Central, and 14 in the East. It's economically bad for the Central to be with the MTZ/PTZ.

Radical Realignment turning the AL/NL into East/West is very bad for business. At a time when people are finding baseball boring, you don't want to tick off the traditionalists... and the idea that regional rivals in the same division MAKES MONEY IS FALSE.

We have the hard data of Houston joining Texas in the AL West: They sold more tickets against each other as LIMITED Interleague rivals (When Houston was losing 100 games), than when they played 19 games a year (when BOTH were in playoff contention). Everyone looks at Yankees/Red Sox, Yankees/Mets ticket sales. But the Yankees/Red Sox sell a ton of tickets ALL THE TIME.

Yankees at Mets sells out because it's special. If you put them in the same division, it's just another time my Mets are getting their butts kicked. When the Mets are competitive, they're selling tickets against ATLANTA, who is no where close to New York by geography. They were rivals because they were competing for the division. Anyone can be your rival when there are STAKES (Mets/Braves, Blue Jays/Rangers, Red Wings/Avalanche, etc).


For the 100th time, baseball should expand and go to groups of 8. But not by the "radical realignment by geography" and not while destroying AL/NL separation of the regional rivals in the East/Midwest.

Pacific League: Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland/Las Vegas*, LA Dodgers, LA Angels, San Diego, Arizona, Colorado
Southern League: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Miami, Atlanta, Washington
Montreal joins the NL.

Play all 4-game series. 16 vs your league (112), one series vs four teams in the other three leagues per year (48 games).
Reduces series from 54 to 40. Reduces travel DRASTICALLY: East plays 8 games at West instead of 17/18.

The Pacific League gets 112 games in PTZ/MTZ, instead of the 58 the AL West used to get.
Houston, Texas and Kansas City all get a drastic increase in CTZ games.
Tampa Bay and Miami get away from the big spending East teams.

 

[BigRedPillow]

Of course, aligning into 2 divisions in each league won't work.

It's the Central Problem all over again. There are 6 teams in the Pacific, 2 in the Mountain (That's the West Half) and 8 in the Central, and 14 in the East. It's economically bad for the Central to be with the MTZ/PTZ.

Radical Realignment turning the AL/NL into East/West is very bad for business. At a time when people are finding baseball boring, you don't want to tick off the traditionalists... and the idea that regional rivals in the same division MAKES MONEY IS FALSE.

We have the hard data of Houston joining Texas in the AL West: They sold more tickets against each other as LIMITED Interleague rivals (When Houston was losing 100 games), than when they played 19 games a year (when BOTH were in playoff contention). Everyone looks at Yankees/Red Sox, Yankees/Mets ticket sales. But the Yankees/Red Sox sell a ton of tickets ALL THE TIME.

Yankees at Mets sells out because it's special. If you put them in the same division, it's just another time my Mets are getting their butts kicked. When the Mets are competitive, they're selling tickets against ATLANTA, who is no where close to New York by geography. They were rivals because they were competing for the division. Anyone can be your rival when there are STAKES (Mets/Braves, Blue Jays/Rangers, Red Wings/Avalanche, etc).


For the 100th time, baseball should expand and go to groups of 8. But not by the "radical realignment by geography" and not while destroying AL/NL separation of the regional rivals in the East/Midwest.

Pacific League: Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland/Las Vegas*, LA Dodgers, LA Angels, San Diego, Arizona, Colorado
Southern League: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa Bay, Miami, Atlanta, Washington
Montreal joins the NL.

Play all 4-game series. 16 vs your league (112), one series vs four teams in the other three leagues per year (48 games).
Reduces series from 54 to 40. Reduces travel DRASTICALLY: East plays 8 games at West instead of 17/18.

The Pacific League gets 112 games in PTZ/MTZ, instead of the 58 the AL West used to get.
Houston, Texas and Kansas City all get a drastic increase in CTZ games.
Tampa Bay and Miami get away from the big spending East teams.

I really like your realignment idea, but I don't think all 4-game sets would work, because of the 7-day week. You also have an unbalanced schedule within the division, which will always get complaints. I think travel reduction is not as urgent as you do, and my vision would be all 3-game sets instead, as follows:

• All 3 game series, 156 games, 52 series (26 home/away)
  
• Of 26 home/away, 14 against league, 12 interleague (4 each league)
• Play every team every year, see every team every other year, perfectly balanced schedule
• Every M-Su week has 1 day off, every team plays F-Su and M-W (half) or T-Th (half), off either M or Th
• Means 26.5 weeks (.5 for ASG), start first Friday before April 4th (Mar 28 thru Apr 3), ends approx first Sunday Oct (Sept 28 thru Oct 4)
• Postseason 3 from each division, 3 game set for 3@2 T-Th, 5 games 2/3v1 F-Th, 7 games 1v4/2v3 F-Sa, 7 games WS M-W, 7 game series ends approx Nov 1
• Incentivizes winning league more than current without huge off time for winner, each individual league has true pennant, incentivizes 2vs3, wraps up reasonable time

 

[LadyStanley]

MLB, union to meet Thursday for first substantive negotiations since lockout began

MLB is set to deliver an economics proposal to the players in the first negotiations since the lockout began on Dec. 2.


Thursday restart. Core economics on the agenda.

 

[KevFu]

I really like your realignment idea, but I don't think all 4-game sets would work, because of the 7-day week. You also have an unbalanced schedule within the division, which will always get complaints.

The PCL has been doing the 4-game series thing for years, and it's fine. Their series don't split up weekends, either. You start the season on a Monday, with a "no series can start on a Wednesday" rule.

I don't think the unbalanced division schedule is a massive deal, because while it would be theoretically possible for two teams to play all 48 games completely different, the odds of that are staggering. As of now, teams competing for one of the two league wild cards will play 84 similar games minimum and up to 78 different games. I this, the max would be 48.

The playoffs would be 2 vs 3 in a one-game wild card round in each league, winner gets the league champ. Four league champs to semis, then World Series (doubling the number of WC games from now.

I think travel reduction is not as urgent as you do, and my vision would be all 3-game sets instead, as follows:
All 3 game series, 156 games, 52 series (26 home/away)
Of 26 home/away, 14 against league, 12 interleague (4 each league)
Play every team every year, see every team every other year, perfectly balanced schedule
Every M-Su week has 1 day off, every team plays F-Su and M-W (half) or T-Th (half), off either M or Th
Means 26.5 weeks (.5 for ASG), start first Friday before April 4th (Mar 28 thru Apr 3), ends approx first Sunday Oct (Sept 28 thru Oct 4)
Postseason 3 from each division, 3 game set for 3@2 T-Th, 5 games 2/3v1 F-Th, 7 games 1v4/2v3 F-Sa, 7 games WS M-W, 7 game series ends approx Nov 1
Incentivizes winning league more than current without huge off time for winner, each individual league has true pennant, incentivizes 2vs3, wraps up reasonable time

Well thought out schedule. I don't mind that at all.

The "travel" thing is less about actual travel -- I mean, the players say they want better travel, and that was the basis of the owners SAYING they wanted radical realignment (even though their proposed new baseball setup had 156 games and no travel savings at all -- instead of playing W-C-E in your league (half of MLB) every year, you played half of ALL W-C-E teams every year. That's the same amount!

The real "Less travel" aspect is "More local start times for TV." Which is what limiting East vs West games does.
By going West for 8 games instead of 18, the NL Eastern teams get 10 games NOT STARTING AT 10 PM.
By playing 112 games in the Pacific League, the AL West teams get 20 more games NOT STARTING at 4 pm.


The best/smartest part of the four league plan is that the largest financial benefits of it go to the teams who are being asked to move (Pacific, Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Tampa Bay and Miami) or who would blow up the other plans (Central).

Per MLB rules, anyone being asked to switch divisions has veto rights. Hard to think the 8 teams of my Pacific are going to veto all those extra 7 pm local games and want to keep more 4 pm start times for their TV contracts.

The only two teams who would have veto rights and any reason to use them would be Atlanta and Washington. And you can always ask Baltimore to move to the South. Or call it the Continental League and use Montreal if necessary.

 

[OG6ix]

Montreal should be in the AL East with Toronto, Boston, and New York. All three cities are close and could make for good rivalries. The old expos being in the NL hurt them I believe - not as much as having bad owners, stadiums etc. The Blue Jays also need a natural rival and no better city than Montreal to provide that.

 

[KevFu]

The other thing I want to rant about regarding the CBA negotiations is the MLBPA talking about "Tanking" with a new definition, and a draft lottery.

They mean rebuilding teams going with young/cheap guys instead of buying free agents for no reason (like Branch Rickey said in the 50s, "Son, we could have finished last without you"). Tanking really means "sucking on purpose to get a better draft pick. And the union thinks that's happening, too. Both the owners and union are putting this issue on the table with some kind of draft lottery.

I'm anti-draft lottery in all sports, because it's stupid. I won't repeat all the reasons they're stupid for all sports, since that's well documented, BUT IT'S EXTRA DUMB FOR MLB for a reason that doesn't apply to the NHL, NFL or NBA.

NHL, NFL, NBA teams can tank for THIS YEAR'S DRAFT. MLB teams would be tanking for NEXT YEAR'S draft (2023).

The 2022 AND 2023 college/high school baseball seasons haven't been played yet. You'd be trying to project who's going to be worth tanking for the #1 pick after based on kids' SOPHOMORE SEASONS, which is beyond stupid.

Tanking for a draft pick does not exist in MLB at all.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Montreal should be in the AL East with Toronto, Boston, and New York. All three cities are close and could make for good rivalries. The old expos being in the NL hurt them I believe - not as much as having bad owners, stadiums etc. The Blue Jays also need a natural rival and no better city than Montreal to provide that.

I disagree. Expos should be in NL.

But then again I can't see MLB wanting all Canada World Series.

 

[MNNumbers]

KevFu,

Just quick question....I'm not following the logic of your divisions in post #38. On the one hand, you say 'Houston/Texas drew big corowds when they didn't play very often." And, on the other hand, you put them together in your alignment. I'm not complaining, and I really think MLB has a big problem going forward, for all the reasons listed here (chiefly, that the union wants more money spent on players, and the ownership realizes that youth wins, and that the only good big money investment is the huge stars - so how to compromise that??).

I'm curious mostly for academic reasons. So, please just explain this a little more, because it looks to me as if perhaps your Texas/Houston example was not the one you really wanted to put there, but I may be missing something.

Oh, and would mind listing a full 32-team alignment?

 

[MNNumbers]

And, for everyone in the thread.....
Why does the post season need so many off days?

For example, @BigRedPillow proposes a league schedule with one off day every week for each team, but the playoffs best 3/5 and 4/7 have 2 off days in each series.

I think that a 3 of 5 series should have 1 off day, and a 4 of 7 series should have 1 off day. I think that is the correct thing in order to force teams to use their entire pitching rotation. However, the way the game is played now, that may not be as much of a concern as it was a decade ago.

 

[BigRedPillow]

And, for everyone in the thread.....
Why does the post season need so many off days?

For example, @BigRedPillow proposes a league schedule with one off day every week for each team, but the playoffs best 3/5 and 4/7 have 2 off days in each series.

I think that a 3 of 5 series should have 1 off day, and a 4 of 7 series should have 1 off day. I think that is the correct thing in order to force teams to use their entire pitching rotation. However, the way the game is played now, that may not be as much of a concern as it was a decade ago.

My thought with the off days was to accommodate the more frequent travel during the playoffs. But you're right that it's not strictly necessary, especially in the 5-game series if realignment makes travel less burdensome.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

I would have been fine with a complete geographical realignment only in 2020 because of the pandemic.

MLB's 30 teams would have been organized as follows:

East: Baltimore, Boston, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Toronto (Buffalo), Washington
Mideast: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, Tampa Bay
Midwest: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Sox, Houston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, St. Louis, Texas
West: Arizona, Colorado, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle

Teams would have largely been confined to their own time zone (except for travel in and out of Denver; Phoenix is effectively in the Pacific Time Zone during baseball season).

The East, Mideast, and West divisions would have looked similar to how the NHL divided its American teams in 2020-21.

Top 4 teams make the playoffs in each division. All playoff games are held at venues of teams that did not make the playoffs. One semifinal would have consisted of the East playoff champion against the Mideast, and the other the Midwest against the West.

 

[KevFu]

KevFu,
Just quick question....I'm not following the logic of your divisions in post #38. On the one hand, you say 'Houston/Texas drew big corowds when they didn't play very often." And, on the other hand, you put them together in your alignment.

I'm curious mostly for academic reasons. So, please just explain this a little more, because it looks to me as if perhaps your Texas/Houston example was not the one you really wanted to put there, but I may be missing something.

Oh, and would mind listing a full 32-team alignment?

New Pacific: Seattle, Oakland/Las Vegas, LA Angels, San Francisco, LA Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona, Colorado
New Southern: Texas, Houston, Kansas City, Expansion Nashville, Miami, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Washington
American: Minnesota, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Boston, NY Yankees, Baltimore
National: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Mets, Expansion Montreal.

Yes, Houston and Texas drew more for interleague series than as division rivals. But my schedule model doesn't have annual home/home interleague series anymore, anyway. They don't "Lose that" by being in my new Southern League, because it doesn't exist for anyone anymore, and they haven't had it in years anyway.

We're going for two things here: Common sense, making things better for the most possible teams AND the path of least resistance.

Both would jump at a chance to get out of the AL West:
Last Season, they played 39 road games in the Mountain/Pacific time zones and 20 in the CTZ.
In my plan, they'd play EIGHT games every year in the Mountain/Pacific, and either 32 or 36 in the CTZ.

 

[KevFu]

The most important thing for MLB realignment proposals is that anyone switching DIVISIONS has full veto rights. So anyone who is moving has to see some kind of significant improvement over what they had, OR the the other plans.

MLB really has five possibilities for realignment:

1. Add the two teams to the existing alignment, making a 5-5-6 situation that no one will like because it's so complicated and hard to schedule (0 teams can veto; but this makes no sense).

2. Radical Geographic realignment like the NHL/NBA (15 to 20 teams)
3. Two Divisions of 8 per league (10-13 teams)

4. Four Divisions of 4 per league (9-13 teams)

5. My crazy plan (technically 15, but really just FIVE).

Options 2 and 3 have the "Central Problem." The CTZ teams are in the Eastern half of the US, but would be tied to the West, with later start times that devalue their TV contracts. The Cubs and White Sox DO NOT want radical realignment. The Cardinals do not want to be tied to the West. The Brewers, Twins and Royals you assume think similarly and are against a radical realignment or a "West + Central" situation that 2 and 3 absolutely must have. This is why radical realignment FAILED in the 90s, and the CTZ owners led the ouster of the commissioner and replaced him with the MIL owner.

Option 4 has the very difficult problem of "how do you divide that up and make everyone happy?" There's dozens of ways to divide into 4x4 in each league. Any way you slice it, there's a minimum of 8 teams who'd have veto rights (those joining your new division) but realistically 10-12 teams with a reason to reject it.

Option 5 is weird, but kind of works.

Like I said, HOU, TEX and the Pacific League get huge schedule benefits. LAA, SEA, OAK would go from 24 road games in the MTZ/PTZ to 56; The NL West from 40 to 56. Nashville has no veto rights as an expansion team. So there's five teams who could veto: TB, MIA, WAS, ATL and KC. But you could also substitute. If you get TB/MIA, then you just need three of WAS, ATL, KC, BAL, PIT, CIN, hell, even MIN and you're fine.

It's really easy to point out one thing that one team wouldn't like about a realignment plan, because people compare a proposal to "what they have now." But in many cases, retaining what they have now won't be possible because the league is changing if they add two teams. In how many scenarios would ATL be asked to leave the NL East? A LOT.

I think if this proposal was mixed in with all the other options, the owners would be debating their primary choices and disagreeing constantly and after enough "Well, I like the Southern League plan better than that, at least in that one..." that it gets circled back to.