MLB owners vote for lockout

[Celtics2021]

I don’t understand how they’re giving guys $40 million per year, and then a couple days later locking out the players.

I guess the surprising thing is that from what I’m reading, the owners are OK with leaving the status quo in place, whereas the players want large changes. I would have expected ownership to be at least threatening a hard cap or increasing luxury tax penalties.

I expect the players want to redo the front end of contracts.   Too many players have to play through their prime before they can get their first big contract.   Then team are not willing to pay them for their past prime like they used to.

I think that’s a big factor too.

Hopefully the owners put their foot down about it.  Changing arbitration rules and front end of their contracts so players can leave earlier would be really bad for the competitive balance in the sport, whatever is left of it.

Being able to hang onto these players is what the small market teams have for a competitive window before the Yankees or the Dodgers offer them some $500 million contract.  If you’re not willing to do a hard cap then you can’t let this go

Completely disagree.   I want it so players can get paid in their Prime.   


It is up to the league to make it so smaller markets can compete in terms of money.   All the other Major sport in the USA has figured it out.

The other leagues all basically have 4 or 5 years before the big money really kicks in.  Baseball is longer at 6 years, but it isn't that far off, and arbitration starts after 3 years so players can get more than rookie deals sooner in the sport

Baseball also have minor league and will keep players down there longer until they are close to their prime.   Even when the player is ready, they will wait till later in the season so as to not count the current season on the 6 year clock.   

So in basketball, the 5 year clock starts when they are 19-22.   In baseball, probably 24-25?

NFL won't even let players in for 3 years past high school though.  They then have a 4 year very low contract with a 5th year at below market rate (though higher - similar to arbitration) at least for 1st round picks.  Most MLB players hit free agency in their mid 20's, which is later than NBA or NFL, but not appreciably.  The elite MLB guys also get fairly large signing bonuses that cover some of the early pay and often sign long term contracts getting rid of the arbitration period.

For example, Ronald Acuna Jr.  Entered the league at 21 in 2019.  He made 1 million in 19 and 20.  This past season he made 5 million.  Next year i.e. his 4th year at age 24, he will make 15 million.  In 2023, 24, 25, and 26 he will make 17 million each season.  The Braves have team options for 2027 and 28 both at 17 million (cutting him costs them 10 million).  He will reach free agency at age 31 in 2029, but will have been paid over 100 million dollars.  Acuna signed earlier than most to get more money up front, but that isn't the typical.  The typical is someone more like Mike Trout.

Mike Trout entered the league at age 20 in 2012 and made just under 500k that first year.  He was just over 500k in year 2, 1 million in year 3, 6 million in year 4, 16 million in year 5, 20 million in year 6, and then entered free agency in year 7 at age 26 when he signed his 12 year, 426 million dollar contract. 

As a comparison, Patrick Mahomes this season is making just 7.4 million in his 5th year.  His big contract starts next year when he is 27 in year 6.


I agree with you that baseball teams get too cute with years of service and that should be changed as there should not be a financial incentive to have to wait a month to call someone up to avoid paying them earlier, but as for the rest, I'm not sure the baseball guys are really that far behind the NFL guys.  NBA is a bit different because they enter the league so young and only have 4 years before the big money kicks in, but NFL not much different really.

A team can keep any player for six years from his rookie season.  In 2018, the average rookie was 24.4 for position players and 25.3 for pitchers.  Which means that the average player could expect to reach free agency for the first time in his 30s.  Very few players become eligible for big contracts in their mid-20s.  Here's an article about the subject from a couple of years ago.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nobody-wants-baseballs-30-something-free-agents-anymore-%F0%9F%98%9E/

[Roy H.]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

Seems like the opposite of the problem other professional sports leagues have. Usually what we have is a lot of overpaid rookies... obscenely so.

[wdleehi]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

Seems like the opposite of the problem other professional sports leagues have. Usually what we have is a lot of overpaid rookies... obscenely so.

In which sport now?   Ever since the NBA and NFL have gone to rookie scales, the rookie contracts are small in comparison to the cap.  And in both leagues, there are option years for the teams. 

[Celtics2021]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

Seems like the opposite of the problem other professional sports leagues have. Usually what we have is a lot of overpaid rookies... obscenely so.

In which sport now?   Ever since the NBA and NFL have gone to rookie scales, the rookie contracts are small in comparison to the cap.  And in both leagues, there are option years for the teams.

I'd say in the NBA that rookies are overpaid relative to their production, especially in the mid-to-late lottery.  Not necessarily for the life of their contract, but for the first year or two.  That said, it's a bit by design, as those high picks who develop will often be underpaid in years 3 and 4, as well as in their second contract, so in that way it's more like the inflated salary is a signing bonus that the team often makes back in value later on.  But the mid-to-late lottery is tough.  Take a guy like Killian Hayes -- he's still a decent prospect, but he's getting paid nearly $11 million over his first two years for production that a number of guys at the vet minimum could match for about $4 million over that same time period.  The bet that a team makes when they pick him is that by year four he'll be performing at or above a level of play worth $7.5 million (his year four salary), and that they'll be able to sign him to a team-friendly deal for several years beyond.

The later 1sts tend to be less overpaid, as their salaries are lower (and they sometimes are older prospects with more immediate use but less long-term value), and the really top picks are often able to be worth their salary in year 1 or year 2 (and if they aren't, they probably never will be).  But there is absolutely a class of NBA rookie that is reliably overpaid.

[Moranis]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

Seems like the opposite of the problem other professional sports leagues have. Usually what we have is a lot of overpaid rookies... obscenely so.

In which sport now?   Ever since the NBA and NFL have gone to rookie scales, the rookie contracts are small in comparison to the cap.  And in both leagues, there are option years for the teams.

I'd say in the NBA that rookies are overpaid relative to their production, especially in the mid-to-late lottery.  Not necessarily for the life of their contract, but for the first year or two.  That said, it's a bit by design, as those high picks who develop will often be underpaid in years 3 and 4, as well as in their second contract, so in that way it's more like the inflated salary is a signing bonus that the team often makes back in value later on.  But the mid-to-late lottery is tough.  Take a guy like Killian Hayes -- he's still a decent prospect, but he's getting paid nearly $11 million over his first two years for production that a number of guys at the vet minimum could match for about $4 million over that same time period.  The bet that a team makes when they pick him is that by year four he'll be performing at or above a level of play worth $7.5 million (his year four salary), and that they'll be able to sign him to a team-friendly deal for several years beyond.

The later 1sts tend to be less overpaid, as their salaries are lower (and they sometimes are older prospects with more immediate use but less long-term value), and the really top picks are often able to be worth their salary in year 1 or year 2 (and if they aren't, they probably never will be).  But there is absolutely a class of NBA rookie that is reliably overpaid.

As further support, Jaxson Hayes at the end of this his 3rd season will have made around 15 million dollars and he has played ~2300 minutes at this point in his career.  Jarrett Culver has played even less minutes with less production and will end this year with a total contract value of over 18 million. 

[wdleehi]

I guess there’s something wrong with a system that allows pretty much any rookie to get paid less than $1 million in their first couple of seasons.

For instance, my cousin was a starting pitcher in the majors for seven years, including making an All-Star game.  He walked away with $5.5 million and a blown out shoulder.

$800k per year isn’t bad money, but wear and tear caught up with him before he got his big deal.

Seems like the opposite of the problem other professional sports leagues have. Usually what we have is a lot of overpaid rookies... obscenely so.

In which sport now?   Ever since the NBA and NFL have gone to rookie scales, the rookie contracts are small in comparison to the cap.  And in both leagues, there are option years for the teams.

I'd say in the NBA that rookies are overpaid relative to their production, especially in the mid-to-late lottery.  Not necessarily for the life of their contract, but for the first year or two.  That said, it's a bit by design, as those high picks who develop will often be underpaid in years 3 and 4, as well as in their second contract, so in that way it's more like the inflated salary is a signing bonus that the team often makes back in value later on.  But the mid-to-late lottery is tough.  Take a guy like Killian Hayes -- he's still a decent prospect, but he's getting paid nearly $11 million over his first two years for production that a number of guys at the vet minimum could match for about $4 million over that same time period.  The bet that a team makes when they pick him is that by year four he'll be performing at or above a level of play worth $7.5 million (his year four salary), and that they'll be able to sign him to a team-friendly deal for several years beyond.

The later 1sts tend to be less overpaid, as their salaries are lower (and they sometimes are older prospects with more immediate use but less long-term value), and the really top picks are often able to be worth their salary in year 1 or year 2 (and if they aren't, they probably never will be).  But there is absolutely a class of NBA rookie that is reliably overpaid.

As further support, Jaxson Hayes at the end of this his 3rd season will have made around 15 million dollars and he has played ~2300 minutes at this point in his career.  Jarrett Culver has played even less minutes with less production and will end this year with a total contract value of over 18 million.

5 million a year is 4.4% of the cap (not what the team may be paying since they can go over the cap).  One player is 6.7% if a roster (if 15 players).


I don't see a major overpay.   

[Phantom255x]

Bumping this thread.

Huge deadline coming up as it seems if both sides can't reach a deal by Monday, we'll definitely lose games from the regular season (so 162 games will not happen).

And sadly, reading today's reports and updates it doesn't look too good unless something drastic happens

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm not expecting a deal by Monday. There seems to have been very little movement on either side so far. I don't know who's more to blame (players or owners), but it's crappy that fans are likely getting another messed-up baseball season.

[Phantom255x]

I'm not expecting a deal by Monday. There seems to have been very little movement on either side so far. I don't know who's more to blame (players or owners), but it's crappy that fans are likely getting another messed-up baseball season.

100% the owners. The players actually gave them a comprehensive proposal in which they also sacrificed some things (just like the last CBA btw) and the MLB/Owners still strongly opposed it.

[Phantom255x]

They are still meeting. One thing that does seem to be decided is that the playoffs will definitely be expanded to at least 12 teams, and the wild-card round will be a 3-game series. I like that, and I'm probably in the minority when I say I'd like a 14-team playoffs too. But it seems everyone HATES the idea of 14 teams.

[Roy H.]

They are still meeting. One thing that does seem to be decided is that the playoffs will definitely be expanded to at least 12 teams, and the wild-card round will be a 3-game series. I like that, and I'm probably in the minority when I say I'd like a 14-team playoffs too. But it seems everyone HATES the idea of 14 teams.

I know that I do.  It makes a very long 162 game season less and less meaningful.

With 12 teams, is it 3 division winners and 3 wild cards in each league?  The worst of the division winners has to play in the wild card round?

[slamtheking]

I'd offer the solution for fans I applied after the '94 strike cancelled the World Series --> stop attending games, stop watching games, stop purchasing any merchandise.   I know that my individual efforts didn't change the game for the better but if enough people walk away from the game, both sides will notice.

[Phantom255x]

They are still meeting. One thing that does seem to be decided is that the playoffs will definitely be expanded to at least 12 teams, and the wild-card round will be a 3-game series. I like that, and I'm probably in the minority when I say I'd like a 14-team playoffs too. But it seems everyone HATES the idea of 14 teams.

I know that I do.  It makes a very long 162 game season less and less meaningful.

With 12 teams, is it 3 division winners and 3 wild cards in each league?  The worst of the division winners has to play in the wild card round?

I believe if they do 12-teams, then yeah you have 3 division winners, and 3 wild cards. The two best teams in each league gets a bye during the WC round, and the worst division winner plays the lowest seed remaining, and then the other two teams play each other. All games played at the site of the higher seed.

If it were a 14-team format, then you can probably have 3 division winners, 4 wild cards each league, and what happens is the best team in the league gets a bye while all the others play a series, and then you go from there.

Now there is the possibility of letting division winners pick their teams, which I find stupid but it's being discussed too along with everything else. It's kind of like how in last season's wild September, the Yankees, Jays, Red Sox and Mariners were all sort of in a fierce battle where tiebreakers could have become a factor and if they did, 1 or 2 teams could have ranked their choices of who to play in a Game 163.

[Birdman]

Hope fans boycott MLB..with everything going on in the world, lot of ppl would trade places with any of the players…analytics is one reason I quit watching anyhow & stupid unwritten rules