Suggested Adjustments To MLB Baseball

zambonir 2019-03-06 21:26:01 UTC #101

Surprised about the 26-man but I guess that is good for most every team (and the players). Won't it affect payrolls? (I mean, not by very much if your 26th-man makes the minimum).

Could also help the Phillies make a trade (Altherr, if not still for much, or a reliever).

bkox 2019-03-07 05:45:02 UTC #102

Here is a change... kinda weird:

zambonir 2019-03-07 08:16:02 UTC #103

Not really seeing the connection Gammons (or his source) is making there. Teams manipulate service time to make $ and the MLB has a deal for legal gambling to make $.

But having done so it's not complete BS to say it's also meant to protect last-minute line-up changes and/or leaks.

phillychuck 2019-03-10 11:34:39 UTC #104

A couple of comments on rule changes and MLB income:

The most significant change MLB could make for baseball players' benefit is to change the salary structure for younger players in MLB and for minor leaguers. It doesn't have to be an enormous change, just increase the minimum salary in MLB and the per-level minimums in the minors. I don't really care how much more or less Manny Machado makes in free agency, but I do care that guys like Matt McBride (and even lower level players) make enough money to be financially secure while they transition out of baseball and into their second careers.

I like the 3-batter rule. I also like the universal DH. Shortening commercial breaks would be best of all and the income could be recouped by banner ads during broadcasts I would think.

Finally, it is not an automatic inequity if revenues go up and player percentage goes down. Let's say I own a business and am earning $200K a year (keeping the numbers small for simplicity) and paying my workers $100K in total. If my income rises to $250K and I increase my worker's salaries to $120K, their salary has increased by 20% even though their share of revenue has decreased. It's not a given principle of fairness that labor should share equally in business revenue increase. Some would argue that ownership is allowed to determine the distribution of revenue since they are the ones who own and manage the business. The public entertainment nature of baseball, the input of public money into stadiums, and the anti-trust exemption complicate the fairness issue, but if the player salary allotment is actually increasing in absolute numbers (as it is), I don't see that the "proportion of revenue decreasing" is per-se unfair.

zambonir 2019-03-10 16:45:21 UTC #105

I think you answered your own question here. Plus there's still very little freedom of movement within the monopoly to boot. And revenue-sharing and luxury tax (and no salary floor) artifically manipulating the value of the labor. Of course, it being collectively bargained, the MLBPA needs to deal with it. But if I'm a sous chef at a restaurant where profits have soared because our food is so popular and our raises still feel stingy, I can just leave for another restaurant. And nobody is forced to work for the restaurant that makes less money (i.e. the Rays). But most of all there are 10s of thousands of qualifed cooks and a much more limited amount of baseball players. They are not just labor, they are the product being sold.

Minor league salaries need to rise but my guess is Matt McBride will be out of a job if so. The real motive is to improve the lot and lifestyle of players who are still trying to "make it," especially below AA, not 30somethings who have actually qualfied for some major league benefits and just want to play (or are hoping to get back up for a few more weeks). It's crazy to think teams would be that cheap but I'd say they are, plus the emphasis on younger players will probably start to affect the AAAA "leaders" and hole-fillers too.

Plus you could triple the AAA salaries and it still wouldn't provide anyone with financial security.

phillychuck 2019-03-10 17:32:41 UTC #106

I don't think I was clear in some parts, and I think I disagree with you in others, z. When I said financial security, I meant for a guy who flushes out of the minors in AA or AAA and then moves to a second career. I would hope he had enough money to do an un-pressured search for that "lifetime" job, not enough money to live on for 30 -60 years.

I used Matt McBride as an example because for many years in the minors (before he made AAA) he was losing a lot of money compared with, for example, working for an investment firm, which he was qualified to do after graduating from Lehigh. The lower minor salaries should at least be livable for guys like him (and all the other A/AA guys) until they age out. Guys who played with McBride washed out and immediately had to find jobs in order just to get by. There's no excuse for 330 million dollar players and guys who get a few thousand dollars a month.

Finally, here's where I disagree--you fix the issues with freedom of movement, luxury tax, salary floor, MLB minimum, minor league pay and per diem, and other related issues (In my humble opinion), you don't whine about the percentage distribution of income. Fixing the other issues helps WAY more people. An increased percentage distribution will end up mainly with Harper, Trout, etc. and the high profile agents.

andyb 2019-03-10 17:50:54 UTC #107

It is kind of avoiding the question though to say that increased revenue to the players would go to the top. That is a separate question as to whether the players deserve to have their compensation increase at the same rate as overall revenue. I think it should. If revenue keeps going up 10% and the player revenue share only goes up 5% then over time you have an imbalance. This should all be negotiated of course, but just saying the owners deserve it more is taking a pretty one-sided perspective on the fight.

The distribution of revenue can be dealt with in ways that have nothing to do with the overall share of revenue the players get. One can raise the minimums. One can pay the minor league players more. One could cap top salaries. One could limit long term contracts. One could have veteran minimums that were larger than rookie minimums (and have the league pay the difference). Payroll floors could be established for teams as well.

Stars will always get paid well, but since the majority of major league players are not the stars then it is very plausible that the players would argue for more equity as part of the their next collective bargaining strategy.

julio 2019-03-10 18:08:18 UTC #108

It's all kind of sad, IMHO. In a competitive market, firms wouldn't be making monopoly profits in the first place; if profits grew large, other firms would enter the market, compete for talent, compete for customers, etc., until everybody's profits fell to a point that returns on investment were commensurate with other sectors.

But MLB is a monopoly, so profits aren't particularly coupled to costs; returns on investment aren't constrained by competition. So what you all are arguing about is how the various monopolists should carve up the monopoly rents. (I'm characterizing the major-league players as some of the monopolists here - when the starting salary is $555,000 a year, we're not discussing a competitive market. The MLBPA isn't really an adversary here; they're a partner in the cartel.) My reaction to that - to "What percentage of the monopoly profits should accrue to the talent, vs. the investors?" - is basically "I don't care."

When you talk about the outsiders - the have-nots in the system - the non-roster minor leaguers... then I might understand concern, because we're talking about kids who are being exploited to fuel the major-league monopoly machine... and most of those kids are never going to be beneficiaries of that monopoly machine, since most of them will leave the game without ever seeing a 40-man roster. Simply treating these kids the way we treat low-end labor in the rest of our economy - requiring that they be paid at least minimum wage, and that they receive overtime pay for hours in excess of statutory limits - would help them significantly... and that's before any discussion of what appropriate "minimum wage" ought to be in our economy, or consideration of whether things like access to health care ought to be part of employee compensation or just part of our national social contract.

julio 2019-03-10 18:11:43 UTC #109

Note that MLB already does this, with regard to players on the 40-man roster who are optioned off the 25-man roster. The contract salary for a kid on the 40-man for the first season, who is on option, is one-half of the salary for a kid in his second year on the 40-man, who is optioned.

They do NOT apply this differential to players on the active roster for the first time (season).

I'm not sure what to make of your "and the league pay the difference" thing, though. You want to tax all the clubs to raise money to distribute to veterans who are otherwise only worth "minimal" salaries...given that essentially all veterans - defined as anybody who'e arbitration-eligible - already earns substantially more than the paltry major-league minimum of $555,000?

zambonir 2019-03-10 18:13:14 UTC #110

Well I agree they need to fix things and MLBPA bears some of the blame. You don't start with a goal of 50-50 and then do stuff to make it happen, you do stuff that redresses the balance. Previously, the willingness to pay older players naturally did that even if it wasn't fair to younger players. But they aren't whining. They are negotiating.

Just giving players free agency one year early would also do a lot, even if the distribution wouldn't be equal from player to player. A 26th player and the DH also will. It would be unfortunate if MLBPA left it at that.

And honestly, having known a lot of $3-400 a week hockey players the same way you must know players from Reading or LV, I'm not too worried about the guy with a college degree who can work at an investment firm. He's choosing to play baseball (especially now). Most of those guys get out of the game by the time they are 26 or 27 because they know it's not a career. And if they just want to play, I believe the Atlantic League pays 2-3 times more than affiliated AAA. A guy like McBride is clearly still hoping for a call-up and has gotten some benefits. The HS kid who went pro and flamed out or the kid from Latin America who has five roommates are more of a concerns. What they all need is a minor league union, which hockey has for both affiliated and unaffiliated ECHL and AHL players.

allentown 2019-03-10 19:33:23 UTC #111

Part of the problem with baseball's salary structure is that baseball just isn't as popular a sport as football and basketball at the collegiate level, so baseball can't depend upon a stream of near-finished collegiate talent being available every year. High School draftees and international signees typically taking 4-6 years to reach the majors and gain the MLB minimum salary is a problem A lot of these guys didn't sign for big bonuses and most will never make it to MLB. Football has a much easier model, with most of their player development costs being borne (but at a large overall profit) by the colleges and a good number of the injuries players deal with in the minor leagues, being dealt with in college instead. A kid signed out of H.S. or the D.R. can have to wait 13 years before being eligible for free agency. Prior to that, it's pitiful minor league salaries, pre-arb years at close to MLB minimum, and then other arb years at below market value. If you are a pitcher, that can be 13 years over which a career-ending injury can occur, before you are eligible to earn a market salary.

The FAs are generally doing just fine. Look at the money a mediocre, oldish FA vet pulls down, fully guaranteed, compared to what the Jason's (Peters and Kelce) are pulling down, playing a much more dangerous sport. I admit, I have zero sympathy for the argument that Machado and Harper should each have gotten $350-400 million. It's like saying the way to solve racial financial inequality in America is to make it easier for a few blacks and Hispanics to become billionaires, so they have their fair share. I choose to focus upon why so many minority workers earn less than $30K.

andyb 2019-03-10 22:41:09 UTC #112

On the veterans minimums I was talking about older veterans. In the NBA or NFL a veteran player makes more. Say a 5-year veteran has a $1.5 million minimum. 10-year veteran $2 million. The league would pay the difference between the rookie minimum and that so there is less incentive to cut older players who are still good enough.

The $150K or whatever 40-man guys get is good also. Make the 40-man roster all make the major league minimum for instance. A pay scale for non-40 man of $5,000/month for rookie, $7,500-$15,000 a month for A-AAA and you suddenly have a modest expenditure that helps keep struggling players in the game.

All of this could come out of the player share of revenue that is apparently dropping and nobody would notice the difference.

zambonir 2019-03-10 23:49:07 UTC #113

Just not sure the MLBPA is inclined - or empowered - to do anything for players who are not on the 40. That has to change.

andyb 2019-03-14 15:40:48 UTC #114

Small changes this year: trade deadline mainly. Bigger stuff for next year: 26/28 man rosters. Explicit pitcher roster limits. 3-batter rule.

julio 2019-03-14 16:00:55 UTC #115

For this year:

Hard trade deadline at July 31st. No waiver deals in August.
Shorter commercial breaks between innings - down to 2 minutes (a reduction of 15 to 30 seconds?).
Large monetary prizes for Home Run Derby, to try to entice more established stars to participate.
One-day election among leading starting pitchers - fans get to elect who starts the All-Star game.

For 2020:

Three-batter minimum for pitchers.
Regular-season rosters expand to 26.
September rosters limited to 28 - no more September games with 20 pitchers in the bullpen.
A management/player committee will make recommendations about limiting number of pitchers on active roster. Opening proposal is 13 (14 in September).
Players will be formally designated as "position" or "pitcher." "Position" players will not be allowed to pitch, except in extra innings or in blowouts (one team ahead by 7 runs or more). Exception for "two-way" players - those who have pitched 20+ innings AND started 20 games or more as non-pitchers (presumably in the prior season?).

julio 2019-03-14 16:08:52 UTC #116

My thoughts:

I'm indifferent at this point about the trade deadline. It's different, but I can't say "better" or "worse."
I LOVE the shorter breaks between innings!
I don't care at all about the Home Run Derby... nor, frankly, the fan election of All-Star starting pitchers (or basically anything else about All-Star week. It's not baseball, not part of the season; just a made-for-TV circus, IMHO).
I'm fine with the three-batter minimum.
I like the roster limit changes - especially if the number of pitchers is capped at 13. This would mean a return to five-man benches, which means we might once again see pinch-hitters who are actually skilled in pinch-hitting roles (whether OBP-types to lead off innings, or sluggers to drive in runs), rather than "he's all that's left, even though he's basically a backup middle infielder who can't get on base and has little power."
I don't know about the position/pitcher thing. It wasn't my impression that non-pitchers were often used in situations other than when they'll still be allowed - but something evidently drove this.

andyb 2019-03-14 16:34:47 UTC #117

Agree that all of the stuff about the Home Run Derby and All Star game is kind of meaningless. The trade deadline is probably a plus, though maybe August 15th would be a better compromise to allow teams some flexibility. Though I suppose with July 31 we might see some NBA-style outright releases of players to allow them to latch on with a contender in August.

New roster limits are probably good. I want the 5-man bench back more than anyone, though I would also say this will do nothing to change the pace of play problems as we still have 8-man bullpens and we still will have teams cycling pitchers with options through the bullpen to make having a dozen relievers necessary over the course of a year.

We really need to take some strikeouts out of the game if we want to meaningfully make the pace seem better.

el-pietro 2019-03-14 16:36:09 UTC #118

I like the idea of a single deadline, though July 31st may be a little early. The waiver deadline seems unnecessarily complicated to me. The single deadline will hopefully push teams into making decisions on trading players. Harper for example may well have been traded last July if they didn't have the fallback of the waiver deadline. Pushing the deadline to mid August might help with teams who still think they are chasing a wild card.

100% on board with shorter ad breaks though I suspect they might make up for this with more ads during the main broadcast, maybe split screen or other on screen ads during game play.

I agree that the HR derby and All Star game are largely meaningless but getting the stars into the HR Derby can't hurt advertising the sport. I'm intrigued to find out more about the election and how it will work.

I think the three batter minimum is a simple solution that should cut down on ad breaks which can only be a good thing unless it leads to on screen ads during game play.

I'm indifferent to a 26 man roster. I like the idea of the 28 man September limit, however I feel like this is at the expense of minor leaguers. A month in the majors would be a welcome financial boon to many minor leaguers.

I don't like that teams can be limited to how they build their rosters. Teams should be allowed to be as creative as possible. Maybe the three batter limits reduces the need for additional relivers.

The hitters pitching rule seems like it will have almost no impact based on how its written. They need to find a way to allow for players like Ohtani to be introduced into the league however. There was a guy who pitched for the Reds the other day and then played in center field later in the same game. If the allowance is only for players who have already done it, how do they allow new players to try it?

I agree 100% with andyb that strikeouts are the biggest problem in todays game. Moving the mound back (though not by two feet) might be one possible solution to that.

julio 2019-03-14 17:28:10 UTC #119

This is technically true - that month in the majors increases compensation for some minor-leaguers.

That said, though - players only get September call-ups if they're on the 40-man roster, and if a minor leaguer is on the 40-man (and optioned), he's still getting paid a real salary - unlike the kids who are not on the roster. The salary for a player in his first season on the 40-man, who is optioned to the minors, is $45,300. Players who are optioned in subsequent seasons on the roster receive $90,400. That doesn't look like all that much compared to major-league salaries (and it isn't)... but compared to entry-level salaries for 20-somethings in the rest of our "beautiful" economy?

bkeich 2019-03-14 17:32:08 UTC #120

Love the first one. The Waiver Wire Deals were always a stupid thing to me, get rid of something that just isnt a good system.
Believe it or not, the commercials were shortened by a whopping 5 seconds from what I read. Basically, a meaningless thing to say they did it.