If a graph can be said to explain the current impasse between the players and the owners it would be this one. The owners figured out that paying older players (especially those past the age of 30) wasn't worth it. The best thing to do is underpay younger players when they are at their peak. The owners underpay younger players by maintaining the vestiges of the reserve clause. Younger players are "owned" by the team and the best they can do, salary-wise, is via the arbitration process. When they become free agents their best seasons are behind them. The players obviously want to change that system. They want to get to free agency sooner. They are right, of course, just a little late in their thinking. They got schooled by the owners during the last two rounds of CBA negotiations and now they are well behind where they ought to be.
The solution is obvious: make all players free agents from the beginning. Get rid of the draft, arbitration, and the rest of the nonsense surrounding the reserve clause.
I don't expect much progress. The owners will be reluctant to give the players anything. The players might get a few bones thrown their way, and they'll sign a deal that's superficially better than what they have now, but there won't be fundamental changes to the way MLB is run. Then we'll do this all over again in a few years.
Meanwhile, have a great holiday season. Merry Christmas!
--M.C.
9 comments:
Do you see major changes in the general labor market in the USA or just incremental changes. Although many folks who would be considered labor find themselves on the side of the players, they do find it a bit difficult to relate to the major issues, as most people take many years to compile the amount of money that is just one year the major league minimum. It is a conundrum that seems at least for a time that favors the owners in negotiations. In other words the public perception is not that helpful to the players. In a country that seems to favor the mega-rich, it is difficult to make a case for the super talented who are making their earnings based on their abilities.
The players are certainly "labor." I say that as the son of a union man (my dad was a plumber/pipefitter). Local 343 was a big part of my upbringing! I was also active as a teacher in the California Teachers Association, heading our local branch for a few years as well as being part of contract negotiations for even longer.
The fact that the players make a lot of money does not change the labor/management dynamic. The bosses are still the bosses and the workers are still the workers. That fact is lost on a lot of people who will never see a million dollars in their lives, and that's unfortunate, as the things that the players "win" will be good for everyone. The rich(er) guys have to do it first, then the regular guys will get the benefit down the road. Think about things like paternity leave--it's standard practice for MLBPA. Maybe it will be so for other less fortunate workers in the future.
We love rich folks here in the USA even if they are complete scumbags. The mega-rich are "proof" that the American Dream still exists. If we knock down the rich, then we are knocking down the golden road to upward mobility which is a sacred tenet of the middle class. You too can strike it big!! (And if you don't it is your fault and not reflective of flaws in the system or lack of opportunities.)
Baseball players with MLB level skills are a rare breed. They are scarce, and their scarcity makes them expensive. MLB has a monopoly, so they will never really have to pay "full price" for the talent they employ.
Agreed! But hope you are wrong about the players not getting what they’re worth from the beginning of their MLB careers. They’re fun to watch and I align with their efforts.
The problem is that the middle class looks at the rich as the fulfilment of the American Dream, while at the same time, the rich are doing all they can to keep and even increase their share of the pot. Except for a few of the wealthy who have good hearts and are willing to share, most are plotting and finding ways to keep elevate their share and even diminish the share of everybody else. It is sometimes looked at as a hoarding sickness. When one party in this country says that a spending bill for the entire country of 300 billion a year for 10 years (3 trillion is way too much), perhaps they fail to take into account that one international corporation, on an American Stock Market exchange (APPLE) is worth about 3 trillion all by itself. One way the super large corporations have been able to keep their share of the pie is by making over 50 percent of their workers believe that unions are bad, and that when other middle class workers make more they will make less. Obviously that is not how it works, but American education in economics is not widely taught nor understood by the masses.
It seems to me that there has been a widening disconnect between elite free agents and second tier free agents. The elites certainly have a marquee value, but it seems as though, after bidding frenzies for the elites, the second tiers seem to be settling for less (relatively) and later. (Kudos here to the Giants to not leaving the Brandons until after the lockout to deal with.) I'm not sure how I can verify this, but it has been my impression for a number of years. Certainly the elites are a scarce commodity year to year (only a small number of players are elite and only so many of those are available). So that explains why there is a bidding frenzy - the owners who want to visibly impact their team's chances of winning will chase a Scherzer, say, to record values. If all players were free agents, though, those elite players would probably not be setting yearly eye-popping records for pay, simply because the owners would have to manage their money across the spectrum of a team more than they do now (no players would be locked in except by their previous contracts). That's OK, there would probably be more money spent on players in total and in fairness, it should be spread a bit more evenly. (Sure, give Scherzer 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as another guy, but not more than 40x.) But I have to wonder if the free agents or free agents-to-be that stand to cash in big time would be hesitant to go as far as Every Player a Free Agent - even if they could. My point is that the free agent system as it exists creates differing self-interests among classes of players (the elites, the second tiers, the young stars, and the marginal pros and youngsters trying to prove themselves). I would find it extraordinary if the all the players were able to align their interests, and if they do, I think it is only because the owners are willing to be so obstinate about granting anything that it allows the players to remain united.
Spending is not linear. IF Scherzer gets $40M it's not because he's worth 40x more than a $1M player. But if an 88-win team gets an ace and becomes a 92-win team that's the difference between 1st and 2nd place or making or not making the playoffs. So the value of those four wins is way higher to that particular team and so they are willing to spend "extra" for that. Elite players will still get elite money.
Baseball owners are opposed to any change in the FA system because it will mean less control over player movement and it will raise salaries across the board. So yes, a united player front is something owners don't want to see. The MLBPA has set up a sort of seniority system and now they are discovering it doesn't work. They should have spent more time taking care of younger players (by shortening the path to free agency) instead of just protecting veterans.
No matter what the pay system, the owners will learn to "game" it. Thus the players need a system that gives them the most freedom and the most chance to earn big money right away. Pay players for their peak production and not their decline years.
I would add, in the case of Scherzer, that new owner Steve Cohen wanted to make a big splash and do something to energize the fanbase. Even if Scherzer bombs, Cohen gets a "win" because he showed his willingness to invest in the team and make bold steps toward improvement. Things are different in NYC. Stuff like that matters. Besides, $40M is nothing to these guys, just another business expense.
If I am an owner, and we have total free agency. I try to sign a young player who seems to be fully major league ready, for a long term contract and try to lock him in for so many years. Making it attractive for the young player, but to my advantage as an owner perhaps capturing a few years at a lower cost, especially if the player turns out to be top tier. Of course renegotiating may occur if a player exceeds expectations by a large margin. It will still be the folks with the money that have the advantage. Not sure what pressure the fans can put on a franchise. But after Wayne Huzienga completely sold off his championship Marlins team, a team that he spent 5 years building a fan base that would attend the games, the attendance dropped by more than half. They then gradually over a few years built another winner, increased the fan base, won another championship, and sold off the team again. I do not think the in attendance crowd has ever recovered. J. Henry who claimed he could not afford to spend big money on players, later put together a buying group that bought the Redsox for record money. It led to further distrust of owners in the South Florida Market. Owners have a certain amount of control but savvy fans can have some say.
Fans are at the mercy of the owners. That's what a commissioner is for, to balance things for "the good of the game." Unfortunately the owners control who gets to be commissioner and what they'll be able to do.
Huizenga is a great example. He brought baseball to Florida. He built a winner and then sold it at a profit. He obviously wanted to win, but did not really care about baseball or the fanbase. His "win" was about beating everyone else and then making a killing! He was a businessman first, a baseball owner second.
I'm not sure we'll ever see a true baseball-first ownership group. The franchises are worth too much money. The best we can hope for is that owners get out of the way and turn over the team to baseball-savvy and baseball-interested people.
The Giants seem to have a good situation. The Johnsons mostly stay out of the way, Baer is the public face, and FZ gets to run the team. It seems pretty stable, and now that the younger Johnson is at the top of the food chain, the stability seems likely to continue.
Post a Comment