B. Harper goes off on Manfred's Salary Cap talk

[WLTFE]

Millionaires vs. Billionaires...they can afford to shutdown baseball in 2027....and life will go on...

Couldn’t agree more and that’s the big problem. Life will go on and how many more fans will suddenly become totally apathetic? Too many…

It’s pretty naive of him to think they can just sit out a whole season. If MLB is gone for a year everyone will realize they don’t really miss it that much

+1...they risk people finding other interests if they strike or shutdown...but, it seems even rich people can be [fork]ing stupid.

[peterman'srealitytour]

Millionaires vs. Billionaires...they can afford to shutdown baseball in 2027....and life will go on...

Exactly. The hypocrisy from both sides is so thick.

From the players side, how many times over the years have we heard they were taking a stand for future generations of players. Willing to strike so that the next generation could enjoy better pay and benefits. Now, the system is so flawed, it’s driving fans away and threatening future of the game. If they really care about future of the game, be open to change. Even if that change is a salary cap. Make it include a floor.

Owners in small and mid markets willing to accept a system where the fans of their teams will likely never enjoy a WS championship because of the economics of the game. You want change? Prove it by putting your existing profits at risk and endure a strike if that’s what it takes.

[RamFan08NY]

This just shows how bad it's going to get if owners insist on a salary cap.

No doubt one is needed.

Players will literally tell the commish to "%^&* off" if he delivers that message from the owners when the new CBA talks get underway.

Let them lockout. Players are soon going to realize that LA, NY, and Philly only have just so many roster spots available. Screw them. Go home and sit by the pool all summer long. I survived without baseball during covid, I can do so again.

Manfred knows that baseball needs Skenes in Pittsburg. He's under the gun to fix this.

[RamFan08NY]

This just shows how bad it's going to get if owners insist on a salary cap.

No doubt one is needed.

Players will literally tell the commish to "%^&* off" if he delivers that message from the owners when the new CBA talks get underway.

Screw Harper. Let them lockout. Players are soon going to realize that LA, NY, and Philly only have just so many roster spots available. . Go home and sit by the pool all summer long. I survived without baseball during covid, I can do so again.

Manfred knows that baseball needs Skenes in Pittsburg. He's under the gun to fix this before hes a Yankee or Dodger.

[Bomber1]

Y'all are a bunch of bootlickers... Harper's a badass for doing that and he's absolutely right.

Manfred's a weasel for trying to sway the next CBA directly with the players, outside of negotiations, and Harper was 100% right to call him out and kick him tf out of their space.

Totally agree that Manfred is a stooge. That said, painting Harper as some heroic figure in this is just as unproductive. Flat out saying the players are willing to lose an entire year so they can continue to inflate salaries is basically an eff you to the fans. Let’s say there IS a lockout and then when it is finally resolved there still is no resolution to the parity issue and you have 5 teams with a legitimate chance to win and that’s it…how many fans do you think will come back? The answer is not many. Baseball is struggling to get fans now…it’ll be dead on arrival if the players get their way.

The last CBA it was not the players who decided not to play, it was the owners who locked them out. Bc they know most people (like you) will just reflexively blame the players anyway.

In any labor struggle, the labor deserves a fair slice of the revenue. If they have to shut down production to get it they still deserve solidarity from other workers.

So the question is do you feel more solidarity with labor or with bosses, who can absolutely afford to pay them more but choose not to and will gladly let them shut down production to avoid doing so.

When 3Dender talks about a fair slice of the pie for “the labor”, what he means is the whole pie because he is a communist and believes nobody should have more money or live more comfortably than “the working man”.

In this case “the working man” is at a minimum making 10 x the average American yearly, and at a maximum (at this time) making about 1,000 times the average American salary.

So spare me the “this is a victory for labor” crud.

When you talk about it you somehow omit the disparity of the wealth between players and owners, and the shrinking percentage of revenue that players get for a product that they are about 90% responsible for producing.

How about a hypothetical, let's say the players went on strike and the owners replaced them with AAA scabs. Then the striking players created their own league and started playing around college and minor league stadiums. Which league do you think would sell more tickets?

1. Employers (in this case the owners) always make more money than employees ( in this case players). I know that fact really bugs you but that’s how it works in a capitalist society.
2. I acknowledge that the players are the draw. They are also obviously well-compensated for it.

[Goldfan]

Have never been an admirer of Harper.

Yet, on this one, I say KUDOS to you Mr Harper. And Stick to your Guns.

Harper - “It’s all about me, me, me. And the players in the union. Them, them, them.” He has no concept of a completely lop sided industry that’s doomed to fail unless they do something equitable that makes sense.

Cranny, who writes the checks??
And do these fellas own the league?
And do they require a certain number of teams in league??
Who determines that number??
So you want the PLAYERS to administer the OWNERS, who own the league, so they won’t spend so much money??

Did you ever hear of suing for collusion?

This is all it takes……if the owners really cared about the competitiveness of THEIR league.
Or
They could self regulate a more restrictive salary cap

[CCard]

Well, it's not the ballplayers fault that some of the billionaires can't keep it in their financial pants. People go to see the ballplayers, not the billionaire owners. Without the ballplayers there would be no MLB. Gone are the times when an owner could just say "This is what you get." Instead of a cap(which isn't fair to the money making ability of the talent) maybe they should increase revenue sharing until the playing field is more level. Make it a requirement that each owner has to spend a certain amount of this revenue in on field talent. Salary caps only benefit greedy owners that won't pay for on field talent. The Cards made $350 million one year. Of course there are expenses to running an organization, but there are a lot of peripheral income streams also. The should be required to spend half of that in on field talent for the fans who plop down their hard earned dollars to support them. A salary cap is one of the worst things that could happen to the players. Again, fans don't come to the game to see fat cat owners, they come to see talent on the field. That talent deserves a piece of the pie.

[rockondlouie]

This just shows how bad it's going to get if owners insist on a salary cap.

No doubt one is needed.

Players will literally tell the commish to "%^&* off" if he delivers that message from the owners when the new CBA talks get underway.

I know I sound like Johnny one note, but you can't have a cap without a lot more revenue sharing.

And that's when owners will say %^&$ you to the players.

This could get real ugly unless they can find a compromise.

[Goldfan]

Have never been an admirer of Harper.

Yet, on this one, I say KUDOS to you Mr Harper. And Stick to your Guns.

Harper - “It’s all about me, me, me. And the players in the union. Them, them, them.” He has no concept of a completely lop sided industry that’s doomed to fail unless they do something equitable that makes sense.

Cranny, who writes the checks??
And do these fellas own the league?
And do they require a certain number of teams in league??
Who determines that number??
So you want the PLAYERS to administer the OWNERS, who own the league, so they won’t spend so much money??

Did you ever hear of suing for collusion?

This is all it takes……if the owners really cared about the competitiveness of THEIR league.
Or
They could self regulate a more restrictive salary cap

I meant self regulate a more restrictive payroll penalty

[3dender]

When 3Dender talks about a fair slice of the pie for “the labor”, what he means is the whole pie because he is a communist and believes nobody should have more money or live more comfortably than “the working man”.

In this case “the working man” is at a minimum making 10 x the average American yearly, and at a maximum (at this time) making about 1,000 times the average American salary.

So spare me the “this is a victory for labor” crud.

When you talk about it you somehow omit the disparity of the wealth between players and owners, and the shrinking percentage of revenue that players get for a product that they are about 90% responsible for producing.

How about a hypothetical, let's say the players went on strike and the owners replaced them with AAA scabs. Then the striking players created their own league and started playing around college and minor league stadiums. Which league do you think would sell more tickets?

1. Employers (in this case the owners) always make more money than employees ( in this case players). I know that fact really bugs you but that’s how it works in a capitalist society.
2. I acknowledge that the players are the draw. They are also obviously well-compensated for it.

Again missing the point... it's not about "well-compensated," which is a kind of absolute descriptor. It's about "fairly compensated," which is a relative descriptor (relative to the owners).

If you acknowledge that the players are the draw, then fair compensation means they should at least make the majority of the profits, if not the significant majority (maybe once we get them to a majority we can begin quibbling over what percentage they should make, whether 51% or 55% or 60% or 90%). Currently players make 44% of profits. As recently as the early 2000s they made 57% of profits (according to this website: https://projectsports.nl/en/how-does-ml ... ring-work/).

So yes, while I'm a communist what I'm saying about players getting more profits is not actually all that controversial. You even acknowledge that they deserve most of the credit for the product. All I'm saying is that credit should translate to profit.

[Red Bird Classic]

Y'all are a bunch of bootlickers... Harper's a badass for doing that and he's absolutely right.

Manfred's a weasel for trying to sway the next CBA directly with the players, outside of negotiations, and Harper was 100% right to call him out and kick him tf out of their space.

Totally agree that Manfred is a stooge. That said, painting Harper as some heroic figure in this is just as unproductive. Flat out saying the players are willing to lose an entire year so they can continue to inflate salaries is basically an eff you to the fans. Let’s say there IS a lockout and then when it is finally resolved there still is no resolution to the parity issue and you have 5 teams with a legitimate chance to win and that’s it…how many fans do you think will come back? The answer is not many. Baseball is struggling to get fans now…it’ll be dead on arrival if the players get their way.

The last CBA it was not the players who decided not to play, it was the owners who locked them out. Bc they know most people (like you) will just reflexively blame the players anyway.

In any labor struggle, the labor deserves a fair slice of the revenue. If they have to shut down production to get it they still deserve solidarity from other workers.

So the question is do you feel more solidarity with labor or with bosses, who can absolutely afford to pay them more but choose not to and will gladly let them shut down production to avoid doing so.

When 3Dender talks about a fair slice of the pie for “the labor”, what he means is the whole pie because he is a communist and believes nobody should have more money or live more comfortably than “the working man”.

In this case “the working man” is at a minimum making 10 x the average American yearly, and at a maximum (at this time) making about 1,000 times the average American salary.

So spare me the “this is a victory for labor” crud.

When you talk about it you somehow omit the disparity of the wealth between players and owners, and the shrinking percentage of revenue that players get for a product that they are about 90% responsible for producing.

How about a hypothetical, let's say the players went on strike and the owners replaced them with AAA scabs. Then the striking players created their own league and started playing around college and minor league stadiums. Which league do you think would sell more tickets?

1. Employers (in this case the owners) always make more money than employees ( in this case players). I know that fact really bugs you but that’s how it works in a capitalist society.
2. I acknowledge that the players are the draw. They are also obviously well-compensated for it.

This is true in circumstances where the employees make the product. Baseball, and other sports, are somewhat different because the players are the product.

In sports and other entertainments (like films and concerts, etc.) performers can demand much greater share of profits and sometimes more than the owners make. There are performers who make money even when the owners lose money in this kind of business. I think A-Rod, for example, made more money than the Rangers when he was there.