2027 lockout question

[imadangman]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

[Cranny]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

[ramfandan]

After the lockout ends, existing player contracts go back in effect.
So no change there.
A new CBA could address new player minimum salaries, arbitration years, and free agency rules possibly.

As mentioned by others, team salary caps etc. will be in forefront.
MLB has wanted an international draft that players assoc rejected
Players wanted owners to drop draft pick compensation for free agents but owners refused. Those two issues were seen as a quid pro quo for both sides.

[rockondlouie]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

[StlMike1969]

I am of the belief that something has to be done about player salaries and team pricing. I do not have the answers but I see the issues.

1. Player salaries are ridiculous. Nobody should be making $45 mill a season to play baseball. $25 mill would be the cutoff for me. The teams also should not be allowed to defer that money down the road past 5 to 10 years. If everyone was allowed to compete for a player under the same rules then you would not see teams like the Dodgers and Yankees loaded with a team of stars. These players would go to other teams where they maybe have home town roots or feel a better chemistry would happen.

2. With that said the team should also be forced to lock their pricing for tickets and stadium services. This way those costs are not passed on to the consumer providing stability to all. This is a huge problem. LA can charge $200 for a ticket and get it nightly, then turn around and pay an Ohtani over half a billion while deferring that money for decades. A team like Milwaukee, Tampa, St. Louis cannot get away with that, and therefore not generate that revenue. If everyone had to lock down their prices under a salary cap and then pricing to fans to where all were on a truly level playing field then it serves both owners, players and fans. Yeah, the fat cat owners get devalued but the other owners get raised up. Teams can still generate additional revenue through licensing and tv deals. It is all called budgeting. Every business has to do and they just need to enact it league wide for the preservation of their business.

[Whatashame]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

Rock, I don’t know that to be the case. There is no doubt that players are against a cap but how dug in are the owners. The large market teams don’t care because the rising market doesn’t affect them but the other owners want something in place. At this point I don’t know that anything is “DOA”.

How dug in are the smaller markets. Every other major sports league has some form of a cap, even the NFL. IMO, nothing is off the table yet. A majority of the owners may be planning for a lengthy holdout. The players have a limited window to make money.

Let’s wait and see how dug in both sides are. I’m preparing to miss the 2027 season.

[rockondlouie]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

Rock, I don’t know that to be the case. There is no doubt that players are against a cap but how dug in are the owners. The large market teams don’t care because the rising market doesn’t affect them but the other owners want something in place. At this point I don’t know that anything is “DOA”.

How dug in are the smaller markets. Every other major sports league has some form of a cap, even the NFL. IMO, nothing is off the table yet. A majority of the owners may be planning for a lengthy holdout. The players have a limited window to make money.

Let’s wait and see how dug in both sides are. I’m preparing to miss the 2027 season.

Owners have wanted a cap for decades whatashame.

They claim to be "dug in" every time and fold because since the days of Marvin Miller the MLBPA has said a cap is a non starter and owners know it.

I'd love one, most fans (other than Dodger fans) would.

Plus owners have many TV contracts worth BILLIONS now from Networks to Streaming services and they will get a TON of pressure from them to get the games back on!

But players also are much, much richer than they were last time and can holdout for a long time (even rookies will have made over three-quarters of a million dollars).

Both sides need to find common ground way before it comes to a lockout, they both have way too much money at stake.

I don't think we miss many games in 2027 (if any), hope I'm right.

[imadangman]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

My thought as it barely relates to this, is if the Dodgers do that why don't the Yankees. It's the same size market. If I was a Yankee fan I'd definitely ask why my team wasn't bending all the same rules in order to stack stars.

[rockondlouie]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

My thought as it barely relates to this, is if the Dodgers do that why don't the Yankees. It's the same size market. If I was a Yankee fan I'd definitely ask why my team wasn't bending all the same rules in order to stack stars.

Guggenheim guys are just a whole lot smarter than the nepo baby.

Big George would've done it!

[imadangman]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

My thought as it barely relates to this, is if the Dodgers do that why don't the Yankees. It's the same size market. If I was a Yankee fan I'd definitely ask why my team wasn't bending all the same rules in order to stack stars.

Guggenheim guys are just a whole lot smarter than the nepo baby.

Big George would've done it!

Good point and I agree. I think we've gone down this road before that even though they are successful, the Dodgers should not be recognized as a "smart" front office. Most of the things they've done (Ohtani deal... taking the whole Price contract so they could have Betts, St Louis definitely didn't have that option) are just a luxury of the market.

Edit: oh and don't forget the Dodgers horrible track record with SP contracts, and even the health/success of the ones they've developed. That's an organization that seems like it has an even more overhyped farm system than ours.

[Whatashame]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

Rock, I don’t know that to be the case. There is no doubt that players are against a cap but how dug in are the owners. The large market teams don’t care because the rising market doesn’t affect them but the other owners want something in place. At this point I don’t know that anything is “DOA”.

How dug in are the smaller markets. Every other major sports league has some form of a cap, even the NFL. IMO, nothing is off the table yet. A majority of the owners may be planning for a lengthy holdout. The players have a limited window to make money.

Let’s wait and see how dug in both sides are. I’m preparing to miss the 2027 season.

Owners have wanted a cap for decades whatashame.

They claim to be "dug in" every time and fold because since the days of Marvin Miller the MLBPA has said a cap is a non starter and owners know it.

I'd love one, most fans (other than Dodger fans) would.

Plus owners have many TV contracts worth BILLIONS now from Networks to Streaming services and they will get a TON of pressure from them to get the games back on!

But players also are much, much richer than they were last time and can holdout for a long time (even rookies will have made over three-quarters of a million dollars).

Both sides need to find common ground way before it comes to a lockout, they both have way too much money at stake.

I don't think we miss many games in 2027 (if any), hope I'm right.

I see both sides and I get your argument. What makes this CBA any different than the others? We will find out but to keep kicking it down the road isn’t changing anything. I think or maybe I hope, the owners are more dug in than ever before. I believe that this CBA will be the turning point but I thought the last one was the turning point. I don’t want them to come back with the status quo. The distance between the top and the bottom is growing exponentially but as I said, we will see how dug in each side is.

It’s hard to imagine that the smaller market teams will allow the status quo to prevail. Pittsburgh is already on the clock in trying to keep Skenes in Pittsburgh. When will the Cardinals be on the clock with Wetherholt? The Reds with Burnes? Cleveland was lucky J Ramirez was willing to take less to stay there. Something has to change.

[golfindude]

I'm tired of the MLB experience. It is NOT a competitive league. It's mearly a show where teams hype their players even though they are not stars hoping fans will pay out the (bleep) to see them PERFORM. I hope they strike if they don't agree to a salary cap.

[makesnosense]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

The players wouldn’t get their regular salaries, but some signing bonuses and deferred payments could be exceptions.
Key issues will be a firm salary cap, revenue sharing, and years for minimum wage and arbitration.

Correct

But owners can forget the salary cap, that issue is DOA.

Deferred money has to be addressed or Dodgers are going to ink every good player.

Something has to be done about a salary floor minimum.

My thought as it barely relates to this, is if the Dodgers do that why don't the Yankees. It's the same size market. If I was a Yankee fan I'd definitely ask why my team wasn't bending all the same rules in order to stack stars.

Guggenheim guys are just a whole lot smarter than the nepo baby.

Big George would've done it!

Good point and I agree. I think we've gone down this road before that even though they are successful, the Dodgers should not be recognized as a "smart" front office. Most of the things they've done (Ohtani deal... taking the whole Price contract so they could have Betts, St Louis definitely didn't have that option) are just a luxury of the market.

Edit: oh and don't forget the Dodgers horrible track record with SP contracts, and even the health/success of the ones they've developed. That's an organization that seems like it has an even more overhyped farm system than ours.
[/

The only thing I agree with you is the Dodgets shouldn't be considered smart. That undersells how great their front office Is. Also, their farm system is not over hyped. They do manage to trade some of their lesser talented players to teams for talent. But that's on the other team.

[cardstatman]

Brewers are smart.

Dodgers are 7 games behind the Brewers because they were outsmarted.

Cardinals are simply smarting.

[Braund241]

In the case of a lockout, players would miss out on salary. Do I have that right?

So what is the implication of having money on the books vs not, since the teams wouldn't be on the hook for money during the lockout.

Is it simply a matter of how the market might correct after the lockout? Major changes to contracts, years/length, caps, etc? I suppose you wouldn't want to carry over commitments from the previous system if players suddenly are cheaper or easier to negotiate with after 2027. Is that it?

Hopefully if there is a lockout the minor league teams will have to say goodbye. Sorry Dimwit.

[Cosmo11]

I am of the belief that something has to be done about player salaries and team pricing. I do not have the answers but I see the issues.

1. Player salaries are ridiculous. Nobody should be making $45 mill a season to play baseball. $25 mill would be the cutoff for me. The teams also should not be allowed to defer that money down the road past 5 to 10 years. If everyone was allowed to compete for a player under the same rules then you would not see teams like the Dodgers and Yankees loaded with a team of stars. These players would go to other teams where they maybe have home town roots or feel a better chemistry would happen.

2. With that said the team should also be forced to lock their pricing for tickets and stadium services. This way those costs are not passed on to the consumer providing stability to all. This is a huge problem. LA can charge $200 for a ticket and get it nightly, then turn around and pay an Ohtani over half a billion while deferring that money for decades. A team like Milwaukee, Tampa, St. Louis cannot get away with that, and therefore not generate that revenue. If everyone had to lock down their prices under a salary cap and then pricing to fans to where all were on a truly level playing field then it serves both owners, players and fans. Yeah, the fat cat owners get devalued but the other owners get raised up. Teams can still generate additional revenue through licensing and tv deals. It is all called budgeting. Every business has to do and they just need to enact it league wide for the preservation of their business.

If you limit salaries all you are doing is putting more money in the pockets of the owners.