Collusion

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Collusion

Post by Socnorb11 »

Famous Mortimer wrote:No it's not. Just because the workers are rich, relatively speaking, doesn't make them less workers. Why does noone direct their criticism at the owners? It's like the okay thing to do is blame the players for being greedy. How greedy are the owners? How did the players force the owners to pay less and take more?

Most of us aren't blaming the players OR the owners for anything. It's a business, and they're both squeezing everything they can out of it. I don't blame 'em.

User avatar
misterManager
Everyday Player
Posts: 356
Joined: June 6 17, 11:03 am

Re: Collusion

Post by misterManager »

Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:No it's not. Just because the workers are rich, relatively speaking, doesn't make them less workers. Why does noone direct their criticism at the owners? It's like the okay thing to do is blame the players for being greedy. How greedy are the owners? How did the players force the owners to pay less and take more?
"Relatively speaking" is kind of underselling this.

This is the 1% trying to extract more money from the .005%.

(snip)

But I'm not shedding any tears over Jake Arrieta or Lance Lynn remaining unsigned, or any of the other vets with their insipid moaning about their pay.
You should be shedding tears for Lance Lynn. There are, just guessing here but go with me, less than thirty players active in MLB who are part of the 1% you're referencing. Lance Lynn, who's made several million up to his age thirty season, is not in the 1% in America. Sorry.

The ball is only going to keep rolling down the hill as players like Lance, who for the entirety of this decade have signed contracts near 100M without too much trouble, keep getting pushed further into a corner. At a certain point the Darvishes of the world will get what Arrietta is about to get, Logan Morrison-types will be a 10M 1-year signing (this is about half the FA pool's realistic value each season, according to math and aging curves and whatever else), and still the Ohtanis of the world will get paid as little as possible for as long as possible.

And then there will be a strike or the sport will change into something less recognizable and we'll all wonder what ever happened. Well people said to not listen to the Lynn and Arrietta's of the world, who while 'selfish 1%'rs' in a certain light were at least seeing firsthand the way compensation was being handled for anyone that was free of team control.

User avatar
Momo
Veteran Player
Posts: 560
Joined: December 7 17, 11:58 pm

Re: Collusion

Post by Momo »

misterManager wrote:
Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:No it's not. Just because the workers are rich, relatively speaking, doesn't make them less workers. Why does noone direct their criticism at the owners? It's like the okay thing to do is blame the players for being greedy. How greedy are the owners? How did the players force the owners to pay less and take more?
"Relatively speaking" is kind of underselling this.

This is the 1% trying to extract more money from the .005%.

(snip)

But I'm not shedding any tears over Jake Arrieta or Lance Lynn remaining unsigned, or any of the other vets with their insipid moaning about their pay.
You should be shedding tears for Lance Lynn.
I'm not shedding tears over a player who has all kinds of question marks around him not getting signed to an exorbitant contract that he very arguably does not merit.
There are, just guessing here but go with me, less than thirty players active in MLB who are part of the 1% you're referencing.
It's funny when people talk about the 1% and whine about the rich (usually owners and corporate entities like say, baseball clubs and their owners), but then forget that many of the people they "like" (aka athletes and entertainers) are actually part of the same 1%.

Admission to the 1% in terms of income starts at a household income of around $430,000 per year. Every major leaguer is part of the 1% income makers.

However, to present the argument fairly, we should note that the 1% are often not "wage-earners" in a traditional sense, making a significant amount of money from things like investment/capital gains. So if we prefer to measure the top 1% in terms of wealth, rather than income, admission to the 1%er club starts at a net worth of around $8.4 million. By a quick glance at the payroll, the Cardinals alone have seven players who will earn more than $8 million this year.

Now, obviously, being in the top tax bracket will shave a healthy amount off those $8 million+ earners so they wouldn't cross the threshold in one year, but all of them are on healthy contracts and will end up in the 1% of net worth Americans by the end of their contracts. And this is ignoring players like Wong and DeJong who are on the cheaper part of their backloaded contracts and who will eventually have a net worth well over $8.4 million (I suppose in all cases assuming they don't piss it all down the drain on stupid things).

Clearly, there are far more than 30 active players in the 1%, regardless of how we choose to define that term, be it income or net worth. A fair number of them are actually going to end up in the 0.1%.
Lance Lynn, who's made several million up to his age thirty season, is not in the 1% in America.
"Several million" is easily the most [expletive] (and disingenuous) analysis of a baseball player's earnings I've seen yet.

The man has career earnings of just over $23 million. It doesn't matter how we define the 1%, he's in it.
Sorry.
Yeah, I'm sorry that I'm having to waste my time explaining what the 1% is to someone who doesn't know what it is, and acted like they did.
The ball is only going to keep rolling down the hill as players like Lance, who for the entirety of this decade have signed contracts near 100M without too much trouble, keep getting pushed further into a corner.
They're only getting pushed into this corner because they have made some terrible decisions in their CBA negotiations that effectively overpriced themselves in terms of labor value.
and still the Ohtanis of the world will get paid as little as possible for as long as possible.
And the only reason the Ohtanis (aka international stars) of the world will get paid as little as possible for as long as possible is that the MLBPA is greedy and doesn't want them to earn their fair share, so they'll continue to seek ways to depress the international stars' wages. Not realizing, idiotic as the MLBPA are, that by depressing the wages of those international players, they are increasing their baseball value and cost efficiency exponentially.

This extolment of the MLBPA as virtues or paragons of labor is just tired nonsense, and it really needs to end. It is not an organization for baseball players in some general sense. It is not a union for the callups, journeymen, league average, bench warmers or international stars and pickups. It is an organization for the vets. It is an organization for the superstars. It is an organization for the Boras clients. It is not the friendly defender of baseball laborers.

User avatar
Famous Mortimer
Perennial All-Star
Posts: 3636
Joined: November 14 14, 5:23 am
Location: Cherokee

Re: Collusion

Post by Famous Mortimer »

It would have been a lot easier to just write "I'm on the side of the owners". Be honest.

User avatar
misterManager
Everyday Player
Posts: 356
Joined: June 6 17, 11:03 am

Re: Collusion

Post by misterManager »

Momo wrote:
misterManager wrote:
Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:No it's not. Just because the workers are rich, relatively speaking, doesn't make them less workers. Why does noone direct their criticism at the owners? It's like the okay thing to do is blame the players for being greedy. How greedy are the owners? How did the players force the owners to pay less and take more?
"Relatively speaking" is kind of underselling this.

This is the 1% trying to extract more money from the .005%.

(snip)

But I'm not shedding any tears over Jake Arrieta or Lance Lynn remaining unsigned, or any of the other vets with their insipid moaning about their pay.
You should be shedding tears for Lance Lynn.
I'm not shedding tears over a player who has all kinds of question marks around him not getting signed to an exorbitant contract that he very arguably does not merit.
I did not know that the 1%, which is the metric we are basing the conversation off of due to neither of our posts so who cares, starts at $450,000. I apologize for my tact there.

I guess I am looking at Lance Lynn as someone who owns a really nice house and cars in two or three cities. He's not Bernie Madoff or a Kennedy or on the board of a bank, and he doesn't visit the backroom of DC bars to discuss how policy is going to impact his industry in 2020. He's someone who has sold his time (far vaster amounts of his time than most salary-men have, most of that for no immediate gain) to his maximum advantage. He is rich. I think he deserves to be rich for doing what he did for our org and will do for another.

It bums me out on a personal level because I liked watching him pitch for us. I guess that's my whole take is that he's not a bad guy for wanting what he just saw Jordan Zimmerman (to grab a name) got two years back. And if he wants to stop playing ball I will feel bad because I liked watching him pitch.

User avatar
Momo
Veteran Player
Posts: 560
Joined: December 7 17, 11:58 pm

Re: Collusion

Post by Momo »

Famous Mortimer wrote:It would have been a lot easier to just write "I'm on the side of the owners". Be honest.
It would be easier for you to write "I'm a sniveling sycophant that believes in people like Scott Boras." Be honest.

But no, I'm not on the side of owners, and I have made that repeatedly clear. I have clearly pointed out that I think the presentation of this issue is a completely false dichotomy.

To say that my position is with the owners would make it clear how full of [expletive] you are.
misterManager wrote:
Momo wrote:
misterManager wrote:
Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:No it's not. Just because the workers are rich, relatively speaking, doesn't make them less workers. Why does noone direct their criticism at the owners? It's like the okay thing to do is blame the players for being greedy. How greedy are the owners? How did the players force the owners to pay less and take more?
"Relatively speaking" is kind of underselling this.

This is the 1% trying to extract more money from the .005%.

(snip)

But I'm not shedding any tears over Jake Arrieta or Lance Lynn remaining unsigned, or any of the other vets with their insipid moaning about their pay.
You should be shedding tears for Lance Lynn.
I'm not shedding tears over a player who has all kinds of question marks around him not getting signed to an exorbitant contract that he very arguably does not merit.
I did not know that the 1%, which is the metric we are basing the conversation off of due to neither of our posts so who cares, starts at $450,000. I apologize for my tact there.

I guess I am looking at Lance Lynn as someone who owns a really nice house and cars in two or three cities. He's not Bernie Madoff or a Kennedy or on the board of a bank, and he doesn't visit the backroom of DC bars to discuss how policy is going to impact his industry in 2020. He's someone who has sold his time (far vaster amounts of his time than most salary-men have, most of that for no immediate gain) to his maximum advantage. He is rich. I think he deserves to be rich for doing what he did for our org and will do for another.

It bums me out on a personal level because I liked watching him pitch for us. I guess that's my whole take is that he's not a bad guy for wanting what he just saw Jordan Zimmerman (to grab a name) got two years back. And if he wants to stop playing ball I will feel bad because I liked watching him pitch.
That's fine that you like Lance Lynn on a personal level!

But the rest of this post just sounds like rationalization for how he deserves to be paid more than 99% of the rest of Americans, and frankly that's the same kind of argument someone could try to make make for anyone from the entertainment, legal, financial or medical industries. And I really don't find any of those arguments all that convincing.

I'm not trying to harp on nitpicks here, but the bolded is interesting for two reasons. First, obviously the guy put in the hours in Little League, high school, college and eventually in the minors...but the guy was also a first round draft pick that got signed to a $900,000 bonus, more than many MiLBers will see in their entire careers. I don't know if it was his demeanor, his physical appearance or what, but people seem to forget that the guy was part of an already elite percent of prospects and major leaguers from the beginning.

Second, and here's where the really interesting part is: that history is shared by all the vets running the MLBPA. They toiled in youth baseball, on school teams, on minor league teams (and/or professional level international teams). They've all put in long hours without a promise of future riches and many of them were severely underpaid along the way. They should know how hard it is to become a star and get the wage you deserve. But have they tried to get these future players, current MiLB players and/or young players the wages they deserve?

No. And in fact at times, they have even actively fought to reduce their earning potential!

Maybe Lance Lynn didn't agree to those tactics of the MLBPA and to the CBA he was signed onto. Maybe he wants better pay for youngsters and international players. Maybe he's fighting the good fight for "labor" in baseball. But the fact of the matter is that even if those things were true, the MLBPA hasn't made that fight, and he's therefore unfortunately going to reap the due rewards of what they have sown.

User avatar
misterManager
Everyday Player
Posts: 356
Joined: June 6 17, 11:03 am

Re: Collusion

Post by misterManager »

Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:It would have been a lot easier to just write "I'm on the side of the owners". Be honest.
It would be easier for you to write "I'm a sniveling sycophant that believes in people like Scott Boras." Be honest.

But no, I'm not on the side of owners, and I have made that repeatedly clear. I have clearly pointed out that I think the presentation of this issue is a completely false dichotomy.

To say that my position is with the owners would make it clear how full of [expletive] you are.
Image

I don't think it's a false dichotomy when it is literally a zero-sum game between ownership and players. I may be mistaken on my definition of the term but that's my take. If you think the players deserve what they're getting, that's fine, but don't pretend that no one is benefiting from the state of finances in the game. The offseason isn't over so maybe things turn around but it's not something to write off as just desserts IMHO.

User avatar
lukethedrifter
darjeeling sipping elite
Posts: 37434
Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Location: Huis Clos

Re: Collusion

Post by lukethedrifter »

The dickishness in this thread seems a bit over the top.

User avatar
misterManager
Everyday Player
Posts: 356
Joined: June 6 17, 11:03 am

Re: Collusion

Post by misterManager »

Needs more dickishness to get enshrined in the dickish HoF though. let's do that?

User avatar
Momo
Veteran Player
Posts: 560
Joined: December 7 17, 11:58 pm

Re: Collusion

Post by Momo »

misterManager wrote:
Momo wrote:
Famous Mortimer wrote:It would have been a lot easier to just write "I'm on the side of the owners". Be honest.
It would be easier for you to write "I'm a sniveling sycophant that believes in people like Scott Boras." Be honest.

But no, I'm not on the side of owners, and I have made that repeatedly clear. I have clearly pointed out that I think the presentation of this issue is a completely false dichotomy.

To say that my position is with the owners would make it clear how full of [expletive] you are.
Image

I don't think it's a false dichotomy when it is literally a zero-sum game between ownership and players. I may be mistaken on my definition of the term but that's my take. If you think the players deserve what they're getting, that's fine, but don't pretend that no one is benefiting from the state of finances in the game. The offseason isn't over so maybe things turn around but it's not something to write off as just desserts IMHO.
It is absolutely a false dichotomy to present this as an option between only ownership and players, as if you are either 100% behind the latter, or if not, are therefore 100% behind the former.

We know the owners always looking for ways to fleece the city of money for projects (e.g. Arizona wanting a new stadium already); threatening the locals to give them more or see them leave (e.g. the Rangers/Twins/others in the '90s); finding ways to underpay players and field poor teams (e.g., every tanking team now); and even looking for ways to get around clear rules and systems (e.g. Braves and their international prospects). So no, I don't think that really anyone except for perhaps the staunchest of corporate-bootlicking, crony-capitalism style conservatives are cheering on the owners in any sport.

But that doesn't mean that as a matter of fact we must cheer on the players in general, particularly the players' union. Why should anyone give a [expletive] about them when they're out there trying to depress other peoples' wages?

MLBPA in 2016, crafting new CBA: "We don't want international stars to be able to make millions and millions, and take away money from us."
Ohtani: Signs for <$4 million, when he could have gotten well over $100 million before the CBA change.
MLBPA two months later: "Why aren't our FAs getting paid?"
Me:
Image

As the Swedes say, "släng dig I väggen."

Yeah, I'll cheer on the MLBPA when they fight for a salary floor. Or for international spending to be relaxed again, so players like Ohtani can get their due. Or when they actually fight for the international draft they've talked about for decades. Or when they fight to change arbitration length. Or when they fight for a higher major league minimum. Or when they fight to add the MiLB players as beneficiaries of the CBA.

Until then, I'm absolutely on the side of the "players." I'm on the side of the journeymen, the benchwarmers, the international stars and prospects, the prospect having their service time played with and anyone else in between. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend like frigging Mike Moustakas is the real victim here.

Post Reply