I am sure there were some who did that but I think the majority of the complaints about Harper and Machado were the slow pace of the negotiations and the fact so few teams were involved. As we have debated there were many factors for that, including agents, tanking, and a defacto salary cap with the CBT.
Here is an interesting exchange from Goold’s chat yesterday:
Hi Derrick:
Kudos to you on your podcasts! Recently with Peter Gammons, you mentioned how it is unusual that fans tend to support MLB owners more than the players in labor/work stoppage issues. I’m curious to hear you elaborate on why you think this is the case. And, given the angst over the possibility of another work stoppage looming, what is it going to take for the two sides to come to an agreement on a new labor deal?
Thanks! Robert
It largely comes from siding with the billionaires over millionaires cliche. So, so, so often I receive complaints about how much players are paid, and rarely do I hear complaints about the owners who are willing to pay them this money, all while knowing that they’ll get plenty of revenue in return to make it worth their while. At it’s base line, money not paid to players and money not spent on baseball infrastructure — stadiums, scouting, player development — is money that goes to the owner. Therefore, if you have an issue with the millions the players make and wish that they made less, then you’re suggesting that the owners should make more money. Take home more revenues. The savings aren’t going to go to ticket prices. That’s not going to happen. I just find it running counter somewhat to the culture. Consider all the big businesses we encounter on a daily basis and the workers they strip of salaries, or lay off, or don’t cover their medical benefits — and how often do you take the side of the big business over the little guy? Maybe it’s more and more in our culture, but it’s so often in baseball. And I get the little guy in some cases is making millions. Fine. But in this market the middle-class player is also getting squeezed out.
The reaction to Jack Flaherty’s situation is an example. I saw some hand-wringing about how much the Cardinals were paying him — when they got a $10,000 rebate on his salary. Is that really going to make a dent in their revenue this season? Really? Is that going to allow them to rehire a recent firing or give a scout a $10,000 raise because Flaherty isn’t getting it? No, that is $10,000 not spent. And to not take the players side in that seems off to me.
There is money flowing into the game. All parties should share in the flood. But especially the ones that make the product go, that draw you to the ballpark, that put up the numbers.
Owners are important, no doubt. Some run in the red to operate a team; not all do. But I don’t remember the last owner baseball card my son came home with, or the last owner jersey I saw sold at a team store. Just seems odd that in some corners the default is to wonder why the players make millions and not why the owners make more millions.
Derrick Goold