Effectively Wild Episode 1550: Make Me Your Worst Offer
Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the continued standstill over starting the season, MLB’s series of superficially different, substantively identical, and equally unproductive proposals, public perceptions of the owners’ and players’ positions, the difference between a 50-game season and an 80-game season, and how the “negotiations” seem destined to end, plus a Stat Blast about repeatedly drafted players. Then (27:01) they talk to FanGraphs lead prospect analyst Eric Longenhagen about which teams did and didn’t appear to do well in the 2020 draft, how limiting the draft to five rounds affected team strategy, how the pandemic changed draft prep and draft predictions, the potential of Tigers top pick Spencer Torkelson and other notable names, what will happen to the hundreds of players who didn’t get drafted, and the latest on when and where prospects will play in 2020.
Audio intro: Mates of State, "My Only Offer"
Audio interstitial: I Was a King, "Eric"
Audio outro: Wild Flag, "Short Version"
Link to latest Craig Edwards analysis
Link to Jeff Passan report on most recent MLB offer
Link to Eno on season length
Link to Angus Kellett’s Stat Blast song cover
Link to spreadsheet about most-drafted players
Link to Eric’s 2020 draft primer
Link to Eric’s Day 1 draft recap
Link to Eric’s draft odds and ends
Link to story about amateurs signing with NPB teams
iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
Sponsor Us on Patreon
Facebook Group
Effectively Wild Wiki
Twitter Account
Get Our Merch!
Email Us: podcast@fangraphs.com
Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
I’m a big fan of the show but what Ben said in this episode was pretty insulting. He basically said if you don’t see things the way I do you are ignorant or aren’t paying attention. It probably wouldn’t bother me if what he said was accurate but it was at best heavily biased and at worst objectively wrong.
The fact is the uniform player contract in the CBA says in the case of an emergency players will only get paid for games they play. The March deal wasn’t the players giving up pay, it is just what the CBA says. Furthermore in multiple areas of the march deal it specifically talks about renegotiating if there are no fans. The players have not done any negotiating yet. They have just said no to every offer without any real counteroffer when it comes to pay. The owners have flat out said if you won’t come off of 100% prorated we are playing the 50 or so game season and the players don’t seem to care if that is the end result. The players are the side that doesn’t seem like they really care about a longer season, if they cared about it they would compromise.
As to the owners deals all being the same, each of the last 2 deals inched up in value assuming a full season is played. The original deal was for about 1.2 billion in players salary, the second one was for 1.3 billion, this last one is for 1.5 billion. Assuming a full season this latest deal is 25% more money than the first deal, that really isn’t basically the same deal. This last deal would see the players playing 44% of a season and getting roughly 38% of their normal pay. If the players finally make any counter offer coming down from 100% prorated they are going to end up very close to those two numbers being even.
Just a quick addendum to my post above. That 25% increase in money is in 10 fewer games than the original deal as well so it is really greater than 25%. This new deal is nowhere near the same thing as the original deals were.
MLB already has issues in attracting top amatuer talent, as well as the need to address the diversity situation. The owners should view this as an opportunity to send top athletes who would typically chose football or basketball a message that they value their players and pay them 100% of their salaries.
I’ve expected Meg’s views to be as they are given how frequently she has espoused them, but now even Ben has fallen into non-reason and one-sidedness. It’s one thing to have bias on an issue; it’s another to ignore the arguments of the other side, and now an entirely different red line to be arrogant and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
The most telling moment of the podcast was Meg joking about how she has to keep telling Craig Edwards to write the same article. As opposed to saying, “I may disagree but let’s see what the merits are here.” No wonder Craig’s posts went from reasonable, nuanced and fair in late April to as narrow as they are now.
By the way, if all your arguments are correct, the owners are the opposite of greedy in this instance – they are magnanimous in having signed the March deal to “agree” to prorated salaries, which is clearly the maximum the players should have expected anyway. Does common sense indicate that the owners gave that up for free? Or does common sense dictate that the March agreement was an agreement between parties to renegotiate further if there are no fans in the stands? Doesn’t negotiation require two parties? Why are only the owners being called intractable here? The Union hasn’t budged an inch either.
I’m not saying the owners have handled themselves well, but the Union is far, far more at fault for being intractable from the beginning. FanGraphs keeps spewing bile about how the owners aren’t acting in good faith. Meanwhile, the Union has said from day one, “We’ll talk but we’re not budging a penny on salaries.” Sure – the owners have rewrapped relatively similar, but increasing, salary proposals. The salary offer has increased by 25%. Reasonable minds can argue whether it’s “enough” but it takes an unreasonable mind to say the owners haven’t increased their offer. But the Union refuses to even discuss it, and you refuse to even examine why the Union should have any blame. The owners have moved 25% from their initial offer. The Union has moved 0%.
The world has enough places that start with an emotional answer and then filter facts to support their predisposed position. FanGraphs used to be better than that.
FanGraphs decided on its answer long ago, which is more of a referendum of its views on owners in general rather than the actual current discussion at hand. Bots could write your blog posts at this point. And I say again, if you applied the same rigor to exploring all sides of the labor discussion as you do to the statistical analysis of baseball, you would be doing the community a far more valuable service than you currently are. But you’ve made your choice – which is your right – and we’ll see if your patrons vote with their wallets about the direction you’ve chosen.
This one already has.
Let me also be clear – the reason it’s so frustrating is because all of you are BRILLIANT baseball minds. I love your analysis of my favorite sport. But for some people (many?), you’ve squandered or eliminated that goodwill by being as obstinate towards the owners position as you claim they are being in the labor discussion. I trust the irony isn’t lost on anyone.
the owners own, let them take the losses and the gains, for whatever reason though people fall for the trap over and over and keep socializing losses. Its ok if the owners make less, or lose money.
I couldnt disagree more woth you. The owners havent acted on good daith at all, then böame the players.