for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: MLB owners reject MLBPA's 114-game proposal

Jints in Carolina : 6/3/2020 1:54 pm
On Sunday, the Players Association submitted a proposal to Major League Baseball for a 2020 season that would include, among other aspects, a 114-game regular season and expanded playoffs. It took the league a few days to respond, but on Wednesday owners rejected the union's proposal and said they would not send a counteroffer, according to Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-owners-reject-mlbpas-114-game-proposal-for-2020-season-per-report/?fbclid=IwAR2ZYad1wi8oITK86tVVY3SSg438ZdB4nDZH38uMfqOgK_r1Ff524Xq799Y - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: RE: RE: i mean that would end up getting negotiated....  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 3:55 pm : link
In comment 14916820 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:


You can keep throwing out that “guaranteed contract” nonsense all you want. There is a pandemic in the world right now and GAMES ARENT BEING PLAYED. There is less than 0% chance the players would have ever gotten paid 100% of their contracts this season in light of the situation. So please stop with this idea that they made this huge sacrifice. They had no choice. Games aren’t being played. Nobody is making money right now. These are not normal times.


No shit, but even though these are abnormal times the language in the CBA still matters. I don't believe MLB has officially exercised their emergency suspension of games clause and even if they do every decision that gets made will be subject to a ridiculous amount of litigation. And if they did go with a nuclear option they would also likely prompt sponsors to pull out of revenues they would have otherwise seen - which is likely why they agreed to some option that took that nuclear option off the table quickly.

All of this is why it's in everyone's best interest to come to an agreement - and that's why the players are willing to accept prorated salaries for a shortened season. The players took a fair first step they weren't obligated to take.

What good faith steps have we seen from the owners so far?
RE: Eric, that's why I said  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 4:07 pm : link
In comment 14916821 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it depends on the TV contracts, etc.

but we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

To me, it's not even a concession or definitely not a "big give" to say that if you play half a season you get half your pay. I would expect it.


The average salary in MLB is $4.4m. So the average salary reduction in a half season is $2.2m. Agreeing to do that, regardless of circumstance, is meaningful - especially since these guys are obviously willing to play more games.

If your company asked all employees with guaranteed contracts to work half the hours and take home half the amount, would you consider it a give to volunteer to do so?

In comment 14916821 pjcas18 said:
Quote:

of course the TV contract is an open question (for me). I can't imagine MLB and/or the teams collecting full value on it, but don't know.

Also though, no fans, no concessions, no parking, less apparel/retail sales, and probably more....how much of that impacts players vs owners?

to me the starting negotiations should have begun with prorated salary based on games in the season. 100% of the pro-rated value (like MLBPA has demanded), but that's where I assume it should start.


I agree with you that the starting place for the negotiation is as you laid it out. 81 games, prorated, and if it got a deal done as a player I'd probably be willing to accept 80-90%, and also throw in some non-monetary things the owners want (like expanded playoffs). If the owners need more assurances than that open up the books and explain why.
RE: RE: RE: RE: i mean that would end up getting negotiated....  
BigBlueShock : 6/8/2020 4:22 pm : link
In comment 14916828 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 14916820 BigBlueShock said:


Quote:




You can keep throwing out that “guaranteed contract” nonsense all you want. There is a pandemic in the world right now and GAMES ARENT BEING PLAYED. There is less than 0% chance the players would have ever gotten paid 100% of their contracts this season in light of the situation. So please stop with this idea that they made this huge sacrifice. They had no choice. Games aren’t being played. Nobody is making money right now. These are not normal times.



No shit, but even though these are abnormal times the language in the CBA still matters. I don't believe MLB has officially exercised their emergency suspension of games clause and even if they do every decision that gets made will be subject to a ridiculous amount of litigation. And if they did go with a nuclear option they would also likely prompt sponsors to pull out of revenues they would have otherwise seen - which is likely why they agreed to some option that took that nuclear option off the table quickly.

All of this is why it's in everyone's best interest to come to an agreement - and that's why the players are willing to accept prorated salaries for a shortened season. The players took a fair first step they weren't obligated to take.

What good faith steps have we seen from the owners so far?

They gave up $170 Million in advancements and gave players a full season of service time regardless of how many games are played in exchange for the prorated salaries...

Link - ( New Window )
Eric  
pjcas18 : 6/8/2020 4:27 pm : link
it's hard to relate this to "if your company asked you to..." professional sports are so unique and because if my alternative was no play at all and no money, sure I'd think 50% pay for 50% work was fair.

I don't know what the alternative is.

I do know the MLB players agreed to accept 4% of their contract if the season is canceled in exchange for a year of service time.

What was the alternative? $0 pay and no service time?
do you really consider either of those gives by MLB significant?  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 4:40 pm : link
the year of service time is a non-cash give for young players on their initial contracts?

the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.

The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.
RE: do you really consider either of those gives by MLB significant?  
BigBlueShock : 6/8/2020 4:49 pm : link
In comment 14916843 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
the year of service time is a non-cash give for young players on their initial contracts?

the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.

The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.

Of course it’s fucking significant. Why else do you think the union would make that agreement? You can minimize the service time all you want. That’s a huge get for the players.

At any rate, I’m done here. Your set in your thinking and any facts presented is not going to change your mind. You’re right. The poor players have no responsibility in this epic disaster. All the owners fault. The players association is dealing completely in good faith here and have tried so hard to make this happen...
RE: Eric  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 4:56 pm : link
In comment 14916838 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it's hard to relate this to "if your company asked you to..." professional sports are so unique and because if my alternative was no play at all and no money, sure I'd think 50% pay for 50% work was fair.

I don't know what the alternative is.

I do know the MLB players agreed to accept 4% of their contract if the season is canceled in exchange for a year of service time.

What was the alternative? $0 pay and no service time?


The alternative was $0 pay and damaging litigation that would have taken long enough to only hurt both sides.

I am not saying the players are heroes, just that they've put more skin in the game than the owners have to this point. They and their families are the group that's going to absorb the health risk and they have made more tangible accommodations than the owners have to bring the sport back - which I think we can all agree is what's in the best interest of the game long term as well as the ultimate revenue source (fans).

none of us know enough about MLB daily operating revenues to know for sure what % of salary is "right" - we do know that only the owners know that, they refuse to allow visibility into those specifics, and their track record of good faith in that area is lacking. It's a $10bn/year business in normal years. If the difference is a few hundred mil, is it even worth the negative PR they've already generated?
Still don’t think demanding full prorated pay  
UConn4523 : 6/8/2020 4:59 pm : link
is fair without fans in seats. The owners will be taking a bath and they need to protect their investments. Players are taking no risk (other than COVID) which is the same risk regardless of their pay.
RE: RE: do you really consider either of those gives by MLB significant?  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 5:02 pm : link
In comment 14916847 BigBlueShock said:
Quote:
In comment 14916843 Eric on Li said:


Quote:


the year of service time is a non-cash give for young players on their initial contracts?

the advance payments amount to like 150k per player on 40 man and will be reimbursed. I'd imagine most non-minimum players will opt out.

The key thing the owners received was likely the players agreeing to not sue for their full contracts because they knew that would have been truly nuclear. That's when sponsors would have looked to get out of their contracts.


Of course it’s fucking significant. Why else do you think the union would make that agreement?
You can minimize the service time all you want. That’s a huge get for the players.


the union made that agreement because the players always have more urgency/less leverage if they are (unexpectedly) not getting paid - especially younger players who haven't made much money yet. With more than half of the players in the league probably being on first contracts that was an easy carrot to dangle that cost the owners $0 and does nothing more than preserve the expected status quo. Same as the reimbursed advanced payments.

but generally agree - we have probably beat this horse to death.
RE: Still don’t think demanding full prorated pay  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 5:07 pm : link
In comment 14916852 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is fair without fans in seats. The owners will be taking a bath and they need to protect their investments. Players are taking no risk (other than COVID) which is the same risk regardless of their pay.


There is a negotiation to be had and likely an acceptable number to the PA below 100% prorated, but MLB's offers do not seem to improve on the 48 game option, which is what's allowing the louder voices in the PA to say they are acting in bad faith.

Quote:
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
5h
Original offer: 82 games, players receive $1.03B in salary and $200M if playoffs are played.

Current offer: 76 games, players receive $989M in salary and $443M if playoffs are played, plus no direct draft-pick compensation.

48-game option: $1.03B in salary, no playoff money
More details from Passan who got a copy of today's proposal  
Eric on Li : 6/8/2020 5:36 pm : link
Quote:

Jeff Passan @JeffPassan
4m
- No qualifying offer for 2020. Teams that lose free agents receive draft pick for players who sign multiyear deals at $35M+ or one-year deals at $17.8M+. Teams that sign those FA do not lose draft picks
- Spring training 2.0 lasts 21+ days
- Season starts ~July 10, ends Sept. 27


Salary breakdown to get to the $1.431 billion number:

- 50% of prorated salaries over 76 games: $954,718,000
- Payment to players if postseason happens: $393,000,000
- Bonus pool for postseason teams to split up: $50,000,000
- Forgiveness on $170M advance: $33,998,000


total '20 team payrolls were supposed to be about $4.1bn, this proposal would have given players less than 25% of that amount to play just under 50% the number of games. That's a pretty big haircut and almost 0 incentive vs. the 48 game offer.
RE: Still don’t think demanding full prorated pay  
BH28 : 6/8/2020 9:37 pm : link
In comment 14916852 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is fair without fans in seats. The owners will be taking a bath and they need to protect their investments. Players are taking no risk (other than COVID) which is the same risk regardless of their pay.


The length players are under team control for preventing them from free agency has far screwed over the players more than COVID ever will to the owners. It's the primary reason Kyler Murray chose the NFL over MLB.

The owners also successfully squashed a law preventing minor league players from earning federal minimum wage.

They don't deserve any sympathy for the losses they may incur this season.
RE: RE: Still don’t think demanding full prorated pay  
Mad Mike : 6/9/2020 2:23 am : link
In comment 14916919 BH28 said:
Quote:
The length players are under team control for preventing them from free agency has far screwed over the players more than COVID ever will to the owners. It's the primary reason Kyler Murray chose the NFL over MLB.

The owners also successfully squashed a law preventing minor league players from earning federal minimum wage.

They don't deserve any sympathy for the losses they may incur this season.

What does sympathy have to do with it? I don't think anyone's opinion on what is or isn't reasonable has to do with feeling sorry for anyone.
Covid-19 Waiver  
US1 Giants : 6/9/2020 7:02 am : link
MLB wants all players to sign an “acknowledgment of risk” waiver that would absolve the league of responsibility should a player have complications related to COVID-19

from Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic
RE: Covid-19 Waiver  
UConn4523 : 6/9/2020 8:18 am : link
In comment 14916948 US1 Giants said:
Quote:
MLB wants all players to sign an “acknowledgment of risk” waiver that would absolve the league of responsibility should a player have complications related to COVID-19

from Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic


I’d want this in place above all else. I wonder what the players thoughts on this are?

I 100% get anyone who doesn’t want to risk their health. But I 100% understand why a business needs to protect itself.

Is their a COVID waiver in other pro sports?
.  
pjcas18 : 6/9/2020 7:46 pm : link
Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan
·
1m
The MLBPA is making a proposal to MLB for a season of around 89 games with a full prorated share of salary and expanded playoffs, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN. It would bring the sides closer to a potential deal and is ~25 games under the last union offer.
.  
pjcas18 : 6/9/2020 7:59 pm : link
Bob Nightengale
@BNightengale
·
6m
The #MLBPA has officially sent their 89-game proposal with full prorated pay to #MLB, which is expected to be rejected.
Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
UConn4523 : 6/9/2020 8:02 pm : link
what’s the hang up on their end then?
RE: Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
pjcas18 : 6/9/2020 8:03 pm : link
In comment 14917254 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
what’s the hang up on their end then?


not sure.

they want more games?
They should set a deadline  
pjcas18 : 6/9/2020 8:24 pm : link
to stop all the posturing/negotiating and just get a deal done like you know they will.

Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
3m
Initial reax from ownership source following players latest proposal: “We’re nowhere.”
RE: Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
Mike in NY : 6/9/2020 8:25 pm : link
In comment 14917254 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
what’s the hang up on their end then?


The owners are rejecting full prorated pay
RE: RE: Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
Mad Mike : 6/9/2020 8:30 pm : link
In comment 14917255 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
not sure.

they want more games?

Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.
RE: RE: RE: Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
pjcas18 : 6/9/2020 8:51 pm : link
In comment 14917262 Mad Mike said:
Quote:
In comment 14917255 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


not sure.

they want more games?


Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.



Yeah, I had it backwards and thought it was the players who rejected it at 89 games
RE: They should set a deadline  
JayBinQueens : 6/9/2020 9:23 pm : link
In comment 14917260 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
to stop all the posturing/negotiating and just get a deal done like you know they will.

Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
3m
Initial reax from ownership source following players latest proposal: “We’re nowhere.”

I don't know why it bothers me so much but why can't he just type 'reaction?' He isn't near the character limit and doesnt sound cool
RE: RE: RE: Expected to reject full prorated pay?  
MetsAreBack : 6/10/2020 8:12 am : link
In comment 14917262 Mad Mike said:
Quote:
In comment 14917255 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


not sure.

they want more games?


Who, the owners? They want fewer games, not more, especially at full pro-rated pay.


I dont think its an issue of wanting fewer games... just that if the players insist on full pro-rated pay they are claiming (yeah right) they can only "afford" a 48 game season. They do want to ensure there is a postseason though, thats the most important thing for them, and should be for both sides.

Frankly it would be interesting if you took all the shitty markets out of the league for this one season... had the richest 20 teams play... what they could afford? My gutt tells me this whole ridiculous stand is to protect the finances of Miami, Oakland, Arizona, etc.

RE: Still don’t think demanding full prorated pay  
ZogZerg : 6/10/2020 8:36 am : link
In comment 14916852 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
is fair without fans in seats. The owners will be taking a bath and they need to protect their investments. Players are taking no risk (other than COVID) which is the same risk regardless of their pay.


Completely Agree with this.
Not to mention, Baseball is the only one of the 4 major sports that has "social distancing" built in. Their chance of catching the covid is really no greater playing the game or not. It's a silly argument I've seen here.
Is anyone else thinking  
section125 : 6/10/2020 8:38 am : link
that the owners just do not want this season? I have only peeked at the thread from time to time, but it sure seems that the owners are doing everything to kill the season. My guess is the smaller market teams just cannot afford to fund a partial season without fans and all the tickets, parking and concession income.
RE: Is anyone else thinking  
Mike in NY : 6/10/2020 8:46 am : link
In comment 14917339 section125 said:
Quote:
that the owners just do not want this season? I have only peeked at the thread from time to time, but it sure seems that the owners are doing everything to kill the season. My guess is the smaller market teams just cannot afford to fund a partial season without fans and all the tickets, parking and concession income.


The owners don’t want to open the books to show all of the revenue streams and that they never actually lose money despite what they claim.
this is all preamble to the next CBA so both sides are dug in  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 9:52 am : link
players don't want to keep accommodating asks from the owners on a blind trust that they are "taking a bath" because they don't believe them. Ask any Met fan how much they trust the Wilpon's math on their payroll and multiply that distrust several times over and that's how the players feel because for them it's real life, not just a hobby. This met fan would sooner root for the players to strike than take the Wilponzis at their word.

This is just a guess but I also think the lack of fan attendance hurts the big markets more than small markets. In Miami they probably employed close to the number of gameday staff as those who had season tickets in last year's calamity.

And in all markets since there's literally nothing on tv and more people than usual sitting around to watch, there were likely lucrative sponsorship opportunities that could have materialized to offset some revenue loss if MLB owned the month of July the same way the Last Dance and NFL draft did. But the owners seem less concerned with investing in the game than they do protecting short term profits.

The players offer is basically for $2bn in a half season's worth of salary, the owners offer was $1bn plus $400m in incentives. There is a deal to be had in the middle. You can't tell me it's not worth $10m more per franchise ($300m) in brand equity alone to have just gotten this sorted out in time to have restarted in time for July 4th. If these billion dollar franchises are bleeding so badly, off a record revenue season last year, they need to put up (the books) or shut up.
I don't think the MLB owners revenues  
UConn4523 : 6/10/2020 10:02 am : link
even matter all that much. Regardless of the "trust" around that they need to make the money they want to make to operate the way they want to operate. And operating like they have allows players to get fully guaranteed, massive contracts. There's 3 players alone making a collective $1.1b in their new deals.

This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.

Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.
RE: I don't think the MLB owners revenues  
MetsAreBack : 6/10/2020 10:18 am : link
In comment 14917392 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
even matter all that much. Regardless of the "trust" around that they need to make the money they want to make to operate the way they want to operate. And operating like they have allows players to get fully guaranteed, massive contracts. There's 3 players alone making a collective $1.1b in their new deals.

This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.

Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.


Fair... but also consider the hundreds of players in the league making $500-750K a year but unlike you or me... their career ends when they're 35 years old. They dont get to choose from 1,000s of companies to work for up until retirement age of ~65.

The 3 players you mentioned making $1.1b.... that's 3 players. Perhaps in the future baseball should start giving these select few ownership stakes instead of guaranteed salaries, kind of like stock options.

And while very few people are overly concerned about an extreme event to a 25-30 year old from a Covid infection, there is still the very real risk of a career-ending injury in a unusual/strange season with shortened training time... if I were a young pitcher a year or two away from free agency, i'd be very leery about pitching for call it $150K per start instead of $200K (just picking random numbers)
RE: I don't think the MLB owners revenues  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 10:29 am : link
In comment 14917392 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
even matter all that much. Regardless of the "trust" around that they need to make the money they want to make to operate the way they want to operate. And operating like they have allows players to get fully guaranteed, massive contracts. There's 3 players alone making a collective $1.1b in their new deals.

This isn't a Walmart paying employees minimum wage - these are collectively some of the richest athletes in sports playing a game with very little longterm health risk.

Sure, the owners do need to make some concessions, but I have a hard time sympathizing with the players other than the minor leagues which does need a rehaul.


I don't think anyone needs to sympathize with either side, especially not the players or owners who are worth the most because for them money is essentially meaningless when that is not the case for the majority of players especially. What I think we can do is look at this for what it is - a (hopefully) temporary emergency situation and try to evaluate things from both sides.

The average MLB player makes $4.4m and the average career is 5 years, but i'm not sure if that includes minor leagues or not. Even if it doesn't include minors, lets ball park high that the average player's lifetime pretax earnings are $20m. That player has already lost $2.2m or 10% of their career earnings. And that's just the average player - half of the players in baseball are worse off than that player.

I have no doubts there are operational challenges for MLB owners that can't just be absolved because they are rich, but I don't think this situation is going to take 10% off half of MLB franchise values long term. And it is hard to evaluate further than that because the owners have traditionally been so deceptive and non transparent about financials - something that is 100% within the their control to be more honest about right now if their situations are as dire as they claim.

I can appreciate the situation anyone is in who is losing such a dramatic amount of their career salary in this because their job security is highly volatile and their earning window is so short. That is why they want to play as many games as possible and why they are willing to take on the health risk. It's a lot harder to appreciate the situation of a small group who have long term profitability on their side and have traditionally played so many games with their financial situations (which continue here in this negotiation). They are the boy who cried wolf.
Originally  
Steve in Greenwich : 6/10/2020 10:31 am : link
I was on the owners side of this, but someone at work made a good analogy to me that flipped my train of thought.

I happen to work for a company where since covid hit approx half of our projects have been put on hold. I happen to be on a project that is still active and has been active the entire time since covid hit. Whats going on between the players and the owners would be akin to my company telling me we want you to keep working 100% but we are going to ask you to take a 50% pay cut since we are not able to bill for half the jobs we used to. Would anyone be OK with this? I get the pro-rated salary since games are not being played so technically the players are not "working" right now, but if they are playing 82 games its not any less effort for them since fans are not in the stands. They should be paid 100% their salary for the 82 games they are playing.

Not to mention if there happened to be a year where record attendance and more revenue comes in than expected, would the owners ever just hand out a check to all players due to a good year? Yea the luxury tax threshold would increase the following year, whatever, the same is going to happen with lost revenue this year, salaries will go down next year. I'm just saying they never would adjust players pay upward at that exact moment in time like they are looking to do downward right now.
MAB  
UConn4523 : 6/10/2020 10:33 am : link
I agree, minors needs revamping. But there's a lot of mouths to feed in the MLB, there's going to be guys not making all that much, its the nature of things. The 26th best player on the roster making $500k really isn't all that bad even if its massively disproportionate to the top players.

Better wages need to be met with a cap, IMO. If the fringe MLB guys want more pay and less years under team control, then they need to give a lot on their end and I'd start with a hard cap.
RE: MAB  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 10:56 am : link
In comment 14917415 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I agree, minors needs revamping. But there's a lot of mouths to feed in the MLB, there's going to be guys not making all that much, its the nature of things. The 26th best player on the roster making $500k really isn't all that bad even if its massively disproportionate to the top players.

Better wages need to be met with a cap, IMO. If the fringe MLB guys want more pay and less years under team control, then they need to give a lot on their end and I'd start with a hard cap.


How are you determining the hard cap #? The other 3 leagues caps are determined by % of revenue and in addition to caps they have salary floors.

NFL cap = 48% (total revenues)
NBA cap = 44% (basketball related income)
NHL cap = 57% (total league rev)

Based on the $10.6bn revenue number publicized by MLB last year, MLB payrolls = 39%. And that's if you trust the numbers from the owners.
and btw I agree that the cap system would better align both sides  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 11:04 am : link
but looking at the evidence we have, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than the current system favoring the owners based on the public information we have (creative accounting aside). Franchise values are increasing, revenues are increasing, and yet unlike other sports elite FA sit unsigned for months and a significant chunk of the franchises operate non-competitively. I believe payrolls went down on average this year from last year even though revenues set a record last year.
having no max...  
Italianju : 6/10/2020 11:10 am : link
contracts based on terms or length is hurting baseball. All the players think they shoudl be getting these 6-7 years deals and owners dont want to invest in that. In baseball there is no way out of that deal. NBA limits contract length to 4 years (5 in some situations), NFL it doesnt matter due to it not being guaranteed. I think we are seeing a bit of course correction in baseball, players think they should get these long term deals of 5-7 years and owners are seeing how bad those deals worked out. That said if they did want to go a cap/max deal type situation then they need to fix service time shit. Teams cant control a player for 8 years and then limit that players ability to earn money in their prime.
RE: and btw I agree that the cap system would better align both sides  
MetsAreBack : 6/10/2020 12:57 pm : link
In comment 14917429 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
but looking at the evidence we have, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than the current system favoring the owners based on the public information we have (creative accounting aside). Franchise values are increasing, revenues are increasing, and yet unlike other sports elite FA sit unsigned for months and a significant chunk of the franchises operate non-competitively. I believe payrolls went down on average this year from last year even though revenues set a record last year.



See i dont agree... name one other thriving industry where the most important employees get a fixed % of revenue and that's that. What that getting a fixed % doesnt account for is as revenues grow, valuations rise...

If they want to tie things to revenues - tie them to valuations as well... give at least your best players stock options, ie ownership stakes in the 'company'
RE: RE: and btw I agree that the cap system would better align both sides  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 1:32 pm : link
In comment 14917547 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14917429 Eric on Li said:


Quote:


but looking at the evidence we have, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than the current system favoring the owners based on the public information we have (creative accounting aside). Franchise values are increasing, revenues are increasing, and yet unlike other sports elite FA sit unsigned for months and a significant chunk of the franchises operate non-competitively. I believe payrolls went down on average this year from last year even though revenues set a record last year.




See i dont agree... name one other thriving industry where the most important employees get a fixed % of revenue and that's that. What that getting a fixed % doesnt account for is as revenues grow, valuations rise...

If they want to tie things to revenues - tie them to valuations as well... give at least your best players stock options, ie ownership stakes in the 'company'


I can see a case for that however on the flip side there is some benefit for players as valuations go up - they are free to monetize their stature via endorsements. If MLB eclipses the NFL the players would presumably see their demand go up as well (especially the best players - MLB's problems promoting their players aside).

Either way adding in some additional incentive structure makes complete sense, but they first need to find some semblance of a fair system that both sides can live with in terms of the aggregate expense% based on the nature of the business and operational costs. Until the owners let people see the numbers as the other sports have done this is going to be a game of chicken that only hurts the sport and fans.
Rosenthal article from today proposing similar to what many of us say  
Eric on Li : 6/10/2020 2:38 pm : link
Quote:
Know what I would do if I were commissioner Rob Manfred? Propose a 72-game season with the players receiving their full prorated salaries, and dare the Players Association to say no.

The cost would be about $20 million more per team than the 50-odd game season Manfred might impose if no agreement is reached, and the benefits might be worth much more...

...The league’s most recent offer – 76 games with the players receiving 75 percent of their pro-rated salaries if the postseason is completed, 50 percent if it is not – is nowhere near what I’m suggesting. In fact, using MLB’s original projected player compensation of $4.37 billion for 2020, my 72-game idea would cost the owners about $400 million more than the maximum amount of the league’s proposal, and about $600 million more than a 50-game season at full prorated pay.

Lots of money, and the owners say they already are losing lots of money. But when considering the average cost would be about $13 million more per club more than under the league’s 76-game proposal, it doesn’t sound as daunting, right?

The owners remain in the game longer than players, giving them time to recoup their losses and profit from the resale values of their clubs. They might say they cannot afford the additional expenditures in a season that will at least start with parks empty or at limited capacity. But can they afford the alternative?


He then goes on to list all the things the owners would be forgoing to save his hypothetical $13m, including expanded playoff revenue next 2 years (which he estimates to be worth 10's of millions), resolving the damages question re: Covid, avoiding a grievance from union, etc.

I'd personally go 81 games with like 90% prorated to make the numbers the same but that's very nit-picky.
Rosenthal: Here’s the proposal Rob Manfred should make to get baseball restarted - ( New Window )
I'm fine with 72  
MetsAreBack : 6/10/2020 3:29 pm : link
also apparently the networks themselves are saying they dont want baseball in November... saying election and some other distractions...

so i do think you need to keep the regular season a little shorter this year. Also, obviously if you're going to insist on teams playing in their home parks through the World Series even if no fans... then yeah, you do need to end a little earlier in the Fall before Covid/cold/flu/etc season ramps up again... why they dont just agree to play the postseason in Florida and Arizona i have no idea.
RE: I'm fine with 72  
pjcas18 : 6/10/2020 3:39 pm : link
In comment 14917648 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
also apparently the networks themselves are saying they dont want baseball in November... saying election and some other distractions...

so i do think you need to keep the regular season a little shorter this year. Also, obviously if you're going to insist on teams playing in their home parks through the World Series even if no fans... then yeah, you do need to end a little earlier in the Fall before Covid/cold/flu/etc season ramps up again... why they dont just agree to play the postseason in Florida and Arizona i have no idea.


Did someone propose FL and AZ and the other side said no?

One thing I read said players (most) would agree to it if their families could go with them. Why not?

How long are MLB playoffs? In the current format they only involve 8 teams (after the WC play in) and after one week it's 4 teams and two weeks it's pretty much 2 teams.
well the owners came back  
MetsAreBack : 6/12/2020 12:34 pm : link
with 80-85% prorated pay, but on fewer games (70-75) than their prior proposal. Unclear from the high level article i read if the playoff pool payout is higher now.

The regular season aspect seems to imply a very modest 5% pay increase vs prior offer, so i dont know... I'm losing hope. Hopefully the players make a very meaningful counter-offer in the next day or two.
RE: well the owners came back  
Mike in NY : 6/12/2020 1:20 pm : link
In comment 14918599 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
with 80-85% prorated pay, but on fewer games (70-75) than their prior proposal. Unclear from the high level article i read if the playoff pool payout is higher now.

The regular season aspect seems to imply a very modest 5% pay increase vs prior offer, so i dont know... I'm losing hope. Hopefully the players make a very meaningful counter-offer in the next day or two.


Not just the increased playoff pool, but I think a big issue is that the prior proposal had a drastic difference if the season got cancelled (50% of prorated versus 75%). I think there is a room to negotiate off of 100% prorated as long as it is a definitive amount and not the players taking the hit of a second wave and the season shutting down.
RE: well the owners came back  
Metnut : 6/12/2020 1:31 pm : link
In comment 14918599 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
with 80-85% prorated pay, but on fewer games (70-75) than their prior proposal. Unclear from the high level article i read if the playoff pool payout is higher now.

The regular season aspect seems to imply a very modest 5% pay increase vs prior offer, so i dont know... I'm losing hope. Hopefully the players make a very meaningful counter-offer in the next day or two.


Do you have a link to the details of today’s offer? I don’t see it anywhere.
This is the report from ESPN  
shyster : 6/12/2020 2:04 pm : link
Every owner's proposal gets "leaked" to ESPN with a percentage number attached.

Last time it was 75% and that got the headlines. And then it came out that the offer was actually only for 50% pro-rated salary, which is what the players seem to be focused on.

I suspect it's the similar story with the 80-85% number for this "leak" and we'll have to wait to see the actual details.


one more time - ( New Window )
According to Bob Nightengale  
Mike in NY : 6/12/2020 4:30 pm : link
MLB's latest proposal is 70% of the prorated player's salaries that increases to 80% if there's a postseason.

As I said previously, there is room to negotiate off of 100% but I think it needs to be at least 85% of prorated whether or not there is a postseason for between 70 and 80 games.
All this back and forth could be very easily resolved.  
Mad Mike : 6/12/2020 5:17 pm : link
Quote:
@PFTCommenter - MLB owners should make a offer were every real player gets 100% of their total 2020 salary for playing 70 games except for the Houston astros who get zero dollars and have to play without helmets

You always be ready to negotiate, and I'd be prepared to go up to 50% of their salaries, but I see no reason to budge on helmets.
done and done - ( New Window )
This should finish negotiations and fair to both  
CGiants07 : 6/13/2020 3:24 pm : link
68 to 72 games.players get 83% of there salary prorated. If playoffs start and complete that increases to 90%
The timing and the optics  
pjcas18 : 6/13/2020 4:00 pm : link
of this are bad for MLB. Maybe it's the impetus to get things started - which is all any of us fans care about.

Quote:
Andrew Marchand
@AndrewMarchand
BREAKING: MLB and Turner Sports have agreed to a new billion dollar deal for the network to continue broadcasting an LCS and the playoffs, The Post has learned.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner