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

and by they I mean both sides.

can't come to any sort of an agreement. Pathetic.

already rejected this and proposed a 50-game season.

In comment 14915007 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

already rejected this and proposed a 50-game season.

I thought the same.

In comment 14915007 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

already rejected this and proposed a 50-game season.

It hadn't been officially rejected until now. And the 50'ish game season hasn't actually been proposed yet

starting late June early July would be a good compromise. Regardless, both sides will still need to compromise on what everyone will be paid for the shorten season.

....

its a really bad optic for baseball to have a bunch of millionaires fighting over money distribution

the players wanting to essentially be paid the same 'per game' on a pro rated basis is ridiculous. The owners are losing massive revenue streams from concessions and parking. Far more than they are saving with lower stadium staffing payroll. That has to be considered in the compensation calculations. Until it becomes part of the financial package there will be no deal.

unless the teams quarantine together, travel on private jets and generally take extreme precautions. Nothing's changed about the virus or the threat it represents other than the public being bored of it. It's still incredibly contagious; some people still get it without symptoms, so there are "spreaders who don't even know they have the thing; at the same time, it still causes severe illness in an alarming percentage of people; and there's still no good treatment for it. So once it gets into a clubhouse, it's going to infect a bunch of players. Then what? Shut a team down for two weeks?

Plus it's not clear how much immunity you get when you recover from this virus, or how long that immunity lasts.

I truly couldn’t give a shit less if they don’t come back at this point. And I am a huge Yankee fan.

Let’s go Islanders and let’s go Giants.

nor do teams have tv deals like the Yankees. Some teams will have little revenue without fans and if the players are not willing to take large pay cuts then there will be no season. Nascar can get by with national TV coverage the KC Royals can't get by without fans or any other small market team.

In comment 14915006 Jints in Carolina said:

Quote:

can't come to any sort of an agreement. Pathetic.

I just think this is unique, many variables starting with the union structure and revenue streams.

I really don't think both sides are so stupid that we don't have a season.

(Double negative game is strong in my post.)

they dont even seem to be in the same ballpark (pun intended). From what reports we have both sides are being unreasonable. If its not worth it to the players to play at a lower salary and its not worth it to the owners to not make as much as a usual season then they can all sit around and wait until 2021.

Prorated salaries plus a decent amount deferred over a few years to compensate for no fan revenue this year. Make it happen

What are some of you guys doing in terms of fantasy baseball? Obviously still very fluid and nothing has been set in stone but I got some owners in my league who pretty much do want to play in a partial season, which I certainly can understand.

that team gets an asterisk on their title

It's a little more than half a season and statistics show that most of the time, the teams who lead their divisions after 100 games win them and make the playoffs, so at least an eventual World Series champion is somewhat legit.

Even in that scenario the average stats (OPS, OPS+, BA, ERA, FIP, etc.) would have to be seriously questioned

In comment 14915011 Mad Mike said:

Quote:

In comment 14915007 pjcas18 said: Quote: already rejected this and proposed a 50-game season. It hadn't been officially rejected until now. And the 50'ish game season hasn't actually been proposed yet

Jeff Passan was the source of the info (or alleged info) that "the league has discussed implementing" a 50 game season.

And he's repeating that notion today. He calls it "implementing" because, according to him, the league thinks it already has authority under the March agreement with the players to decree a season of any length, as long as players are paid pro rata.

@JeffPassan
Major League Baseball made official what was expected since Sunday in formally rejecting the MLB Players Association’s 114-game proposal, sources tell ESPN. MLB is not countering, which brings the possibility of it implementing a 50-game season into play. First: @Ken_Rosenthal
.
1:48 PM · Jun 3, 2020


Having games without fans is one thing. I don't think you can have them without the players.


passan - ( New Window )

In comment 14915024 Torrag said:

Quote:

the players wanting to essentially be paid the same 'per game' on a pro rated basis is ridiculous. The owners are losing massive revenue streams from concessions and parking. Far more than they are saving with lower stadium staffing payroll. That has to be considered in the compensation calculations. Until it becomes part of the financial package there will be no deal.

Well said!

In comment 14915024 Torrag said:

Quote:

the players wanting to essentially be paid the same 'per game' on a pro rated basis is ridiculous. The owners are losing massive revenue streams from concessions and parking. Far more than they are saving with lower stadium staffing payroll. That has to be considered in the compensation calculations. Until it becomes part of the financial package there will be no deal.

Until the owners open the books, I wouldn't agree to that as a player. The owners will go to any length to hide revenue streams to reduce what they have to pay the players.

and if the owners are desperate to continue to cook the books in the future then they should eat the cost of paying the players the pro rated salary this year. They know if they open the books it will screw them in future years. Cant have your cake and eat it to.

.

Very shortsighted move by the owners.

So, without fans, they are losing a ton of money.

If hockey and basketball play in the summer/fall, then baseball loses out on TV fans as well. They pretty much had July and August all to themselves.

So, if baseball ever figures it out, they will have a massive revenue decline.

that the sides will reach a compromise. Should they don't there will be both short and long term financial implications for both sides. Just my view but the optics are poor for the players union... see Torrag's post reference to the players position.

intolerable. The owners and the players should just agree to pro-rated salaries for the players and an 82 game season and a normal post-season. Sure, this is what the players want and the owners would lose money in the short term. However, over the long term, the values of the franchises will only increase with a truncated season, so the owners will be compensated. Let's play ball.

In comment 14915025 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

unless the teams quarantine together, travel on private jets and generally take extreme precautions. Nothing's changed about the virus or the threat it represents other than the public being bored of it. It's still incredibly contagious; some people still get it without symptoms, so there are "spreaders who don't even know they have the thing; at the same time, it still causes severe illness in an alarming percentage of people; and there's still no good treatment for it. So once it gets into a clubhouse, it's going to infect a bunch of players. Then what? Shut a team down for two weeks? Plus it's not clear how much immunity you get when you recover from this virus, or how long that immunity lasts.

Eric asked us to stop discussing current events.

We all have opinions, some based on data, others question that data, whatever... about opening back up society and sports... it will be a very, very long time before a vaccine is available... lets please stay on topic which is this owner/players negotiation.


I tend to agree with the players on this one.. the owners seem to want to pocket the majority of profits during a roaring economy, and have the players take massive cuts to protect them against losses in a down year. A contract is a contract after all... asking some players to take 75%+ paycuts is absurd, even if you think Verlander or JD Martinez or whoever still makes too much money at a time 40 million are unemployed.

So instead the answer is to make the Marlins and Rays whole so they can turn around in 3 years and sell their franchises for $1.2 billion again?

In comment 14915069 shyster said:

Quote:

In comment 14915011 Mad Mike said: Quote: In comment 14915007 pjcas18 said: Quote: already rejected this and proposed a 50-game season. It hadn't been officially rejected until now. And the 50'ish game season hasn't actually been proposed yet Jeff Passan was the source of the info (or alleged info) that "the league has discussed implementing" a 50 game season. And he's repeating that notion today. He calls it "implementing" because, according to him, the league thinks it already has authority under the March agreement with the players to decree a season of any length, as long as players are paid pro rata. @JeffPassan Major League Baseball made official what was expected since Sunday in formally rejecting the MLB Players Association’s 114-game proposal, sources tell ESPN. MLB is not countering, which brings the possibility of it implementing a 50-game season into play. First: @Ken_Rosenthal . 1:48 PM · Jun 3, 2020 Having games without fans is one thing. I don't think you can have them without the players. passan - ( New Window )

the owners can declare a 50 game season on aug 15 no expanded playoffs and if players dont show up teams have the option to void any contract they want / or not

i dont see the see the players having any rights/leverage if that happens and today they were told that is the plan as the players proposal amounted to 88% of revenues and $350m in additional cash losses vs the 50 game proposal.

In comment 14915095 capone said:

Quote:

the owners can declare a 50 game season on aug 15 no expanded playoffs and if players dont show up teams have the option to void any contract they want / or not i dont see the see the players having any rights/leverage if that happens and today they were told that is the plan as the players proposal amounted to 88% of revenues and $350m in additional cash losses vs the 50 game proposal.

In unity there is leverage and the MLBPA has a pretty fair track record in that regard.

From a more legal perspective, there's almost always room for argument on good faith and reasonableness. The March agreement reportedly has a provision that

Quote:

MLB will propose a schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability, and the economic feasibility of various alternatives.”

Also, in an article published today in the Post, Joel Sherman mentions that the agreement calls for both sides to give their approval to health and safety protocols. So, if players are not happy, they could couch their disagreement in those terms.




apnews - ( New Window )

I was remiss Inot pointing out that provision

The point that owners would (allegedly) losing money simply paying prorated salaries. Not factoring in revenue from expanded playoffs and presumably a new tv income the owners were estimating a loss of 200k per game. By going to 50 games at pro rated they are limiting the cash outlay and still get playoff tv revenue. That’s why you are seeing 50 game season and will not see a 82 game season without a reduction in salary by players.

Owners will not make a counter proposal

In comment 14915157 bhill410 said:

Quote:

The point that owners would (allegedly) losing money simply paying prorated salaries. Not factoring in revenue from expanded playoffs and presumably a new tv income the owners were estimating a loss of 200k per game. By going to 50 games at pro rated they are limiting the cash outlay and still get playoff tv revenue. That’s why you are seeing 50 game season and will not see a 82 game season without a reduction in salary by players.

That was my point .. but you made it better than me

Aren't their TV deals and ad revenue pro rated too ? What about post season revenue ? Won't that be negotiable in shortened season and a changed format ?

If a lot of players sit out, if the COVID protocols interfere with the game, the public may regard these games as a farce. Their revenues could be lower than expected if their customers change the channel.

In comment 14915165 Ron from Ninerland said:

Quote:

Aren't their TV deals and ad revenue pro rated too ? What about post season revenue ? Won't that be negotiable in shortened season and a changed format ? If a lot of players sit out, if the COVID protocols interfere with the game, the public may regard these games as a farce. Their revenues could be lower than expected if their customers change the channel.

The three or four teams that I have close contact with all told me when I suggested that sell ads for more money that their contract with the television broadcasters is a fixed amount regardless of the market for commercials

has it especially tough since it's the only major sport that still relies on butts-in-seats for most of its revenue (unless I'm mistaken). I don't see how ANY sport will work attendance-wise -- you just can't have thousands of strangers gathered together.

In comment 14915157 bhill410 said:

Quote:

The point that owners would (allegedly) losing money simply paying prorated salaries. Not factoring in revenue from expanded playoffs and presumably a new tv income the owners were estimating a loss of 200k per game. By going to 50 games at pro rated they are limiting the cash outlay and still get playoff tv revenue. That’s why you are seeing 50 game season and will not see a 82 game season without a reduction in salary by players.

So by that argument, are the owners going to pay the players more than their agreed upon salaries in years when revenues exceed projections?

114 games, at this point, is probably insane. But, 50 games is a joke. And, I have said repeatedly, the owners need to open their books. I think for 1 season only, they also need to pool all revenue and split it.

number for the amount of payroll they will paying. They can squeeze 82 games out with reductions 50 with out. Either way their gamble is the same.

The players are looking to get every dime possible. The players cant hide behind wanting less exposure to the virus if they are pushing for more games.

The players are not getting anymore money but the majority of players make less then 1 mill a year and would not see much of a paycut bellow their prorated salary. MLB is forcing the player into a spot where they will vote against each other and putting all the pressure on the high salary guys to take the hit or look like assholes.

In comment 14915157 bhill410 said:

Quote:

The point that owners would (allegedly) losing money simply paying prorated salaries. Not factoring in revenue from expanded playoffs and presumably a new tv income the owners were estimating a loss of 200k per game. By going to 50 games at pro rated they are limiting the cash outlay and still get playoff tv revenue. That’s why you are seeing 50 game season and will not see a 82 game season without a reduction in salary by players.

No, everyone understands that point - its been blungeoned into us in recent weeks... but a) no one believes the owners and the numbers they've put out there (they refuse to open their books for an audit), and b) few fans believe, and basically none of the players believe, the owners are entitled to break even this year after decades of pocketing all the revenue growth that exceeded projections (and larger markets with better TV deals probably still make money this year while the league breaks even since so little of local TV revenues are pooled across the league).

Over the past decade franchise values are up 300%... average player salaries are up 40%. Time to give back.

The minimum franchise value in the league (Marlins/Rays) is $1.2 billion... the Yankees are on paper worth $5 billion and based on what Mets/Clippers/etc have been dangled at in recent years, my guess is if they were ever sold it would exceed that price.

Owners should be dipping into their coffers for the long-term good of their franchise values, imo.

In comment 14915094 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14915025 81_Great_Dane said: Quote: unless the teams quarantine together, travel on private jets and generally take extreme precautions. Nothing's changed about the virus or the threat it represents other than the public being bored of it. It's still incredibly contagious; some people still get it without symptoms, so there are "spreaders who don't even know they have the thing; at the same time, it still causes severe illness in an alarming percentage of people; and there's still no good treatment for it. So once it gets into a clubhouse, it's going to infect a bunch of players. Then what? Shut a team down for two weeks? Plus it's not clear how much immunity you get when you recover from this virus, or how long that immunity lasts. Eric asked us to stop discussing current events. We all have opinions, some based on data, others question that data, whatever... about opening back up society and sports... it will be a very, very long time before a vaccine is available... lets please stay on topic which is this owner/players negotiation. I tend to agree with the players on this one.. the owners seem to want to pocket the majority of profits during a roaring economy, and have the players take massive cuts to protect them against losses in a down year. A contract is a contract after all... asking some players to take 75%+ paycuts is absurd, even if you think Verlander or JD Martinez or whoever still makes too much money at a time 40 million are unemployed. So instead the answer is to make the Marlins and Rays whole so they can turn around in 3 years and sell their franchises for $1.2 billion again?

Again, that's ridiculous because you want to take reality off of the table and ignore it completely (likely out of some erroneous mis-(or dis)-belief). But not playing or extreme precautions if they insist upon playing are part and parcel of the discussion. It's one of the options and I guarantee you it's an option that is on the actual participants table, even if it's not on yours. It is absolutely not shelved onto "current events', unless you take this whole thread and delete it as a "current event". COVID-19 is integral to the discussion.

they are the ones taking all the risk, they are getting decimated right now with 0 revenue stream, and their losses will have a multi year effect. If they can't figure out a way to make money then it isn't just 2020 that's going to be effected - it will be future player contracts as well.

I don't know all the details of the proposal but the players can't expect to get paid at 100% of their per game pay regardless of season length. When they are hurt and getting paid team revenues don't change - right now there's no revenue at all and when they do go back revenues will be less.

If its the health risk angle, then take a year off. The risk of COVID exposure is the same with 100% pay as it is with 75% pay. Exposure is also something the whole country is dealing with not just them.

In comment 14915219 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 14915094 MetsAreBack said: Quote: In comment 14915025 81_Great_Dane said: Quote: unless the teams quarantine together, travel on private jets and generally take extreme precautions. Nothing's changed about the virus or the threat it represents other than the public being bored of it. It's still incredibly contagious; some people still get it without symptoms, so there are "spreaders who don't even know they have the thing; at the same time, it still causes severe illness in an alarming percentage of people; and there's still no good treatment for it. So once it gets into a clubhouse, it's going to infect a bunch of players. Then what? Shut a team down for two weeks? Plus it's not clear how much immunity you get when you recover from this virus, or how long that immunity lasts. Eric asked us to stop discussing current events. We all have opinions, some based on data, others question that data, whatever... about opening back up society and sports... it will be a very, very long time before a vaccine is available... lets please stay on topic which is this owner/players negotiation. I tend to agree with the players on this one.. the owners seem to want to pocket the majority of profits during a roaring economy, and have the players take massive cuts to protect them against losses in a down year. A contract is a contract after all... asking some players to take 75%+ paycuts is absurd, even if you think Verlander or JD Martinez or whoever still makes too much money at a time 40 million are unemployed. So instead the answer is to make the Marlins and Rays whole so they can turn around in 3 years and sell their franchises for $1.2 billion again? Again, that's ridiculous because you want to take reality off of the table and ignore it completely (likely out of some erroneous mis-(or dis)-belief). But not playing or extreme precautions if they insist upon playing are part and parcel of the discussion. It's one of the options and I guarantee you it's an option that is on the actual participants table, even if it's not on yours. It is absolutely not shelved onto "current events', unless you take this whole thread and delete it as a "current event". COVID-19 is integral to the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about. They are playing in front of no fans, talking about testing daily, and having players sit in stands... because you do not believe CDC data, age-based death and hospitalization rates, etc ... is not my problem. Worry about yourself, not about me.

I merely asked this discussion stay on topic of labor negotiations, not veer into Covid because we've already seen Eric delete those and everybody including you has an opinion... good for you, don't care.

note (sort of), Chris Archer to have Thoracic Outlet Syndrome procedure and is out until 2021 (at least), not a ton of players come back strong from that.

Just compounds a terrible trade and probably effectively ends the career of one of the more overrated players in recent memory.

cause both seem pretty wrong. That said if the owners dont want to open the books to show exactly whats going on then they should have to take a hit this year. They shouldnt be able to tell the players they have to take a 50% pay cut and then pocket 500 million on a TV deal that isnt "technically" part of their team revenue (obv this is just a fake example but you get the point).

In comment 14915237 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

note (sort of), Chris Archer to have Thoracic Outlet Syndrome procedure and is out until 2021 (at least), not a ton of players come back strong from that. Just compounds a terrible trade and probably effectively ends the career of one of the more overrated players in recent memory.

I cant tell you how many times i drafted that guy for my fantasy baseball team because he had Javier Vasquez type stuff, with the similar lack of consistency. Thought his trade to the NL would help him with the HR ball if nothing else, but he lost his control in recent years too and he was done. Yeah, not a good trade for Pittsburgh...

In comment 14915244 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14915237 pjcas18 said: Quote: note (sort of), Chris Archer to have Thoracic Outlet Syndrome procedure and is out until 2021 (at least), not a ton of players come back strong from that. Just compounds a terrible trade and probably effectively ends the career of one of the more overrated players in recent memory. I cant tell you how many times i drafted that guy for my fantasy baseball team because he had Javier Vasquez type stuff, with the similar lack of consistency. Thought his trade to the NL would help him with the HR ball if nothing else, but he lost his control in recent years too and he was done. Yeah, not a good trade for Pittsburgh...

If people viewed him as a bottom of the rotation starter he'd have been viewed so differently IMO, but most people (and fantasy sports rankings) had him as a top of the rotation starter. He was definitely not that.

It baffled me at the time and I'm very happy it never happened.

In comment 14915248 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14915244 MetsAreBack said: Quote: In comment 14915237 pjcas18 said: Quote: note (sort of), Chris Archer to have Thoracic Outlet Syndrome procedure and is out until 2021 (at least), not a ton of players come back strong from that. Just compounds a terrible trade and probably effectively ends the career of one of the more overrated players in recent memory. I cant tell you how many times i drafted that guy for my fantasy baseball team because he had Javier Vasquez type stuff, with the similar lack of consistency. Thought his trade to the NL would help him with the HR ball if nothing else, but he lost his control in recent years too and he was done. Yeah, not a good trade for Pittsburgh... If people viewed him as a bottom of the rotation starter he'd have been viewed so differently IMO, but most people (and fantasy sports rankings) had him as a top of the rotation starter. He was definitely not that.

From Age 24-26 he had 3 consecutive years with low 3's ERA, two seasons greater than 194 IP, and nearly 1 K an inning. That is not bottom of the rotation numbers. When the long balls against went up 50%+ his numbers fell off except for strike outs.

but Archer's reputation lasted well beyond his competence.

In comment 14915254 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

but Archer's reputation lasted well beyond his competence.

Exactly. He had declined significantly by the time of the trade.

Freaking Pittsburgh jump-started Tampa's rebuilding. Thanks a lot.

Small tidbit about broadcast coverage (if there's anything to cover), TV and radio announcers have been told that they won't travel to road games, and will broadcast using tv monitors at the home ballpark or other local studio.
link - ( New Window )

.

has eaten MLB's lunch. The MLB draft has always been mostly a conference call., yet they needed to cut it by 35 rounds instead of extended the call for 2 two rounds? Imbecilic. The NFL made out like bandits during their virtual draft for a sports starved populous.

In comment 14915462 Phil in LA said:

Quote:

has eaten MLB's lunch. The MLB draft has always been mostly a conference call., yet they needed to cut it by 35 rounds instead of extended the call for 2 two rounds? Imbecilic. The NFL made out like bandits during their virtual draft for a sports starved populous.

I don’t really get your point. No one watches the MLB draft, never has. The two league don’t compete for fans at all either.

In comment 14915467 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14915462 Phil in LA said: Quote: has eaten MLB's lunch. The MLB draft has always been mostly a conference call., yet they needed to cut it by 35 rounds instead of extended the call for 2 two rounds? Imbecilic. The NFL made out like bandits during their virtual draft for a sports starved populous. I don’t really get your point. No one watches the MLB draft, never has. The two league don’t compete for fans at all either.

Exactly. The NFL draft has always attracted more attention because guys come out of the colleges and go right to the NFL. You may not see guys from an MLB draft for three or 4 years and in the vast majority of cases ever.

In comment 14915243 Italianju said:

Quote:

cause both seem pretty wrong. That said if the owners dont want to open the books to show exactly whats going on then they should have to take a hit this year. They shouldnt be able to tell the players they have to take a 50% pay cut and then pocket 500 million on a TV deal that isnt "technically" part of their team revenue (obv this is just a fake example but you get the point).

The owners and players agreed to a 50% cut. The players took umbrage when the owners' proposal included further paycuts that were never negotiated.

figure out what exactly the difference in finacials between a 82 game season and what the players proposed of 114 and defer the difference to the players

In comment 14915550 CGiants07 said:

Quote:

figure out what exactly the difference in finacials between a 82 game season and what the players proposed of 114 and defer the difference to the players

Seems unlikely the owners want to be transparent enough with their financials to allow a reasonable determination of that difference. Even if it means losing the season.

In comment 14915467 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14915462 Phil in LA said: Quote: has eaten MLB's lunch. The MLB draft has always been mostly a conference call., yet they needed to cut it by 35 rounds instead of extended the call for 2 two rounds? Imbecilic. The NFL made out like bandits during their virtual draft for a sports starved populous. I don’t really get your point. No one watches the MLB draft, never has. The two league don’t compete for fans at all either.

Anyone remember when the MLB draft was held in complete secrecy? Strictly via conference call. For weeks after, only the names of the first round picks were released to the public because GMs were afraid colleges would try to pounce and recruit the top H.S kids if they knew major league teams had taken them

But the bonds the Mets used to finance city field we just down graded. Can’t see the Wilpons owning the Mets for much longer
Link - ( New Window )

Players are dug in on pro-rated salaries.

Players will show up and play for a 50 game schedule, if imposed, but will likely pursue a grievance about it.

If owners were to agree to 80 games pro-rated, players would agree to other things the owners want, such as expanded playoffs the next two years and deferred compensation under certain circumstances.

Next week may tell the tale.
sny - ( New Window )

would have grown the MLB draft in the absence of other MLB content. Plus, breaking their draft hurts prospects and teams. It was just more unjustified overkill during this strange time.

and to say there's little optimism on either side would be putting it mildly. MLB has really shit the bed on this more than any other league by a long shot. It's sort of breathtaking how badly they screwed this up when you think about what could have been with MLB triumphantly coming back before anything else on the 4th of July.

Korean baseball has been back for like a month now, the fact that the MLB can't copy their procedures, modify where necessary, and get their shit together ahead of the indoor sports is mind blowing.

I hate to say this but I hope the players strike and blow the entire system up - the MLB system is completely screwed up and needs a hard reset. While the players are also unreasonable in some ways the fish rots from the head down and the owners are the ones who have established the current system - a system that fosters the least competitive regular season of any major sport. If there is going to be a labor stoppage may as well do it now when there's no normal season anyway.
Rosenthal: A July 4 return is all but gone, with baseball as far from a deal as ever - ( New Window )

In comment 14915936 Phil in LA said:

Quote:

would have grown the MLB draft in the absence of other MLB content. Plus, breaking their draft hurts prospects and teams. It was just more unjustified overkill during this strange time.

Completely agree - and this is a larger point even beyond this abnormal time period. The NHL draft is full of prospects nobody knows and in many cases will never even see skate for their favorite teams. They still broadcast it and it's still an event for hockey fans.

The MLB draft (and IFA process) has been botched for years in normal times not finding a way to make it more of an event - which could be done pretty easily. Imagine a draft on the Wed or Thurs as the kickoff event of all star weekend as opposed to it's current setup as a complete after thought. but any logistical changes seem almost impossible because of how screwed up the salary negotiation system is.

In this environment they had an opportunity to take a step towards changing all of that and creating a new kind of draft and I agree it could have been really fun the same way the NFL was. Could have been the kickoff event of the return to baseball after coming to an agreement to return. Instead baseball is where it always is - in a commercial break during another mindless call to the bullpen.

Made mlb a dumpster fire imo. Any chance at equality and a level playing field for teams went by wayside in 94 when players when that standoff. Anything close to fiscal equality between teams has been a pipe dream and hurt the growth of the sport more than almost in tristate realize. Take the pirates for instance, a rabid fan base that knows they will never have sustained success and that any star player will leave. Obviously owner is beyond cheap but the revenue in that market will never enable them to compete and the lack of a salary cap or any other revenue sharing models taht could have helped have routinely been shut down by the players.

this has much more to do with the MLBPA than the owners

there is no doubt they share blame, but the reason why they don't give in on anything is because they don't trust the owners - and that's for good reason. They have never been transparent about revenues and MLB has allowed owners (like the Wilpons) to run their teams like a piggy bank.

IMO the owners know they are pounding the players with the current system with the hopes of driving them to a cap - which is probably the correct destination. But the players don't trust the owners to not fuck them with the cap, so they don't have much other choice than to continue on the current course towards a work stoppage.

The owners decide how much to spend and know how much they make, so it is on them to figure out a workable system and develop consensus towards any changes to the system. Again - fish rots from head down.

have the MLB owners ever been willing to even share the revenue information necessary for there to be an on the level conversation for that negotiation to happen? That's possibly the only more closely guarded secret in baseball than the Wilpon's budget parameters.

And like met fans not trusting the wilpons, that is where there is a foundational lack of trust between the players/owners will doom any negotiation beyond minor horse trades within this already broken system.

In comment 14915757 bubba0825 said:

Quote:

But the bonds the Mets used to finance city field we just down graded. Can’t see the Wilpons owning the Mets for much longer Link - ( New Window )

Yep I saw this and my first reaction is that the Wilpons will either have to access the HY market again - further ladling the Mets with debt - or sell.

In comment 14916332 bhill410 said:

Quote:

Made mlb a dumpster fire imo. Any chance at equality and a level playing field for teams went by wayside in 94 when players when that standoff. Anything close to fiscal equality between teams has been a pipe dream and hurt the growth of the sport more than almost in tristate realize. Take the pirates for instance, a rabid fan base that knows they will never have sustained success and that any star player will leave. Obviously owner is beyond cheap but the revenue in that market will never enable them to compete and the lack of a salary cap or any other revenue sharing models taht could have helped have routinely been shut down by the players.

Over the past 11 seasons, 8 different teams from both the AL and NL have participated in the world series. Another set of teams - Atlanta, Milwaukee, Tampa, Minnesota, Oakland - have consistently come close but never quite made it that far.

Compare that to any other sport.... the luxury tax has been a sort of revenue sharing for a while now and the national TV deals and many other revenue pools are shared as well.

I always got a kick when people say Pittsburgh is a small market... meanwhile St Louis routinely wins that division. Atlanta and Seattle are deemed "small market teams" in one sport, but not another, etc.

Eric in Li hits the nail on the head in this thread imo.

sorry, 7 different teams from both leagues... 14 different teams have participated in the last 11 world series

Compares to 15 different teams in the NFL and NHL... and 10 different teams in the NBA

how do they determine market? In baseball it actually means something (for revenue sharing), I'm not sure it does for the other sports, but it shouldn't be subjective - there should be a formula for it, right? like revenue or actual market size.

but that could make sense for a team being small market in baseball (if their classification is based on revenue for example) where in football and basketball it's based on actual market size (number of people).

I don't trust almost anything from MLB owners when it comes to revenue, and the baseball union is funny, people say "it's the strongest union in sports" but the way they abuse the young players is way worse IMO than any other major sport. How many players actually make it from draft to free agency? It has to be a small percentage, right?

As an Islanders fan I would have to say Dale Hunter or Darcy Tucker

but it's not really a question of whether or not the teams markets are viable or not viable, there's no spending floor so they can make themselves healthy or not on their own (like Oakland and Tampa). And Oakland/TB obviously do so in a smart way where they can also compete. The owners have total visibility into how they want to run their organizations and the freedom to do so, with the lower revenue teams getting supported by higher revenue teams via rev sharing, lux tax, etc.

Even the Mets are an example - they've played "meaningful games in September" in more of the last 5 seasons than not despite putting a bottom half payroll on the field. They have a very viable market, spend like they don't, and still competed somewhat.

So as MAB said despite a large gap in payrolls there's still some level of competitive parity. There's also a level of uncompetitive parity where some bigger markets are putting in just as little effort (think Madoff Mets) as smaller market teams. And ultimately it's hard to find any reason other than that owners have carte blanche to treat their organizations however they want - which is fundamentally different than the other 3 major leagues where there are cap floors.

That's why the impetus is more on the owners to find a non-work stoppage solution than the players. They have total control of the current system, not the players. And yet they are the ones constantly crying poverty despite increasing revenues and franchise valuations - just as they are in this case where they are claiming that playing more games and paying more minor leaguers is financially ruinous. Open the books and prove it or clean up your own mess. It's not the players fault that the system is so messed up elite FA like Bryce Harper have to wait 3 months to sign contracts. Imagine that happening with Durant in the NBA, Tavares in the NHL, or Aaron Rodgers (if he ever got to FA).

I just don't trust the owners are being transparent and that is really what is killing this all

doesn't revenue sharing in MLB work that the top half of the teams subsidize the lower half?

that was my point. market (large, medium, or small) means something. It's not a "how you spend or operate" but your revenue potential that determines it.

how you operate (spend) is separate from your revenue - it's always been a hair across some people's ass that the Twins owner (For example) is a billionaire and he pockets the revenue sharing money. but I guess when the team is competitive no one has anything to say, but that's not the point.

something along the lines of 70 games and 75% prorated pay. Players won't accept, but it's a legit offer from the owners. Time for the players to come through with a reasonable counter ASAP.

In comment 14916651 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

doesn't revenue sharing in MLB work that the top half of the teams subsidize the lower half? that was my point. market (large, medium, or small) means something. It's not a "how you spend or operate" but your revenue potential that determines it. how you operate (spend) is separate from your revenue - it's always been a hair across some people's ass that the Twins owner (For example) is a billionaire and he pockets the revenue sharing money. but I guess when the team is competitive no one has anything to say, but that's not the point.

If they are pooling money and every team is drawing the same % out, the teams that make more money and put more in are subsidizing the teams that make less money and take more out.

But again - not sure how much that matters for the players. Theoretically it should have helped create more competitive teams in terms of payroll spending but that hasn't been the case, which is why they feel burned. That is sort of the point in a nutshell. Despite the measures put in place in this system, some owners still cry poverty while others spend a lot more (even in the exact same market like Mets/Yankees).

Also a $200 million postseason pool though no expanded playoff which is odd.

is it even better than their last sliding scale offer?

Also odd that they continue to want to play games in home, empty parks when so much money on travel costs and longer season (into the winter) could be played in Arizona/Florida/Texas. No fans anyway...

In comment 14916656 Metnut said:

Quote:

something along the lines of 70 games and 75% prorated pay. Players won't accept, but it's a legit offer from the owners. Time for the players to come through with a reasonable counter ASAP.

81 games and 80-90% is where this should land and could have from the beginning. And that is still a give on the player's part IMO since they already accepted prorated salaries, expanded playoffs, Corona risk, etc.

is still 40 some odd games less then the players want and still pro rates the salary. This seems closer, but i think we are going to hear the same crap from the players who seem less willing to budge then the owners. And im not saying im defending the owners, but they seem to be the side that is willing to work a bit here. Of course thats probably because most owners have already decided how they are going to "show revenue" to make it look like they lost millions while they probably didnt. If the players do make it so there is no baseball this year they should make it all about wanting the owners to show the books. Its something that should happen anyway and would gain them back a bit of public support.

Jon Heyman
@JonHeyman
·
6m
Initial reax of players to MLB proposal: Not thrilled with it. Not at all.

that make some sense.

The players are basically saying they want to play as many games possible and not take any pay cut. Look you can say the owners cook the books all you want, but the players wanting to act like nothing is going on in the world is absurd. Besides no fans how many less people will be buying apparel right now, paying for mlb.tv, shit how many might not even be able to pay for cable to watch the games. The teams are not going to make anywhere near the normal amount of money. So for the players to not even offer say a 5 or 10% reduction to start is stupid.

Quote:

JeffPassan's avatar Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 4m THREAD: Here's how to understand MLB's current offer to the players as compared to its last offer and the possibility of a 48-game season. Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 3m 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 JeffPassan's avatar Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 4m The structure of the league’s last two offers are the same: a 50% cut on prorated salary, plus a playoff bonus. This one, bonus doubled, and with a $50M playoff pool to be distributed to players, it would take them in total to ~75% of prorated salaries if postseason is played. 2Reply 20Retweet 60Like More options JeffPassan's avatar Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 3m Players see it like they’re getting less guaranteed, which they are. The expanded playoff pool adds higher potential upside, and the dropping of direct draft-pick compensation unquestionably helps some of the best free agents. But players have held firm on 100% prorated salaries. 6Reply 17Retweet 60Like More options JeffPassan's avatar Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 3m Every day that goes by without an agreement, the length of the season drops. And after hearing from players already about this proposal, the prospect of a 48-game season is looking likelier. They've been asked to respond by Wednesday, according to sources. 17Reply 38Retweet 72Like More options JeffPassan's avatar Jeff Passan @JeffPassan One high-ranking official today said, in no uncertain terms: “There will be baseball.” The question is: Will it be with the sides agreeing to a deal or with the league implementing a 48-game schedule, no expanded playoffs and almost certainly a grievance filed by the union?

JMO but the owners seem to be making offers worse than what has already been agreed to.

I'd like to see what the player's counter offers have looked like in this aggregate formula, though I assume it's something like $1.5b in total salary and 115 games.

In comment 14916677 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

Jon Heyman @JonHeyman · 6m Initial reax of players to MLB proposal: Not thrilled with it. Not at all.

Haven't followed as closely in recent years, but is he still Boras' (unofficial) media spokesman?

And does anyone know how the different sports split revenues? Are there any articles comparing revenue sharing by NFL teams vs MLB teams, for example?

In comment 14916679 Italianju said:

Quote:

that make some sense. The players are basically saying they want to play as many games possible and not take any pay cut. Look you can say the owners cook the books all you want, but the players wanting to act like nothing is going on in the world is absurd. Besides no fans how many less people will be buying apparel right now, paying for mlb.tv, shit how many might not even be able to pay for cable to watch the games. The teams are not going to make anywhere near the normal amount of money. So for the players to not even offer say a 5 or 10% reduction to start is stupid.

That's false - the players agreed to prorated salaries.

Will wait the details on this but at high level does seem to be fairer to the higher paid players and 75% of originally agreed to prorated salaries does, i think, represent a ~$500 million improvement in player pay vs the last offer?

If this article from a few weeks back is accurate, and 75% of the $2.0B prorated pay is $1.5 billion... that's up from the $970 million this analyst estimated in that last proposal. I'm sure there are lots of details to work through though.
analysis of original owner proposal - ( New Window )

the owners offer isnt any better then the last. Putting more money in the playoff pool is shitty for the players. If no playoffs they get screwed.

Well ill go back to my previous statements. Both sides can go kick rocks.

And the idea of a 48 game season is beyond stupid. Lets do a 2-3 week "spring training" so we can shoe horn in a 2 month season.

Eric has a better analysis in his 11:58am above. So its only a $200 million increase, not $500 million.

based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd.

In comment 14916692 Italianju said:

Quote:

based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd.

If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit?

In comment 14916690 Italianju said:

Quote:

the owners offer isnt any better then the last. Putting more money in the playoff pool is shitty for the players. If no playoffs they get screwed. Well ill go back to my previous statements. Both sides can go kick rocks. And the idea of a 48 game season is beyond stupid. Lets do a 2-3 week "spring training" so we can shoe horn in a 2 month season.

Im for the players but disagree with you on your playoff comment. Thats where so much league revenue comes from, its a reasonable requirement by the owners. Everyone should have some skin in the game.

They still need to up their offer though - the players deserve another $200-300 million.

I would bubble the playoffs to Arizona and Florida this November/December regardless. It'll likely be the safest option as Covid likely comes back in the fall in colder climates, you can isolate your players better, and no fans in the stands anyway - extend the season a little.

In comment 14916690 Italianju said:

Quote:

the owners offer isnt any better then the last. Putting more money in the playoff pool is shitty for the players. If no playoffs they get screwed. Well ill go back to my previous statements. Both sides can go kick rocks. And the idea of a 48 game season is beyond stupid. Lets do a 2-3 week "spring training" so we can shoe horn in a 2 month season.

The owners seem to want the players to take on all the risk above and beyond what's already been agreed to. And as always without any clear insight into the BS the owners are claiming.

The players accepting prorated salaries was already a major give and the fact that it's not being treated as such is exactly why they feel empowered to tell the owners to kick rocks.

All businesses are adapting to changing circumstances. How many have had their employees agree to sizable pay reductions that could total almost $1b?

salaries "a major give"?

If they're playing a portion of the season, should they get full pay?

Just trying to understand that. Are you suggesting because they have contracts players should still get paid full pay but owners lose out?

How are TV contracts being handled? Are they still being paid to the teams?

How is advertising? Pre-bought TV spots still being paid?

I don't know how all this works, so I don't have many assumptions and I could be wrong, but on the surface sharing in the shortfall between players and owners seems fair.

Season or no season?

In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 14916692 Italianju said: Quote: based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd. If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit?

The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game?

In comment 14916708 ZogZerg said:

Quote:

In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said: Quote: In comment 14916692 Italianju said: Quote: based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd. If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit? The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game?

Because they are the ones risking contracting Covid or suffering a career ending injury in a condensed season so that as many games can be played as possible.

games so that doesnt really hold water in the "risk". Also id love a job where i can work half the time and make the same amount. Im sorry but that is not a major give. Again im not defending the owners, i think both sides are being unreasonable. Also if the owners make less profit, and we 100% know it will be less profit, then its not fair for the players to make less as well?

In comment 14916712 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 14916708 ZogZerg said: Quote: In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said: Quote: In comment 14916692 Italianju said: Quote: based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd. If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit? The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game? Because they are the ones risking contracting Covid or suffering a career ending injury in a condensed season so that as many games can be played as possible.

The owners suggested less games than the players (right?).

'if the owners make less profit, and we 100% know it will be less profit, then its not fair for the players to make less as well?'

Pretty basic common sense approach. I think we could be facing the loss of the entire season over this simple fairness issue.

In comment 14916718 Italianju said:

Quote:

games so that doesnt really hold water in the "risk". Also id love a job where i can work half the time and make the same amount. Im sorry but that is not a major give. Again im not defending the owners, i think both sides are being unreasonable. Also if the owners make less profit, and we 100% know it will be less profit, then its not fair for the players to make less as well?

They are making less by not demanding 100% salary for fewer games played. According to the proposal by the players if they play 70% of the schedule they will make 70% of the pay. Are the television contracts and other income streams to the ownership pro rated? If they are getting the full TV deals despite playing a fraction of the games why should they be the only ones who profit?

In comment 14916724 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 14916712 Mike in NY said: Quote: In comment 14916708 ZogZerg said: Quote: In comment 14916694 Mike in NY said: Quote: In comment 14916692 Italianju said: Quote: based on the numbers of games played. They dont want a reduction in their salary. If they were going to make 20 mill and they played half the games they want 10 mill. I mean if they wanted the original 20 mill to play half the games then that would be even more absurd. But even wanting the 10 mill when we know the teams are not making the normal amount of money is aburd. If the owners are still making a profit, why should the players have to take a hit so the owners make more of a profit? The owners aren't making anywhere near the same profit. Why should the players make the same salary per game? Because they are the ones risking contracting Covid or suffering a career ending injury in a condensed season so that as many games can be played as possible. The owners suggested less games than the players (right?).

It is not just total number of games, it is how the season is configured. If you are playing at neutral sites in small geographic area (e.g. half of the teams play in Florida and half of the teams play in Arizona and you are only playing teams in your half) then you can fit more games in less time because you have less need for travel days, consistent sleep/work out schedule, etc.

In comment 14916703 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

salaries "a major give"? If they're playing a portion of the season, should they get full pay? Just trying to understand that. Are you suggesting because they have contracts players should still get paid full pay but owners lose out? How are TV contracts being handled? Are they still being paid to the teams? How is advertising? Pre-bought TV spots still being paid? I don't know how all this works, so I don't have many assumptions and I could be wrong, but on the surface sharing in the shortfall between players and owners seems fair.

It's a major give because they agreed to do something that negatively impacts themselves (make less $). The #1 CBA positive for the players is that they have guaranteed contracts. Not saying it's right but their position could have been 'we want a full season come hell or high water'. Start later, play the full 162 with the fall/winter months in Arizona/Florida, skip the entire season and start up again next spring, whatever. NFL training camps may start before MLB at this point, are their players taking a pay cut or is their season shortened? They could have taken a position that they don't necessarily get more money when revenues surge so why should they get less when revenues are down? Again - the owners have mostly reaped the benefits of the current structure of not having salaries tied to revenue. Now they want to punt on the downside too.

The article below is 1 month old but it recaps pretty succinctly all the ways in which the players are being asked to accommodate the owners requests - which seem intent on guaranteeing some self determined profit level (that they have historically cried wolf about time and time again). A lot of what the owners are asking for seems like a fair partnership, but ignores the context that they have never been fair partners. I don't see why anyone would trust their numbers without those numbers seeing public scrutiny.
Five reasons why MLB players are objecting to owners' 50-50 revenue split for 2020 season - ( New Window )

they couldn't unilaterally do any of those things though.

That's why it's a compromise.

I don't consider it a "major give" to agree to a pro-rated salary when even their own proposal was not a full season.

When they agreed to a pro-rated salary I think the framework was with an 81-game season.

of course they could have proposed all those things you said, but none of them could have been executed by them alone.

In comment 14916738 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 14916718 Italianju said: Quote: games so that doesnt really hold water in the "risk". Also id love a job where i can work half the time and make the same amount. Im sorry but that is not a major give. Again im not defending the owners, i think both sides are being unreasonable. Also if the owners make less profit, and we 100% know it will be less profit, then its not fair for the players to make less as well? They are making less by not demanding 100% salary for fewer games played. According to the proposal by the players if they play 70% of the schedule they will make 70% of the pay. Are the television contracts and other income streams to the ownership pro rated? If they are getting the full TV deals despite playing a fraction of the games why should they be the only ones who profit?

Because there will be no freakin fans in the stands! Why is this so difficult to understand? No gate sales. No concessions. No parking revenue, etc...

say that doesnt happen and they cancel the season the players get nothing. Thats why its a negotiation. I just dont understand why you think its a concession to get less money for doing less work. The guaranteed salaries are based on those teams playing 162 games, maybe not hte player due to injuries, but the team DEF would. That part is guaranteed for the owner, but now they arent goin to play 162 and they arent going to earn any money for people coming to the games.

And again im not calling the owners right in all this, both sides are wrong, but right now i think the players are being slightly less reasonable. I think the owners should get closer to the players requests unless they want to open their books, which we know they dont. That said i dont think the players should be paid as if everything is normal.

In comment 14916777 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

they couldn't unilaterally do any of those things though. That's why it's a compromise. I don't consider it a "major give" to agree to a pro-rated salary when even their own proposal was not a full season. When they agreed to a pro-rated salary I think the framework was with an 81-game season. of course they could have proposed all those things you said, but none of them could have been executed by them alone.

Obviously nobody can demand anything unilaterally. That doesn't make a 50% reduction in pay less of a give. The players went straight to a middle road. 81 game season, 50% less expense for the owners out of pocket in the likely largest expense category. Months later that is still the obvious and simplest solution (with some modifications to improve things for both sides, expanded playoffs, etc).

On the flip side, what have the owners given in on? How much less revenue is actually coming in? Have the owners been forthcoming about that? MLB attendance hasn't exactly been through the roof in normal times and without fans they have less costs to turn the lights on - for some teams like Miami the difference will likely be negligible.

The TV/digital rights are the biggest revenue chunk and were a massive area of opportunity if they could have come back first. The owners proposals have not been serious and they aren't even providing real #'s to try to justify them.

In comment 14916786 Italianju said:

Quote:

say that doesnt happen and they cancel the season the players get nothing. Thats why its a negotiation. I just dont understand why you think its a concession to get less money for doing less work. The guaranteed salaries are based on those teams playing 162 games, maybe not hte player due to injuries, but the team DEF would. That part is guaranteed for the owner, but now they arent goin to play 162 and they arent going to earn any money for people coming to the games. And again im not calling the owners right in all this, both sides are wrong, but right now i think the players are being slightly less reasonable. I think the owners should get closer to the players requests unless they want to open their books, which we know they dont. That said i dont think the players should be paid as if everything is normal.

Honest question - if the owners cancel the season, and the players get nothing, the players also don't lose a season off their contracts, right?

So it's a lost year but as an example - if I have 1 year $10m left on my contract, I eventually get that 10m vs. being willing to compromise and take the prorated 5m? The owners can't just cancel a season and skip paying that year whenever things restart.

in the final return. Cause if they cancel the season there will be more negotiations. They wont just come back in Feb for pitchers and catchers like nothing happened. MLB contracts are based on playing, so if they dont play do the contracts just go to the next year? If your contract is 1 year and 10 mill you cant just not play that year and hit FA the following year, you would still have that 1 year left.

But again they would have to figure all that out.

In comment 14916807 Italianju said:

Quote:

in the final return. Cause if they cancel the season there will be more negotiations. They wont just come back in Feb for pitchers and catchers like nothing happened. MLB contracts are based on playing, so if they dont play do the contracts just go to the next year? If your contract is 1 year and 10 mill you cant just not play that year and hit FA the following year, you would still have that 1 year left. But again they would have to figure all that out.

Right but that is why it's still a big give to agree to the 50% gross paycut (even though it's prorated). These guys have such a short career earning window. Take a run of the mill average salary reliever or back end starter with $5m/1 year left. That guy is always a league average season from a minimum deal next year and then never getting paid to play baseball again. And there are probably 2-5 guys like that on every single pitching staff.

Would you agree to give up $2.5m you've already been guaranteed, that you may never come close to matching on a future contract, or roll the dice to get paid out on the full guaranteed amount whenever MLB declares their emergency interruption over?

In comment 14916817 Eric on Li said:

Quote:

In comment 14916807 Italianju said: Quote: in the final return. Cause if they cancel the season there will be more negotiations. They wont just come back in Feb for pitchers and catchers like nothing happened. MLB contracts are based on playing, so if they dont play do the contracts just go to the next year? If your contract is 1 year and 10 mill you cant just not play that year and hit FA the following year, you would still have that 1 year left. But again they would have to figure all that out. Right but that is why it's still a big give to agree to the 50% gross paycut (even though it's prorated). These guys have such a short career earning window. Take a run of the mill average salary reliever or back end starter with $5m/1 year left. That guy is always a league average season from a minimum deal next year and then never getting paid to play baseball again. And there are probably 2-5 guys like that on every single pitching staff. Would you agree to give up $2.5m you've already been guaranteed, that you may never come close to matching on a future contract, or roll the dice to get paid out on the full guaranteed amount whenever MLB declares their emergency interruption over?

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.

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.

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.

but it seems pretty silly to call the straight pro-ration a big give by the players. That seems like a pretty straight-forward starting point, with any further reduction to be negotiated from there.

but there is no guarantee if they play zero games this year they will get anywhere near even 50% of their salary. Owners will say they didnt make any money. My guess is they would end up barely getting any money if they dont play this year. And sure they will get their full salary next year (going back to our 1 year 10 mill contact example) but now that player and many others are hitting FA one year older.

I think the owners should be at least at 80% of the pro rated salaries, if not 90%. The reasoning being the revenue streams crap. If it was all in one big pile like it should be and they can see im going to make 50% less this year on the games that are played (conecession, TV money, gate, etc..) then it would be more fair to ask the players for 50% reductions. But since we know they arent goin to put it in a big pile cause it will hurt them in future years then they should take the hit this year and pay closer to the pro rated amount.

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?

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.

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 )

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 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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

what’s the hang up on their end then?

In comment 14917254 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

what’s the hang up on their end then?

not sure.

they want more games?

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.”

In comment 14917254 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

what’s the hang up on their end then?

The owners are rejecting full prorated pay

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'

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.

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 )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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.

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 )

68 to 72 games.players get 83% of there salary prorated. If playoffs start and complete that increases to 90%

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.