On Sunday, the Players Association submitted a proposal to Major League Baseball for a 2020 season that would include, among other aspects, a 114-game regular season and expanded playoffs. It took the league a few days to respond, but on Wednesday owners rejected the union's proposal and said they would not send a counteroffer, according to Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-owners-reject-mlbpas-114-game-proposal-for-2020-season-per-report/?fbclid=IwAR2ZYad1wi8oITK86tVVY3SSg438ZdB4nDZH38uMfqOgK_r1Ff524Xq799Y - (
New Window )
I thought the same.
It hadn't been officially rejected until now. And the 50'ish game season hasn't actually been proposed yet
Plus it's not clear how much immunity you get when you recover from this virus, or how long that immunity lasts.
Let’s go Islanders and let’s go Giants.
I just think this is unique, many variables starting with the union structure and revenue streams.
(Double negative game is strong in my post.)
Even in that scenario the average stats (OPS, OPS+, BA, ERA, FIP, etc.) would have to be seriously questioned
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 )
Well said!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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 )
That was my point .. but you made it better than me
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.
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
So by that argument, are the owners going to pay the players more than their agreed upon salaries in years when revenues exceed projections?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Just compounds a terrible trade and probably effectively ends the career of one of the more overrated players in recent memory.
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...
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.