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

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?