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

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.