NFT: MLB - owners full of S**T

what is the issue?

.

when there is one, same for NBA/NHL/NFL.

Hell, Mike Trout came out earlier today & didn't seem like he was all that physed about playing this year.

In comment 14928461 nygiants16 said:

Quote:

what is the issue?

This

Zeke Miller
@ZekeJMiller
·
3m
NEW YORK (AP) — MLB has 38 positive COVID-19 tests as training resumes; 31 players and 7 staff among 19 teams.

Can't blame the owners for attempting to recoup some percentage of gate, concessions, parking etc. IF the players had negotiated a lower pro rated salary structure that would be a different situation. They didn't.

by changing the already negotiated terms.

Players getting 100% for number of games played. Owners aren’t which is a big loss of income. Owners have all the risk. Few folks in the stand doesn’t move the needle really at all.
Owners could fill the stands and players still getting fair deal.

For those two weeks either. Ya got nothing fellow.
Delete this thread.

In comment 14928483 Giant John said:

Quote:

Players getting 100% for number of games played. Owners aren’t which is a big loss of income. Owners have all the risk. Few folks in the stand doesn’t move the needle really at all. Owners could fill the stands and players still getting fair deal.

Owners have no risk either unless baseball never restarts ever again. Their franchise value growth has far exceeded player salary growth over the years. One down year isn't going to change that. Hell, the Mets are being sold in the middle of a pandemic and attracting buyers.

In comment 14928484 Giant John said:

Quote:

For those two weeks either. Ya got nothing fellow. Delete this thread.

Yup. This whole thing is really strange, no idea why the big bad owners are so evil in this and the players so innocent. Even some of the players think their end of the negotiations on behalf of the MLBPA were bullshit.

In comment 14928491 BH28 said:

Quote:

In comment 14928483 Giant John said: Quote: Players getting 100% for number of games played. Owners aren’t which is a big loss of income. Owners have all the risk. Few folks in the stand doesn’t move the needle really at all. Owners could fill the stands and players still getting fair deal. Owners have no risk either unless baseball never restarts ever again. Their franchise value growth has far exceeded player salary growth over the years. One down year isn't going to change that. Hell, the Mets are being sold in the middle of a pandemic and attracting buyers.

Owners have plenty of risk. Thousands of their employees aren’t working and they are losing money. This isn’t a “down year”, billions are being lost.

The players wanted to get in as many games as possible - the more reg. seasons game, the more pay. The owners wanted a greatly reduced reg season, since they'd be losing $ with empty stands, and rely on postseason $ to curb their losses. The Agreement both sides struck in March provided that the Owners would act in good faith to schedule as many games as possible. The negotiations after that were about trying to agree on a # of games, with the Owners demanding that Players waive their right to a grievance over the # of games. In the end, no agreement was reach, and the Owners implemented their schedule, with the Players reserving their right to grieve over whether the Owners acted in good faith in not scheduling more games.

I won't predict how that grievance will be resolved, but I would be very surprised if the Players do not pursue it.

In comment 14928500 BigBlueNH said:

Quote:

The players wanted to get in as many games as possible - the more reg. seasons game, the more pay. The owners wanted a greatly reduced reg season, since they'd be losing $ with empty stands, and rely on postseason $ to curb their losses. The Agreement both sides struck in March provided that the Owners would act in good faith to schedule as many games as possible. The negotiations after that were about trying to agree on a # of games, with the Owners demanding that Players waive their right to a grievance over the # of games. In the end, no agreement was reach, and the Owners implemented their schedule, with the Players reserving their right to grieve over whether the Owners acted in good faith in not scheduling more games. I won't predict how that grievance will be resolved, but I would be very surprised if the Players do not pursue it.

the owners have the medical experts on there side in the amount of games so very likely anything comes of this except maybe the owners give the players something in the next cba

MA governor hasn't approved fans in the stands. This is part of phase 3 which "will last significantly longer" than other phases. Baker didn't even give a time frame for when phase 4 could begin.

I feel like it will be up to the municipalities not the teams and the commissioner per se.

In comment 14928497 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14928484 Giant John said: Quote: For those two weeks either. Ya got nothing fellow. Delete this thread. Yup. This whole thing is really strange, no idea why the big bad owners are so evil in this and the players so innocent. Even some of the players think their end of the negotiations on behalf of the MLBPA were bullshit.

The players are not innocent by any stretch. They were very greedy. Buut, as with every other opportunity in the past, the owners did not negotiate in good faith is my point. They refuse to open their books every single time.

and haven’t pre COVID either, what’s the point? They don’t want to lose any more money than they already have. Players get fully prorated salaries, time to move on.

The MLB as structured can’t operate like other leagues and there’s no rule saying the salaries need to increase with profits.

On every game played. Why play more games? So they can lose even more money? World doesn’t work that way kids.

A sympathetic crew but this thread literally names no sense. So they should get paid for games they aren’t playing?

In comment 14928559 Giant John said:

Quote:

On every game played. Why play more games? So they can lose even more money? World doesn’t work that way kids.

Unless it’s public unions or the MTA.....

It’s a tough issue - if the owners rallying cry to the players was we can only do 60 games not 70 which was the players final offer because there aren’t fans and we’ll lose all this money ... then 10 days later even in the face of higher case totals than consensus thought (apparently we may be overstating cases based on changes in CDC guidelines I read yesterday but I haven’t fact checked this enough)... they are now planning fans ... that’s a dishonest slap in the face right?

And to those above who said the players didn’t take paycuts - they didn’t sign contracts for games paid. They paid for annual compensation - they are still playing and have all that ‘education’ to play at this level and all that training ... for annual compensation at 37 cents on the dollar.

Put yourself in their shoes - your worth is X.. you are working this year at 37 cents of that. I’m sure you’d be pleased.

Maybe it’s easier to conceptualize easier in nfl. Might only be 16 games ... but ones lifelong work and offseason regimen goes into those 16 games. So say the nfl only plays 6 games. One is supposed to mentally be fine with only getting paid for 6 games ‘work’ when so much effort and cost (trainers, equipment, coaches) etc goes into that offseason? Not to mention ones career is 5-10 years long.

Point is it’s a fair thread because the argument for 60 not 70 games we were led to believe was no fans and other crying about lack of revenue ... now that appears to be bull shit

Looks like the player might. Jeff Samardzija when asked about playing in fan-less ballparks, "I wouldn't put the carriage before the horse. I think we've seen from the owners they're not afraid to put anyone at risk, especially if it makes them money."

Samardjia wouldn’t play at all then? A lot of these players are sending out mixed tones from the negotiations.

see the problem here. The players are getting 100% of their pay for the games they play while the owners will be hard pressed to make revenue. Hard to find where the owners are being greedy

In comment 14928587 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

see the problem here. The players are getting 100% of their pay for the games they play while the owners will be hard pressed to make revenue. Hard to find where the owners are being greedy

The players wanted 70 games (their first offer was 110 games or so). Owners said 60 because of the news we all read and my understanding is - no fans. That still may be the case but if 10 days later on worse news than we thought on cases and hospitalizations....There may be more revenue On dishonest negotiations for owners now ... I get the problem.

Also don’t understand this 100% of pay point. Do you think of your job in terms of annual salary or are you hourly? I’ve never heard of gerrit coles contract in the past based on games started... it was a dollar amount For number of years service

In comment 14928473 Ryan in Albany said:

Quote:

Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller · 3m NEW YORK (AP) — MLB has 38 positive COVID-19 tests as training resumes; 31 players and 7 staff among 19 teams.

Did you think because they are moving on with plans for a season, infections would cease?

Better yet, do you think MLB is naive enough to believe there would be no infections and have and have no plan to proceed if there are?

I don’t get the point of your post.

whats the big deal. Players are making money and the owners are trying to get some of it back. Plus people would be happy to go to a game if they can get tickets. The game needs it or it might lose more fans.

In comment 14928686 joeinpa said:

Quote:

In comment 14928473 Ryan in Albany said: Quote: Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller · 3m NEW YORK (AP) — MLB has 38 positive COVID-19 tests as training resumes; 31 players and 7 staff among 19 teams. Did you think because they are moving on with plans for a season, infections would cease? Better yet, do you think MLB is naive enough to believe there would be no infections and have and have no plan to proceed if there are? I don’t get the point of your post.

The point of his post was a tweet about current positive tests. Those positive tests mean they have to quarantine. And then hopefully join the team in 2 weeks. COVID is going to be major news for the foreseeable future, shrugging it off as nothing like you are doing doesn’t make much sense.

It’s fine if you don’t think anything bad is going to happen to the players but many others aren’t as dismissive about.

the prorated salary matters because it’s in full on a per game basis while the owners are losing out on ticket sales for every game with no fans which typically counts for over 30% of total revenue.

And everyone needs to understand that how we respond to COVID today is going to be different than 60 or even 30 days from now. I can easily see a test run with no fans for the first few weeks of games and then easing into a 25% capacity, etc. Meanwhile the players are getting their per game salary in full no matter what.

Seems pretty fair to me.

everyone knows they wanted to try to fill the seats and both sides are probably hopeful they can in some capacity because more revenue is good for everyone involved (more money for owners now = more money for players in FA in the offseason).

All this shows is how facile it was for the owners to cry poverty trying to make the players take significantly less than their already prorated salaries. They were trying to punt all of the risk while also retaining any possible upside.

In comment 14928726 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

the prorated salary matters because it’s in full on a per game basis while the owners are losing out on ticket sales for every game with no fans which typically counts for over 30% of total revenue. And everyone needs to understand that how we respond to COVID today is going to be different than 60 or even 30 days from now. I can easily see a test run with no fans for the first few weeks of games and then easing into a 25% capacity, etc. Meanwhile the players are getting their per game salary in full no matter what. Seems pretty fair to me.

Understood all that. The point is during negotiations owners told players we can only afford 60 games because there won’t be fans ... the player sign and then a week later the owners say they’ll have fans. You don’t think that is dishonest bad faith negotiation?

Keep in mind you are clearly more man of the people than me and I’m a numbers, somewhat callous individual which makes this debate a little more fascinating to me... haha

Happy 4th everyone by the way (serious)

and reading that sounds like a headline to get clicks. I don’t think it should be a surprise that the MLB needs to plan for the worst (no fans) and still try to eventually get fans to recoup losses.

If the players are taken aback by this then they don’t understand it’s all a business. My guess is, fans are making this a bigger deal than it is.

And like I said earlier the negotiations started when this was still a brand new pandemic. Things are going to change leading up to the new opening day date and will afterward as well.

In comment 14928820 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 14928726 UConn4523 said: Quote: the prorated salary matters because it’s in full on a per game basis while the owners are losing out on ticket sales for every game with no fans which typically counts for over 30% of total revenue. And everyone needs to understand that how we respond to COVID today is going to be different than 60 or even 30 days from now. I can easily see a test run with no fans for the first few weeks of games and then easing into a 25% capacity, etc. Meanwhile the players are getting their per game salary in full no matter what. Seems pretty fair to me. Understood all that. The point is during negotiations owners told players we can only afford 60 games because there won’t be fans ... the player sign and then a week later the owners say they’ll have fans. You don’t think that is dishonest bad faith negotiation? Keep in mind you are clearly more man of the people than me and I’m a numbers, somewhat callous individual which makes this debate a little more fascinating to me... haha Happy 4th everyone by the way (serious)

Exactly my point.

100% no fans than I don’t see what the issue is. They are trying to make their money back, seems logical. And we don’t even know what fans means yet. 10%? 25%? Who knows but it’s going to keep changing.

players should be aligned rooting for more money for MLB in general (owners) = at least some of that new money turning into more $ for them. All the other leagues have gone so far as to bake that reality into their cap structure tying it to % of revenues, which seems a much smarter approach than MLB's CBA but that's a discussion for 2021.

The farce in the discussions was the owners crying helpless poverty when there were 2 exceedingly public and obvious contradictions to that - rapidly increasing franchise valuations and that the larger chunk of revenue comes from TV/digital (not attendance). The owners trying to find ways to allow fans right now is completely understandable, it just highlights how ridiculous it was of them to ask the players to take pay cuts without upside (rev sharing).

Likelihood that they get more than 15 games played in my opinion isn't even 50/50.

This was an exercise in futility from the beginning. A distraction.

Just like doing a half ass job of quarantining the country and then reopening to early. We saw how that has worked out. Ooops, everybody go back inside... gotta re-quarantine everybody. Bob, Sue, Nigel, Karen and 84million others weren't wearing a mask.

Trout might not play.

Most teams are discovering a few players on each team are Covid positive. And then handfuls are starting to opt out. We're not even into any competitive summer training play yet.

Before we're out of that, you're going to see quite a few more opt out. Get infected. Talk of fans is just another distraction.

2020 is f'd. The ocean tried to wipe me off the land this weekend lol. High tide high surf full moon my ass. 2020 is the beginning of the end. Where's my sign board???

Good faith means in a legal sense. Frankly as I understand the facts that are public the players would be far more likely to lose a grievance if the owners filed one. Ambiguous terms in the contract and allegedly emails demonstrating intent that they would renegotiate if there were no fans. Only basing this off what was made public but having been down the arb path many times I would put it 80/20 owners based on what is out there.

In comment 14929103 bhill410 said:

Quote:

Good faith means in a legal sense. Frankly as I understand the facts that are public the players would be far more likely to lose a grievance if the owners filed one. Ambiguous terms in the contract and allegedly emails demonstrating intent that they would renegotiate if there were no fans. Only basing this off what was made public but having been down the arb path many times I would put it 80/20 owners based on what is out there.

I understand it. I just don't recall reading anything along those lines. Everything I have read was based on the owners giving the players what they deemed they could proceed with based on no fans. That is how they arrived at 60 games, for example. This is what owners claimed was the max with no fans.

At this point, it doesn't even matter because I am becoming more and more pessimistic a season will even happen. And, with the infections we are seeing in MLB camps, I am becoming more pessimistic for an NFL season as well.

In comment 14928965 CardinalX said:

Quote:

Likelihood that they get more than 15 games played in my opinion isn't even 50/50. This was an exercise in futility from the beginning. A distraction. Just like doing a half ass job of quarantining the country and then reopening to early. We saw how that has worked out. Ooops, everybody go back inside... gotta re-quarantine everybody. Bob, Sue, Nigel, Karen and 84million others weren't wearing a mask. Trout might not play. Most teams are discovering a few players on each team are Covid positive. And then handfuls are starting to opt out. We're not even into any competitive summer training play yet. Before we're out of that, you're going to see quite a few more opt out. Get infected. Talk of fans is just another distraction. 2020 is f'd. The ocean tried to wipe me off the land this weekend lol. High tide high surf full moon my ass. 2020 is the beginning of the end. Where's my sign board???

Incompetent asshole. Seriously you are a dumb fuck.

In comment 14928965 CardinalX said:

Quote:

Likelihood that they get more than 15 games played in my opinion isn't even 50/50. This was an exercise in futility from the beginning. A distraction. Just like doing a half ass job of quarantining the country and then reopening to early. We saw how that has worked out. Ooops, everybody go back inside... gotta re-quarantine everybody. Bob, Sue, Nigel, Karen and 84million others weren't wearing a mask. Trout might not play. Most teams are discovering a few players on each team are Covid positive. And then handfuls are starting to opt out. We're not even into any competitive summer training play yet. Before we're out of that, you're going to see quite a few more opt out. Get infected. Talk of fans is just another distraction. 2020 is f'd. The ocean tried to wipe me off the land this weekend lol. High tide high surf full moon my ass. 2020 is the beginning of the end. Where's my sign board???

sunday is the deadline to opt out