Weekday Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weekday Warrior

  1. I am not advocating this, just trying to deconstruct the thought process
  2. Question: does canceling the season outright put the owners in a better stance to defend the players’ “billion dollar” grievance claim than mandating a 50 game season?
  3. Breakdowns like this are exactly why people use mediators....
  4. As an FYI the same link makes it seem like there will be a loss of broadcast revenue too, which you were previously treating as fully guaranteed....
  5. Do you have a link to back up this assertion that owners may only be losing 30% of total revenue? A link to back up the assertion that they are making the same local and national TV money as a 162 game season? Even if these things are true, I still don’t see the equivalency. Revenue is not profit to the owners, there are still many other costs that come out of revenue besides player salaries. But player salary is a personal profit to the player.
  6. I just don’t see the equivalency there, sorry, and it certainly doesn’t affect my position that the players didn’t make a “concession” when they “agreed” to less than a 162 game season
  7. That’s not at all what I am saying. I was only talking about the games lost from the full 162 game season due to an act of nature not being a “concession”, as opposed to post-reopening games.
  8. It’s not a concession when they had no reasonable expectation of collecting that per game salary in the wake of the pandemic. Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see the owners dig a little deeper and pay for a longer season for the good of the game and keeping the players happy, but I am also grateful they aren’t cancelling the entire season (which they have a right to do). Neither of us has the evidence one way or the other as to whether the owners are truly losing money on empty stadium games, but the owners sure don’t seem too scared of a grievance process fleshing that info out, in fact they seem eager to cross-grieve...
  9. I was speaking to the notion that players agreeing to a less than 162 game season could somehow be classified as a “concession”...
  10. My analysis is not based on an end game of paying the players for 50 games, it is based on time, and the calendar. Even with a July 1st start date the 185 day/162 game season would drag into 2021!
  11. I don’t understand, 162 games was never going to happen in any universe, and 114 games was a fantasy too. It is June 15th and spring training still needs to happen so 89 games is possible only if you either: 1) proclaim that the owners are lying when they say TV schedules prevent them from making the same playoff revenue from a delayed postseason, or 2) proclaim that the owners have a duty to forfeit playoff revenue for the sake of having more regular season games.
  12. I can’t credit these as concessions given that the season was suspended on account of a global pandemic and state lockdown orders prevented play. Look at the calendar, even the 89 game reduction isn’t possible.
  13. I see a lot of people comparing this to “how would you feel if your employer made you share in its losses but not profits”, but I don’t agree with the analogy. First of all I do know people who had to take salary cuts the last few months because of the economy and others who lost their jobs even from companies that are still financially healthy as a whole (just less profitable). Moreover, this isn’t just an employer having a bad year and asking the employees to share in the losses, the entire season was suspended due to a global pandemic! The owners had a contractual right to not pay players when games are cancelled, and I believe the prorated salaries that they agreed to was already the default even if they hadn’t made a deal in March that also gave the players’ their service time. The owners also have a right to cancel the season in its entirety and pay the players nothing. So I don’t see what is so wrong about having a conversation about what they can afford to pay if they are going to salvage a season before they act unilaterally and within their rights ....
  14. It wasn’t interest free from what I read. I get that some people have a “well why should they compromise” view toward the players, all I’m saying is I don’t see where the players offered much in the way of compromise. The owners’ offers weren’t great but at least they gave the players a chance to make more money than where this is heading....
  15. The 6/12 offer was 72 games at 80% plus a playoff pool that makes it 83%...50 x $1 = $50... 72 x $.80 = $57.6 ....72 x $.83 = $59.76 Not seeing how any of the player concessions you list really give the owners anything of value better than their existing contractual rights. The deferred salary with interest is just a loan, do the owners really not have other access to credit if they need it? Also it was 89 not 78 games that the players offered, which is a mathematical impossibility and not a number the players had a divine right to anyway, stapling the expanded playoffs to the game total was the only thing of value the players actually offered....
  16. The owners did offer more total guaranteed money than what a 50 game season would yield to the players....other than expanded playoffs what did the players actually offer that represented compromise?
  17. Then why is that owners genuinely seem to want to minimize regular season games and the TV revenue that goes with it in this instance?
  18. Why exactly do the players dis-believe the owners’ claims about revenue? Do they seriously believe ownership would leave money on the table by playing fewer regular season games than time permits?
  19. What is it worth monetarily to the owners to have an expanded vs regular playoffs? Isn’t that amount of money the only leverage the players really have (besides general goodwill)? Even then the owners want them to share in the risk of a playoff cancellation. That doesn’t seem like a lot of incentive for the owners to invest more player salary money in the regular season. I know it might be morally right for them to spend more on salaries, but they didn’t get rich in the first place by flushing away money they didn’t need to.
  20. I can’t stop venting about this negotiation, it is driving me crazy. Why did they have to wait until they were on the cusp of being able to start spring training to start negotiating? Now the number of hypothetical regular season games is decreasing with every passing day! Yet they wait nearly a week between every offer and counteroffer!? I guess the owners don’t care about protracted negotiations shortening the regular season if every game played increases their losses, but the players should care!
  21. I don’t know why this negotiation has to be so complicated. Start with a baseline of a 48 game full pro-rated pay that each side technically has the right to insist on. Have a discussion about how much money per extra game is worth it to each sides for the regular season. Use playoffs, free agent draft pick, and all the other stuff to try to bridge the gap. It shouldn’t be taking this long to hash out! As far as the health stuff goes, if the players are truly worried about safety then don’t agree to a season, but I don’t think they can realistically hope to reserve the right to sue their employer for resuming play as long as the mutually agreed upon protocols are followed.
  22. If the sliding scale is deleted from the new offer it sounds basically the same as 50 games at full prorated pay but with a little extra sugar on top Still don’t understand why so much time has to pass between these offers and counteroffers....
  23. It is the MLBPA’s turn to counter offer right? Owners said okay you can have full prorated pay at a grossly reduced schedule, what is their counter? Why is this moving so slow? Nobody is fooling anyone with posturing, just take it to a mediation!
  24. So the owners are going to lose billions no matter what happens this season under any scenario, right? Is there any force beyond fan retention that would incentivize them to give up the billions that the players are asking for? If this season is cancelled, they can just reopen next season and hold players to their contracts and treat it as business as usual assuming stadiums are open, albeit with an expiring collective bargaining agreement, right? Why wouldn’t they just shutter up, cut as many losses as possible, and figure the fans will be back next year?
  25. On the flip side of the coin it will be a massive boon for the sport if they make it happen and get on the airwaves, TV audiences are hungry for fresh content, could attract a lot more fans