meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

And the season -- if any -- keeps getting shorter as the negotiations drag on and on:

Originally was owners wanted around 80 games and players demanding at least 110.  Down and down the drain this goes as the rich and richer argue over monies you and me can't even imagine.

From that quote it seems like that's the MLB's reaction to the players stance of "we've already agreed upon the pay structure, so next topic". So the owners are like, OK our equally stubborn response is a ridiculous proposal of a 48 game season, so ha, and tomorrow it's 42 games. As previously mentioned, both sides acting like children. Their negotiating strategy seems to be sticking their fingers in their ears and la la la la la la la la I can't hear you. All the while the dwindling fan base is slowing falling asleep, in their interest for the season to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jonninho said:

48?

lol.

Also, now, with the talk of a possibility that some teams will be able to house fans at home games, it isnt going to help the owners case in these negotiations.

I can not speak for everybody, but, i am slowly beginning to just not care if there is baseball this season.

That's a good point. I'm sure the MLBPA is throwing that fact back at the owners, even though I haven't seen anything other than TX allowing 50% capacity as of right now. 

 

I agree the 48 games is a joke. Hopefully the players don't budge from around 80. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mavsfan23 said:

OK our equally stubborn response is a ridiculous proposal of a 48 game season, so ha, and tomorrow it's 42 games.

 

How is it stubborn for the players to stick with the previous deal that the owners agreed to?  Do you think if the situation were reversed, that the owners would give the players a second bite at the apple?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonycpsu said:

 

How is it stubborn for the players to stick with the previous deal that the owners agreed to?  Do you think if the situation were reversed, that the owners would give the players a second bite at the apple?

Not to mention this whole negotiation started with the owners crying poverty, then floating a trial balloon on revenue share while unwilling to show what "revenue" even looked like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

How is it stubborn for the players to stick with the previous deal that the owners agreed to?  Do you think if the situation were reversed, that the owners would give the players a second bite at the apple?

As their consumer I expect both sides to get their act together and supply the product. In doing that I don't think anything should be off the table in discussions, especially considering the fragile state of the league to begin with. If either side wants to draw a line in the sand, then so be it. Just watch it go down in flames while taking a stand I guess. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mavsfan23 said:

As their consumer I expect both sides to get their act together and supply the product. In doing that I don't think anything should be off the table in discussions, especially considering the fragile state of the league to begin with. If either side wants to draw a line in the sand, then so be it. Just watch it go down in flames while taking a stand I guess. 

I mean, fair enough I guess, but they already have an agreement in place.

Don't you think that the group that is asking for a renegotiation has the burden on them to provide concessions before it should be considered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, mavsfan23 said:

Just watch it go down in flames while taking a stand I guess. 

 

You're a long-time member and frequent poster here, so you're no doubt familiar with the lengthy record of the owners completely rolling players in previous negotiations.  This has led to a "product" that's unsustainable in its current form, with things like poverty wages for minor leaguers, artificially low salaries of arbitration-eligible players, and gaming of service time leading to MLB-ready players being stuck in the minors all going in favor of the owners.  Free agency in a player's mid to late 20s (if they're lucky) is the only thing they have left, and we've seen owners chipping away at that in recent years, no longer willing to overpay to compensate for underpayment in a player's first 6-7 years.

The season is already compromised.  If holding firm now means a loss of the 2020 season but a more sustainable model going forward, so be it.  I care much more about baseball's future than the 2020 season.

Edited by tonycpsu
"miner leaguers"? time for more coffee.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

How is it stubborn for the players to stick with the previous deal that the owners agreed to?  Do you think if the situation were reversed, that the owners would give the players a second bite at the apple?

 

This!!! 

Those poor owners, won't someone think of the billionaires who agreed to a deal, claimed poverty while never showing the books. Players want to give us 114 games even playing games when it may not be seasonable. Owners say give them 48 games, we'll take our bag of money and bail. Awesome. 

Edited by kwolf68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

You're a long-time member and frequent poster here, so you're no doubt familiar with the lengthy record of the owners completely rolling players in previous negotiations.  This has led to a "product" that's unsustainable in its current form, with things like poverty wages for minor leaguers, artificially low salaries of arbitration-eligible players, and gaming of service time leading to MLB-ready players being stuck in the minors all going in favor of the owners.  Free agency in a player's mid to late 20s (if they're lucky) is the only thing they have left, and we've seen owners chipping away at that in recent years, no longer willing to overpay to compensate for underpayment in a player's first 6-7 years.

The season is already compromised.  If holding firm now means a loss of the 2020 season but a more sustainable model going forward, so be it.  I care much more about baseball's future than the 2020 season.

It's crazy how:

A.) They made an agreement in March.

B.) They are leveraging dissatisfaction with that agreement to get MORE of what they want as opposed to meeting in the middle.

C.) People don't see this as an issue, or see the players as "just as bad."

The NBA and NHL are back on with none of this stuff.  Their owners and league offices said, "let's take care of our people and give something to the fans."  And it was done.

Baseball owners are trying to leverage this situation to get every crazy idea they've ever had to make more money passed and some fans are like, "shut up and just play ball!"

Huh?  They want to.  It's on the suits man.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

How is it stubborn for the players to stick with the previous deal that the owners agreed to?  Do you think if the situation were reversed, that the owners would give the players a second bite at the apple?

But are the players really sticking to the original deal by sending counter offers to the owners?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I mean, fair enough I guess, but they already have an agreement in place.

Don't you think that the group that is asking for a renegotiation has the burden on them to provide concessions before it should be considered?

For sure. There's an agreement and they can make that a sticking point, but is that in the best interest of the league and in turn their future income potential?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mavsfan23 said:

For sure. There's an agreement and they can make that a sticking point, but is that in the best interest of the league and in turn their future income potential?  

I guess it just seems to me like the players are trying to meet in the middle and the owners are using this situation to make more money.

The owners offered revenue share without financial disclosures and this 48 game idea, both of which they knew were nonstarter.

The players have offered two year salary deferrals for the postseason, gave up their guaranteed deals for prorated salaries back in March, offered to pay minor league stipends out of their own pockets, and attempted to renegotiate the number of games played to offset the burden of gate losses.

At what point do we say, "the owners are saying they are going to be poor, prove it or at least come up with a compromise they know players can agree to, or shut up and honor your commitment?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

But are the players really sticking to the original deal by sending counter offers to the owners?

What's the alternative?  Just fall in line with whatever the owners say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

But are the players really sticking to the original deal by sending counter offers to the owners?

 

I don't follow..  Are you using their willingness to offer some concessions as evidence for their subbornness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

You're a long-time member and frequent poster here, so you're no doubt familiar with the lengthy record of the owners completely rolling players in previous negotiations.  This has led to a "product" that's unsustainable in its current form, with things like poverty wages for minor leaguers, artificially low salaries of arbitration-eligible players, and gaming of service time leading to MLB-ready players being stuck in the minors all going in favor of the owners.  Free agency in a player's mid to late 20s (if they're lucky) is the only thing they have left, and we've seen owners chipping away at that in recent years, no longer willing to overpay to compensate for underpayment in a player's first 6-7 years.

The season is already compromised.  If holding firm now means a loss of the 2020 season but a more sustainable model going forward, so be it.  I care much more about baseball's future than the 2020 season.

I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable on the financial side of baseball than I am, but I honestly don't really care what their agreement is until it stops the games from happening. This just seems like poor timing to finally play hard ball. They have no one to blame but themselves for the poor situation they're in regarding pay, or at least no one to blame but current and past MBLPA decision makers. From my interpretation the guys that have gotten their pay days making deals that don't really benefit current/future young players, and this doesn't appear to be any different. 

 

Yes, they have an agreement on pay but in that same agreement MLB gets to decide length of schedule. So both sides using their bargaining chips unreasonably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 games? Ohhh lawwd! Lol-one thing that makes baseball good is the llloonnnggg grind.

ohh well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I don't follow..  Are you using their willingness to offer some concessions as evidence for their subbornness?

A concession on a pro rate salary is offering to play 112 games instead of 82 even with the owners saying they lose money on an 82 game season? Till the books are opened you have to believe the owners are telling the truth. Or the players union asking for financial information from the last 4 years?

Players claiming safety is important but willing to play an extra 32 more games for the extra money. 

 

What concessions?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some baseball is better than no baseball.

 

I am really beginning to be turned off by the owners unwillingness to take a financial loss on the season. Players have a limited shelf life. Owners can make it up later.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The real question is why should any of us come back if this is what the owners think of us and the players? Ultimately, they're the ones that I'm paying when I go to a game or contribute to television revenues or buy a jersey. Why not just go to Minor League and Independent games and just be done with MLB for good? It seems to me that society's better off without big sports, anyway. They've been gone for a little over two months and we're dealing with issues that we've been putting off for eons.

Edited by Hanghow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

Till the books are opened you have to believe the owners are telling the truth.

 

On what basis should anyone trust them to tell the truth given their many documented examples   of team colluding against players?  MLB teams have many ways to hide profits in shell companies, and many accounting tricks they can use to embellish losses.  The notion that they're not massaging the numbers requires a level of blind faith in these for-profit enterprises that no human being should ever have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

 

On what basis should anyone trust them to tell the truth given their many documented examples   of team colluding against players?  MLB teams have many ways to hide profits in shell companies, and many accounting tricks they can use to embellish losses.  The notion that they're not massaging the numbers requires a level of blind faith in these for-profit enterprises that no human being should ever have.

I take it that the 1 billion dollar uniform contract was never on the table for revenue sharing either haha.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/anthonystitt/2019/12/19/for-a-cool-3-billion-mlb-adds-nike-swoosh-to-uniforms/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Basically it is an MLBPA who insists on a pro-rated salary structure based on games played that is more or less been conceded to by the owners at this point.

So now they argue over how many games to play?  Really a weak argument for the players at this point imo.  If as they claim they stick to what they agreed to pro-ration-wise, then what business is it of theirs how many games the owners want to fit into the remaining schedule unless the owners ask for more double headers, less days off etc?  If the owners want to play 48 games because that is where they are comfortable, so be it.  One can argue that they should play more, but that is not the MLBPA's call imo. 

You can pretty much bet that the owners are not going to choose a number that costs them money and not going to choose an arbitrarily low number that costs them revenue either.  It's not like they are going to say, we can make 400M if we play 80 games and 350M if we play 48, so lets play 48?  It would make no sense for them to do that.  Since the MLBPA was against the revenue sharing proposals and want to stick to a pro-rated salary structure based on games played irrespective of what the attendance in the parks are (zero in this case), then they really have nothing to argue as they are getting exactly what they agreed to.  How many games the owners want to play in a revamped season is not really a matter they can complain about imo.  If they choose not to play at all under whatever schedule the owners want to do, that is their right, but they should consider that 30% or so is better than 0 which is what they get if the season is cancelled entirely. 

Of course you could argue the owners are playing hard ball to get the union to concede some things, but I would tend to doubt that is really in play at this point as the union is not budging at all on anything related to salaries and the owners have pretty much already thrown up the white flag on that issue.

My 2 cents worth.

Edited by secretagentman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, shakestreet said:

I am not so sure. The corona virus didn’t magically disappear. 

It's never going to magically disappear. We are going to have to live with this and take precautions around it. 

Otherwise you might as well shutdown society and collapse the economy while we hide in our homes and starve to death and businesses fail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, secretagentman said:

Basically it is an MLBPA who insists on a pro-rated salary structure based on games played that is more or less been conceded to by the owners at this point.

So now they argue over how many games to play?  Really a weak argument for the players at this point imo.  If as they claim they stick to what they agreed to pro-ration-wise, then what business is it of theirs how many games the owners want to fit into the remaining schedule unless the owners ask for more double headers, less days off etc?  If the owners want to play 48 games because that is where they are comfortable, so be it.  One can argue that they should play more, but that is not the MLBPA's call imo. 

You can pretty much bet that the owners are not going to choose a number that costs them money and not going to choose an arbitrarily low number that costs them revenue either.  It's not like they are going to say, we can make 400M if we play 80 games and 350M if we play 48, so lets play 48?  It would make no sense for them to do that.  Since the MLBPA was against the revenue sharing proposals and want to stick to a pro-rated salary structure based on games played irrespective of what the attendance in the parks are (zero in this case), then they really have nothing to argue as they are getting exactly what they agreed to.  How many games the owners want to play in a revamped season is not really a matter they can complain about imo.  If they choose not to play at all under whatever schedule the owners want to do, that is their right, but they should consider that 30% or so is better than 0 which is what they get if the season is cancelled entirely. 

Of course you could argue the owners are playing hard ball to get the union to concede some things, but I would tend to doubt that is really in play at this point as the union is not budging at all on anything related to salaries and the owners have pretty much already thrown up the white flag on that issue.

My 2 cents worth.

Right now they're insisting on a no game season.

Which is fine, they can work their next TV deal with ESPN Ocho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.