meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

56 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.

Both sides need to come to the table and engage in some serious discussions. As it is currently playing out with one side making one proposal a week with virtually no concessions and using the media to drive their agenda is ridiculous and infantile. Time is wasting. I keep telling myself that this is “how the sausage is made” but it’s disheartening, disappointing, and annoying how both sides are treating this. This has the possibility to be a huge moment in the history of the game and they’re ruining it acting like 3-year-olds refusing to share their toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, B&F said:

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 

 

Edited by HOOTIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Low and Away said:

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

The original deal was prorated salaries.  If the owners just did that, there would be baseball starting tomorrow.  The players counter was in the spirit of the original agreement.

 

4 hours ago, Low and Away said:

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?

 

If the owners will lose money in an 82 game season I highly doubt they would make any in a 50 game season either.  The owners and players made an agreement already.  No other union in the country would sign an agreement for pay, then walk it back so that they get paid less than agreed to.  That sets them up for being steamrolled in the next CBA because the PLAYERS would have already given up concessions and would seem desperate to ownership.

 

4 hours ago, mavsfan23 said:

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. 

But every plan so far from ownership has hinged on changing the pay agreement already made.  If they did prorated salaries for a 50 game season, based on the current deal already approved by MLBPA and ownership the commissioner could make a schedule and the players would either be forced to play, or receive nothing, including service time.  Ownership, however, feels the need to make players take less in pay then the agreement, and so this cannot happen without MLBPA sign off, which won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, daynlokki said:

 

 

If the owners will lose money in an 82 game season I highly doubt they would make any in a 50 game season either.  The owners and players made an agreement already.  No other union in the country would sign an agreement for pay, then walk it back so that they get paid less than agreed to.  That sets them up for being steamrolled in the next CBA because the PLAYERS would have already given up concessions and would seem desperate to ownership.

 

 

Not necessarily. It might be that with merchandising and existing ad and TV contracts and the like, they take in a certain amount which is not dependent on the number of games played or has non-proportional give backs in them.  And what would be a constant cost per game of the players salaries would become a greater percentage of their total costs as they played more games.  Only the owners know that obviously.  There is no way imo owners are going to make less consciously to stick it to the union.  That makes no sense at any level imo.  There has to be some sort of rationale with the numbers behind what the owners are doing.  Maybe 48 is there break even number and anything more would net a loss...no one knows where that line is.

As to some comments made that the owners should take a hit and lose money, that is very magnanimous of those asking others to lose money lol...no one is in business to lose money and there is no reason for them to do so.  The players union can complain otherwise and take it out on the owners after the 2021 season, but all they are really doing is shooting themselves in the foot at this point imo.  They refused to give anything beyond the pro-rated rate...they get exactly what they asked for.  They do not determine how many games the owners decide they want to bring forth.  As to any semblance of the game being hurt, the numbers for 2020 are already going to be "asterisked".  48 games or 80 games is not going to change any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the discussion on whose fault sort of misses an essential truth.

 

its going to be very bad for baseball long term if all the other sports can figure out how to play their games in offseason and baseball can't get it together for a shortened season.

i know both parties agree in the correctness of their position....and i won't dispute the arguments either side have.

 

but we all lose if they can't compromise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The owners are the bad guys in these negotiations. There should be no consideration by MLBPA of anything less than an 80-game season. 48 is ludicrous. These owners are crying about losing 326-million and showing no proof of those losses. And even if their numbers are correct, 326-million is about 10.8-million for each owner. That's a drop in the bucket for those in the billionaire club. To put it another way, that's about the cost of a number 4 starting pitcher. 

Edited by Baseball Batman
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

 

 

But every plan so far from ownership has hinged on changing the pay agreement already made.  If they did prorated salaries for a 50 game season, based on the current deal already approved by MLBPA and ownership the commissioner could make a schedule and the players would either be forced to play, or receive nothing, including service time.  

Soccer players went back on the CBA they signed in January. And man are they giving back money for a partial season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baseball Batman said:

The owners are the bad guys in these negotiations. There should be no consideration by MLBPA of anything less than an 80-game season. 48 is ludicrous. These owners are crying about losing 326-million and showing no proof of those losses. And even if their numbers are correct, 326-million is about 10.8-million for each owner. That's a drop in the bucket for those in the billionaire club. To put it another way, that's about the cost of a number 4 starting pitcher. 

It's just insanely bad business practice.

They had an opportunity to be the only sport running when the country was desperate for content.  That type of goodwill and (probably) eyeballs would be invaluable in calculating their next TV deal.  Instead they're going to throw it away over the losses over a lack of gate receipts for a half season.

It's basically throwing away 70% of your revenue for a decade because you're salty about losing 30% of your revenue for four months, and you're sitting on a cash reserve that could carry you forward for 50 years.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It's just insanely bad business practice.

They had an opportunity to be the only sport running when the country was desperate for content.  That type of goodwill and (probably) eyeballs would be invaluable in calculating their next TV deal.  Instead they're going to throw it away over the losses over a lack of gate receipts for a half season.

It's basically throwing away 70% of your revenue for a decade because you're salty about losing 30% of your revenue for four months, and you're sitting on a cash reserve that could carry you forward for 50 years.

History tells us the owners are not going to lose anything in next few years.  Baseball attendance went up after the 95 strike.  Their attendance and revenue is massively higher now then it was then.  People are not going to hold them responsible for some virus that messed things up either.  And no one cares about them being "the only sport running".  Baseball has its fans, both avid and otherwise and that is not going to change because they play 48, 80 or even 0 games in a pandemic plagued year.

As to what number of games is "appropriate", at this point I do not see how anyone thinks it makes a big difference 48 vs 80.  It is a LOT less than a full season and the season is going to largely come down to a couple of month warm up\exhibition with so many teams making the playoffs that for all intents and purposes the regular season will be all but meaningless for the majority of the pre-season contenders.  All it will amount to is a way for the owners and players to recoup some money. 

Edited by secretagentman
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

History tells us the owners are not going to lose anything in next few years.  Baseball attendance went up after the 95 strike.  Their attendance and revenue is massively higher now then it was then.  People are not going to hold them responsible for some virus that messed things up either.  And no one cares about them being "the only sport running".  Baseball has its fans, both avid and otherwise and that is not going to change because they play 48, 80 or even 0 games in a pandemic plagued year.

As to what number of games is "appropriate", at this point I do not see how anyone thinks it makes a big difference 48 vs 80.  It is a LOT less than a full season and the season is going to largely come down to a couple of month warm up\exhibition with so many teams making the playoffs that for all intents and purposes the regular season will be all but meaningless for the majority of the pre-season contenders.  All it will amount to is a way for the owners and players to recoup some money. 

Attendance was down double digits until McGwire and Sosa starting hitting dingers.  It's unlikely that dog hunts twice.

If you're imagining a scenario where a sport with already dwindling popularity amongst younger people doesn't lose some significant interest if they lockout for a year while every other sport plays on coming out of the worst public health and financial crisis in 100 years because they were squabbling over a couple bucks, you're kidding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Attendance was down double digits until McGwire and Sosa starting hitting dingers.  It's unlikely that dog hunts twice.

If you're imagining a scenario where a sport with already dwindling popularity amongst younger people doesn't lose some significant interest if they lockout for a year while every other sport plays on coming out of the worst public health and financial crisis in 100 years because they were squabbling over a couple bucks, you're kidding yourself.

Simply not correct.  Avg game attendance went from 25021 in 1995 to 26509 in 1996 and 27876 in 1997.  Despite the disaster that was the 1995 season, attendance per game actually went up by about 6%.  The financial crisis of 2008 impacted attendance as MLB has still not recovered from it as avg attendance has more or less been flat since 2009 with slight decreases the past 2 years.  That of course can be attributed to people not having the money to go to games while ticket prices increased dramatically.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml

Edited by secretagentman
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Simply not correct.  Avg game attendance went from 25021 in 1995 to 26509 in 1996 and 27876 in 1997.  Despite the disaster that was the 1995 season, attendance per game actually went up by about 6%.  The financial crisis of 2008 impacted attendance as MLB has still not recovered from it as avg attendance has more or less been flat since 2009 with slight decreases the past 2 years.  That of course can be attributed to people not having the money to go to games while ticket prices increased dramatically.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml

And even if you factor in 1994 and that messed up season as well, avg attendance only really spiked for the two years 93 and 94.  By 96 it was where it was more or less in 92.

Share this post


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

Simply not correct.  Avg game attendance went from 25021 in 1995 to 26509 in 1996 and 27876 in 1997.  Despite the disaster that was the 1995 season, attendance per game actually went up by about 6%.  The financial crisis of 2008 impacted attendance as MLB has still not recovered from it as avg attendance has more or less been flat since 2009 with slight decreases the past 2 years.  That of course can be attributed to people not having the money to go to games while ticket prices increased dramatically.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml

Exactly, and attendance averaged in the 30k plus range in 1992 and 1993.  Not seeing what you're missing here.

Share this post


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

History tells us the owners are not going to lose anything in next few years.  Baseball attendance went up after the 95 strike.  Their attendance and revenue is massively higher now then it was then.  People are not going to hold them responsible for some virus that messed things up either.  And no one cares about them being "the only sport running".  Baseball has its fans, both avid and otherwise and that is not going to change because they play 48, 80 or even 0 games in a pandemic plagued year.

As to what number of games is "appropriate", at this point I do not see how anyone thinks it makes a big difference 48 vs 80.  It is a LOT less than a full season and the season is going to largely come down to a couple of month warm up\exhibition with so many teams making the playoffs that for all intents and purposes the regular season will be all but meaningless for the majority of the pre-season contenders.  All it will amount to is a way for the owners and players to recoup some money. 


From Wikipedia:

During the first days of the 1995 season, some fans remained irate at both players and owners.[39] Attendance at the games plummeted, as did television ratings, to a greater extent than during the last significant players strike in 1981.[40]

While a total of 50,010,016 fans had attended the 1,600 MLB regular season games played in 1994, averaging 31,256 per game,[41] a total of 50,416,880 fans attended the 2,016 games of the 1995 MLB regular season, for an average attendance of just 25,008 per game.[42] This represented a decline in average attendance of 20% from 1994 to 1995.[43]

 

 

I’d easily take the over on a 20% decline in attendance next year if there’s no season this year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, meh2 said:

I’d easily take the over on a 20% decline in attendance next year if there’s no season this year.

Yeah.

When at one point we were as high as 14% unemployment and 100,000 people died of Covid 19, there is going to be some major animosity over a labor dispute between millionaire athletes and billionaire owners not playing baseball because they couldn't cut up their share of the pie properly for each other's liking.

We're seeing it on this board, and these are some posters who are educated on the fiscal issues and are pragmatic about the results.  Comparatively most Joe Six Packs are going to be completely disgusted for a long period of time I'd suspect.

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attendance discussion about '90s baseball is irrelevant, IMO. This was before every sport was widely available, and you could watch any sport in any state anywhere. When we lost baseball in the '95, there wasn't something fans could pivot to. If baseball is cancelled and NBA essentially takes the entire MLB time slot, you can bet there will be plenty of MLB fans that may gravitate toward the NBA. Add in the NHL and even MLS, in which these leagues also seem to be taking on the traditional baseball window in their returns. Maybe there won't be a significant shift, but its something to consider that wasn't a factor during the last shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, iphone said:

i think the discussion on whose fault sort of misses an essential truth.

its going to be very bad for baseball long term if all the other sports can figure out how to play their games in offseason and baseball can't get it together for a shortened season.

i know both parties agree in the correctness of their position....and i won't dispute the arguments either side have.

but we all lose if they can't compromise.

Yeah.  All I hear is boo hiss on the billionaires and hurray for the millionaires.  That is like saying boo hiss on the guy who killed 4 people but hurray for the guy who only killed one person.  Yes bad example but it is late and this is what popped into my head.  Like Dumb and Dumber but here being Greedy and Even More Greedy.  Both sides are full of these greedy bastards who have way more money then they need for the rest of their lives.  Period.  Neither gets a pass.

And note I said "full of" as in the players making league minimum aren't millionaires and are excused from the statement above.  Though league minimum is way more than most working class Americans can earn over several of years so they aren't exactly suffering.

The players that are in dire straits are the minor leaguers that neither MLB NOR the Players Association gives a fig about.

Speaking of which it looks like Oakland's Ebenezer Scrooge got shamed into changing his tune:

Quote

Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Athletics have reversed course and will pay their minor leaguers through what would have been the end of the minor league season.

The Athletics were the only team in Major League Baseball to cut off pay for minor leaguers at the end of May. “I changed my mind after spending a lot of time talking to our team,” A's owner John Fisher told the Chronicle. “I concluded I’d made a mistake. I’ve listened to our fans and others, and there is no question that this is the right thing to do. We clearly got this decision wrong. These players represent our future and we will immediately begin paying our minor-league players. I take responsibility and I’m making it right."

Source: San Francisco Chronicle                 Jun 5, 2020, 7:10 PM ET

Translation:  "I'm a nasty old skinflint but got caught publicly being a total jerk so I'm now quickly trying to do some PR damage control by reversing course."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Rosenthal article on The Athletic states a July 4 start is “all but gone, and no end to this dispute is in sight.” I did hold out some hope something would get worked out. Might be time to start giving up a little.

https://theathletic.com/1857108/2020/06/06/rosenthal-a-july-4-return-is-all-but-gone-with-baseball-as-far-from-a-deal-as-ever/?source=user_shared_article

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a little fan outrage on social media would be helpful. Maybe the Tweeters can start a #f*ckbaseball hashtag and let that go viral so they can see people are fed up and ready to walk away. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 games is a joke. That's not a season and whoever wins win not be considered a champion. Not in my eyes anyway.. Might as well just start with the playoffs and let everyone in. More like a tournament. Every series is a best of 7 with the winner moving on. The owners and players split the money made.

Share this post


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

I think a little fan outrage on social media would be helpful. Maybe the Tweeters can start a #f*ckbaseball hashtag and let that go viral so they can see people are fed up and ready to walk away. 

I think what we're seeing is apathy.

Which should scare them more but probably won't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I think what we're seeing is apathy.

Which should scare them more but probably won't.

This.  They seem to take for granted that people will just be there in the end.  Most won't get angry,  they'll simply fade away to other interests. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheForearmShiver said:

I think a little fan outrage on social media would be helpful. Maybe the Tweeters can start a #f*ckbaseball hashtag and let that go viral so they can see people are fed up and ready to walk away. 

I am a firm believer that fans will return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I’ve said before, I fully expect to be watching Korean baseball on the 4th of July. 😡🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Baseball Batman said:

The owners are the bad guys in these negotiations. There should be no consideration by MLBPA of anything less than an 80-game season. 48 is ludicrous. These owners are crying about losing 326-million and showing no proof of those losses. And even if their numbers are correct, 326-million is about 10.8-million for each owner. That's a drop in the bucket for those in the billionaire club. To put it another way, that's about the cost of a number 4 starting pitcher. 

If youre going to basically copy/past an article you should link to it🤔

 

Im losing lots of sympathy for the players.

Theyve been offered full pro rate for a short season, but want more more more. I get it, but their pretending "oh we want to play for the american people" is bs. 

  • Like 3

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.