meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, sjs1890 said:

A 48 game season is going to be fun lets get this thing started.

You are dreaming. They said nothing about that yet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well me may get  a few more games than 48 but not many more:

Quote

Jon Heyman of MLB Network reports that a schedule implemented by commissioner Rob Manfred would have a number of games that "start(s) with a five."

Well, that's... something. ESPN's Jeff Passan has reported that a Manfred-mandated schedule would consist of 48 games, but it appears we might get a few more games than that. The likelihood of Manfred exercising his right to implement a schedule is increasing by the day with MLB and the MLBPA continuing to bicker back and forth.

Source: Jon Heyman on Twitter                            Jun 14, 2020, 10:18 AM ET

And "bicker" is a perfect word for what they are doing.  As in bickering to me means petty selfish squabbling.  These negotiations aren't about the survival of the human race.  They are about rich folks arguing over how much more rich they "deserve."  The poorer MLB players and ALL minor leaguers aren't really part of this bickering because the Players Association doesn't give a damn about them.  Nope.  Rich and richer arguing over how many sports cars and vacation homes are enough to satisfy them.  Again, thank you Shakespeare as I quote him yet another time: "A plague on both your houses!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:

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?

A: Because of a long history of this sort of thing:

2015

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4x9eed/your-poor-baseball-team-owner-is-lying-to-you

2006

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/someone_is_lying_is_it_forbes.php

2020

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/parsing-mlbs-claim-of-a-4-billion-loss/

2001

https://www.espn.com/gammons/s/2001/1110/1276295.html

 

B: Because in this case they suspect (and the owners will not provide the data to validate) that the "Losses" cried about by the owners are only if you view the "Revenue" through a very specific tight lens.

 

MUCH of the $ generated by Sport is NOT considered "Revenue" for terms of the agreement with the Players Union.  One MAJOR example is Local TV.

Say hypothetically, the Yankees WOULD lose the stated $640k per game played in lost gate Rev, and concession sales ect.

This does not for half a second consider the fact that they would STILL be bringing in the value of the Local TV deal, and that the Yankees organization as a whole is well in the black.

 

There are probably 100 pages devoted to defining revenue in the agreement, cutting bits of this and all of that out of the "Shared" pie.  The general complaint is one of "Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses".  Basically, when revenue goes UP, Ownership does EVERYTHING in their power to retain 100% of that to themselves, including lots of self-dealing.  But when there's a thing which causes revenue to go DOWN...  Well, NOW all of a sudden everyone's "Partners".

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

The poorer MLB players and ALL minor leaguers aren't really part of this bickering because the Players Association doesn't give a damn about them.

That assertion isn't supported by data.

The average MLB salary is 4 million.  Forbes's best guess (because no one knows, because ownership doesn't want them to) as to the average annual revenue for an MLB team is 330 million.  330 million divided by 26 is 12.7 million.  4 million times 26 is 107 million.

These are the facts.

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Heretic said:

A: Because of a long history of this sort of thing:

2015

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4x9eed/your-poor-baseball-team-owner-is-lying-to-you

2006

https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/someone_is_lying_is_it_forbes.php

2020

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/parsing-mlbs-claim-of-a-4-billion-loss/

2001

https://www.espn.com/gammons/s/2001/1110/1276295.html

 

B: Because in this case they suspect (and the owners will not provide the data to validate) that the "Losses" cried about by the owners are only if you view the "Revenue" through a very specific tight lens.

 

MUCH of the $ generated by Sport is NOT considered "Revenue" for terms of the agreement with the Players Union.  One MAJOR example is Local TV.

Say hypothetically, the Yankees WOULD lose the stated $640k per game played in lost gate Rev, and concession sales ect.

This does not for half a second consider the fact that they would STILL be bringing in the value of the Local TV deal, and that the Yankees organization as a whole is well in the black.

 

There are probably 100 pages devoted to defining revenue in the agreement, cutting bits of this and all of that out of the "Shared" pie.  The general complaint is one of "Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses".  Basically, when revenue goes UP, Ownership does EVERYTHING in their power to retain 100% of that to themselves, including lots of self-dealing.  But when there's a thing which causes revenue to go DOWN...  Well, NOW all of a sudden everyone's "Partners".


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?

Share this post


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


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?

They seem pot committed to paying players for 50 games worth of work regardless of how many games they play, which is why the prorated proposals ultimately reflected 100% pro rata for 50 games but varied in the actual number of games.

This position of course can't be assessed as equitable based on their projected "losses" because, again, they don't share that information.  They're a charitable foundation that benefits billionaires in need.  Just don't ask them to disclose financials.  Dig deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:


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?

Because they are using this as a point of leverage for the upcoming CBA negotiation.

If they're not going to show their work, I'm VERY willing to hear the statement that they're crying poor to win long term.

Ownership is interested in making money.  Whether that's done by playing baseball or not playing baseball in this instance is only something their accountants can tell us.

And the fact that EVERY one of their offers in the "Negotiation" was basically the same thing, makes it less a negotiation than something from a cartoon.  They decided in March what they wanted, and have only altered the optics around their unchanging position.

 

Also: The Playoff revenue and Regular Season revenue are not shared in the same fashion.  I don't have exact numbers but it's far more tilted towards the owners in the Postseason.  IIRC in the usual contract a player only gets a "Playoff Share" which has NOTHING to do with their actual contracts.

 

A 50 game season cost with a now EXPANDED playoff, is a huge profit opportunity.

Edited by Heretic
ETA: Also portion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor is that there are separate, extremely more lucrative (on a per game basis) national television contracts for the post season than for the regular season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That assertion isn't supported by data.

The average MLB salary is 4 million.  Forbes's best guess (because no one knows, because ownership doesn't want them to) as to the average annual revenue for an MLB team is 330 million.  330 million divided by 26 is 12.7 million.  4 million times 26 is 107 million.

These are the facts.

So the facts prove that they are all rich so who cares who is richer than another rich person.  My point has been proved.  Both sides are total greed heads because greed is greed whether at 4 mil or 107 mil.  Same difference in the end.  They got theirs already so the players should stop playing like they are actually blue collar union workers.  This isn't Harlan, bloody Harlan and the owners are shooting them down with Pinkerton agents.

It's a given that owners of anything are richer than the workers.  That's why capitalism sucks so bad.  But to me for rich players to cloak themselves as some sort of workers cause is a horrible disservice to every real working man and woman in this country that is struggling from paycheck to paycheck.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Big Bat Theory said:

So the facts prove that they are all rich so who cares who is richer than another rich person.  My point has been proved.  Both sides are total greed heads.

My point is that ownership is the one crying poverty and asking for concessions without proving it and the players are asking to be paid what their contracts are worth and play a reasonable amount of games.

I don't think "both sides" is equitable when one side is being unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

Both sides are unreasonable.

Not in my opinion.

I don't really see why it's the players' responsibility to just lay down and die for whatever the owners are asking for, just because they are claiming losses they are unwilling to show their work on.

Edited by JE7HorseGod
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not in my opinion.

I don't really see why it's the players' responsibility to just lay down and die for whatever the owners are asking for, just because they are claiming losses they are unwilling to show their work on.

100%. f--- these shady owners man. 

People like to act like the players have some fault here too, but come the f--- on, if the owners just saddled up and actually cared about the sport, we'd have baseball right now. Instead, we have minor leagues living on slave-like salaries and the game is completely corrupted with money related issues stemming from those in power (blackout games, etc.). 

These owners care about one thing: the bottom line. 

f--- 'em, if they have to lose a little this year so be it. That's how it *should* be. Instead, their holding out this shitstorm so they don't lose money (they'll probably profit massively somehow) and f--- us all over. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not in my opinion.

I don't really see why it's the players' responsibility to just lay down and die for whatever the owners are asking for, just because they are claiming losses they are unwilling to show their work on.

They are not laying down and dying.  They are still getting paid millions.  They are not going to their actual graves as working class heroes.  Yes, I get it.  You hate the owners.  I'm not fond of the ultra rich either but this isn't some sort of social justice crusade.  This is just a petty quarrel between the rich.  Meanwhile us fans just want some baseball back instead of a bunch of 4-year olds on both sides whining away like the spoiled brats they all are.  The endless pointing fingers and playing the blame game doesn't do diddly to get the game back.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

They are not laying down and dying.  They are still getting paid millions.  They are not going to their actual graves as working class heroes.  Yes, I get it.  You hate the owners.  I'm not fond of the ultra rich either but this isn't some sort of social justice crusade.  This is just a petty quarrel between the rich.  Meanwhile us fans just want some baseball back instead of a bunch of 4-year olds on both sides whining away like the spoiled brats they all are.  The endless pointing fingers and playing the blame game doesn't do diddly to get the game back.

All of the platitudes aside, I'm asking you, what would you have had the MLBPA do in order to rectify this situation that they did not do?  It seems to me the alternatives were to play 50 games on a fully pro rated salary or to play more than 50 games for the same amount of money.  The owners have not moved from this position at all.  So what alternative was available to them that they declined that was actually a compromise and not giving the owners everything they wanted?

It seems to me you just want to arbitrarily assign some sort of 50/50 split of accountability for where we are at and have people agree with you.  I don't.  Owners should have honored their agreement and scheduled a reasonable amount of games.  If they don't want to honor that agreement, in my mind, it's on them to show cause.  Quoting Banquo a million times isn't going to change my mind on that.

Edited by JE7HorseGod
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercutio.  Shoot.  8th grade English teacher would not be pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:

The owners did offer more total guaranteed money than what a 50 game season would yield to the players

When?  Do the math on the pro rate and # of game offers.  It's all equal to 100% for 50 games.  75% for 78 games is the same amount.

18 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:

....other than expanded playoffs what did the players actually offer that represented compromise? 

Differal of postseason salaries, reduced the number of games from 116 to 78, pay a portion of minor leaguer salaries that the owners didn't...

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


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

When?  Do the math on the pro rate and # of game offers.  It's all equal to 100% for 50 games.  75% for 78 games is the same amount.

Differal of postseason salaries, reduced the number of games from 116 to 78, pay a portion of minor leaguer salaries that the owners didn't...

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....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Weekday Warrior said:

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....

 

The 7% increase would translate to approx. 330 million for the entire league, or roughly 500k per player for an additional 27 games.  Obviously that skews towards the bigger contract guys so it hardly moves the needle for an overwhelming majority of players, and in the end, why should they accept a 20% haircut out of the goodness of their hearts when ownership refuses to demonstrate why they need this money so bad?

An interest free loan, for two years, so that they could basically have their greatest revenue draw of the year, TV money in the postseason, completely free of labor costs.  And that's what this whole thing has been about, right?  The poor owners can't afford their bills to their players because of lost gate?

Unless it's really been about one more strong arm attempt to leverage a global pandemic into a better deal than the one they already agreed to.

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


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

The 7% increase would translate to approx. 330 million for the entire league, or roughly 500k per player for an additional 27 games.  Obviously that skews towards the bigger contract guys so it hardly moves the needle for an overwhelming majority of players, and in the end, why should they accept a 20% haircut out of the goodness of their hearts when ownership refuses to demonstrate why they need this money so bad?

An interest free loan, for two years, so that they could basically have their greatest revenue draw of the year, TV money in the postseason, completely free of labor costs.  And that's what this whole thing has been about, right?  The poor owners can't afford their bills to their players because of lost gate?

Unless it's really been about one more strong arm attempt to leverage a global pandemic into a better deal than the one they already agreed to.


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....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Owners are being more un-reasonable because they have the edge in leverage. This is just the nature of the beast. Don't see it as one side is better then another. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Weekday Warrior said:


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....

I don't think it's so much "why should the players have to compromise" as much as "the owners have floated nonstarter, trial balloon ideas like rev share and trying to sell the same piece of crud offer three different ways, and they are the ones crying poverty without even giving an inkling to people what they actually need when they say 'losses.'"

You can't simultaneously hold the positions of, "we're going to take a huge bath this year and we need your help" and also, "let's see the labor deal of our wildest dreams" in good faith.

It's just a totally toxic fiscal environment that other professional leagues don't have to deal with and it's going to haunt them until they approach it fundamentally differently, and their positioning has absolutely held them back here.

Share this post


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

I don't think it's so much "why should the players have to compromise" as much as "the owners have floated nonstarter, trial balloon ideas like rev share and trying to sell the same piece of crud offer three different ways, and they are the ones crying poverty without even giving an inkling to people what they actually need when they say 'losses.'"

You can't simultaneously hold the positions of, "we're going to take a huge bath this year and we need your help" and also, "let's see the labor deal of our wildest dreams" in good faith.

It's just a totally toxic fiscal environment that other professional leagues don't have to deal with and it's going to haunt them until they approach it fundamentally differently, and their positioning has absolutely held them back here.

Im with this.  Those offers were so obviously and absurdly the same thing with different words.  Just a waste of very precious time to approach this situation like this.  

Owners were like,  hey let's get em, we got the leverage! Gate costs,  ya!

 

When they should've been like hey,  the entire damn sports world is watching dominoes championship reruns right now,  let's carpe freakin diem! Every sports fan in the universe is watching our product! 

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.