meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

It's a given that owners of anything are richer than the workers.  That's why capitalism sucks so bad.  

Owners should have the pie. They took all the risk. 50% of new businesses fail. 

Capitalism breeds ideas, inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

My point is that ownership is the one crying poverty and asking for concessions without proving it 

Even a 10 year old can understand, that no fans, concessions, etc, lead to no income there.

Players haven't shown at all they care about this.

Why not throw out a 10% cut?

If the owners refuse, then now they do look bad.

Share this post


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

100%. f--- these shady owners man. 

 

 Instead, we have minor leagues living on slave-like salaries 

 

These owners care about one thing: the bottom line. 

 

6 hours ago, CrypTviLL said:

f--- 'em, if they have to lose a little this year so be it. That's how it *should* be. 

Slave like salaries of 400 a week, is pretty close to Walmarts wage. Nobody is forcing these folks to go 

If you dont like your wage, you move on.

 

 

Of course owners care about the bottom line. If they dont, they will be sitting with you posting.

 

 

Why (should) it be that owners lose money?

Think how crazy that sounds.

 

 

If people want change, there's only one way. How you spend your money.

Boycott parks, merchandise, etc, then things will change.

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Why (should) it be that owners lose money?

Think how crazy that sounds.

 

 

This is the centerpiece of the argument IMO.

 

The player's position is basically "Prove you're losing money, show us the books."  With the implied reason that were the MLB to show true losses, the MLBPA would be willing to shoulder some of them.

 

The Owners have presented an argument that they will lose money, but when asked for the backup to show this, they refuse to show it.  The Owners are the one who wish to renegotiate a previous agreement.  Which stated they would pay a prorated share of the salaries.

 

The NBA had this fight a few years back, and has generally opened their books to their Player's association.  In cases where there are losses claimed there, there is far more trust from the NBAPA towards the owners.  Trust that's been earned.

 

The Players have repeatedly moved their numbers around and offered new tweaks.  The Owners every proposal is a different version of the same basic percentage, with negligible movement off their position of "The Season must cost X Dollars".

 

This is the outcome of the years and years of shenanigans by MLB Ownership against the MLBPA.  What other league has ANNUAL chaos regarding who gets to become an actually reasonably compensated Star when?  NBA/NHL/NFL Rookies sign a deal of X Length.  Then they are FA.  MiLB players technically NEVER have to become FA.

 

The players are probably being a bit more resistant than players in other leagues, but given their circumstances, it's easier to see why. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Even a 10 year old can understand, that no fans, concessions, etc, lead to no income there.

Players haven't shown at all they care about this.

Why not throw out a 10% cut?

If the owners refuse, then now they do look bad.

You just picked 10% because it was halfway between 20 and zero, not because it was in any way informed that 10% was the difference between baseball games being profitable or not.

So why is making that arbitrary call, with no knowledge on what that number actually looks like, the player's call, when the owners know exactly what that number is?

Why not just give your boss 10% of your check?  He says he needs it.  Trust him, he does.

Edited by JE7HorseGod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is both owners and players are absurdly privileged. The average MLB player gets paid nearly 5 million a year to play baseball and owners obviously have huge stacks as well. It really becomes an ego thing for both parties. That’s all it is at this point. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gohawks said:

The reality is both owners and players are absurdly privileged. The average MLB player gets paid nearly 5 million a year to play baseball and owners obviously have huge stacks as well. It really becomes an ego thing for both parties. That’s all it is at this point. 

 

Professional baseball players at the top of their sport certainly lead a privileged life.  But there are quite a few players on the 40 man roster that make less than a million dollars a year.  It feels like the other professional leagues are going to restart without this tug of war.

 

The owners just signed a billion dollar tv deal with Turner sports.  They don't need to be drawing a line in the sand this year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The reality is both owners and players are absurdly privileged. The average MLB player gets paid nearly 5 million a year to play baseball and owners obviously have huge stacks as well. It really becomes an ego thing for both parties. That’s all it is at this point. 

It's a matter of prospective.

Yes, the average MLB players salary is 800 times more than the average American.  That may be egregious to you.

But the average owner's net worth is 26,325 times more than the average American's

The money is going to go somewhere.  Why is it that this should be some sort of even handed decision that wouldn't even be taking place if the second group wasn't crying poverty?

Edited by JE7HorseGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 ....

Edited by Weekday Warrior
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Owners are the one who wish to renegotiate a previous agreement.

 

Wasn't the previous agreement prorated salaries based on there being fans in the stands though?

I know the owners agreed to give the players an advance up front. Along with that, they made the concession that players will accrue service time even if they don't play.

7 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

You just picked 10% because it was halfway between 20 and zero, not because it was in any way informed that 10% was the difference between baseball games being profitable or not.

So why is making that arbitrary call, with no knowledge on what that number actually looks like, the player's call, when the owners know exactly what that number is?

Why not just give your boss 10% of your check?  He says he needs it.  Trust him, he does.

 

It's the owner's money before it becomes yours though. And it only should become yours when you're an employee and provide a level of service for the company you work for.

The owners have agreed to pay salaries for games played. They agreed to the players accruing service time no matter what which is a lot of money. I get that their "offers" have been basically the same each time but worded differently, but can you honestly blame them? What concessions have the players made here?

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I feel like the players are tugging the owner's shirts saying "hey, I know there won't be as much revenue generated, but you're rich so gimme gimme gimme. You can handle it by "showing some good faith" and giving me money I didn't earn!" If you play 75 games, you should get paid for 75 games, not 162. If you play 50 games, you should get paid for 50 games, not 16. It blows my mind that the players don't get this concept.

That's literally the argument the players are making - that they should be paid commensurately based on their contract for the number of games played.

The owners are the ones who are counter offering for a lower percentage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am on the players side during all of this I am not sure why the fact that the players acknowledged that their would need to be a renegotiation if the economic landscape changed is being swept under the rug. I mean it was explained in that email that was leaked.

Share this post


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

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 ....

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying:

1.) It is within the owner's contractual rights to schedule a 50 game season if they want to.

And

2.) Regular Joe's are taking a pay cut even though their companies are profitable, why don't players?

If so, I would say...

1.) If the owners push it and the players file a grievance, I guess we'll find out.  But regardless of their legal rights, I think pushing this is a bad long term strategy for the viability of the game, so perhaps we're focused on two different points.

2.) I don't support the owners of the companies that those Regular Joe's work at any more than these owners and if someone has been forced into a pay cut by an ownership group that doesn't need to do it they should be pursuing alternatives with a company that is actually going to take care of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

While I am on the players side during all of this I am not sure why the fact that the players acknowledged that their would need to be a renegotiation if the economic landscape changed is being swept under the rug. I mean it was explained in that email that was leaked.

I guess that comes down to what your definition of "good faith" looks like.

I would generally agree that, of course, players and owners were both capable of greater compromise than the offers and trial balloons reported in the media.

However, at the end of the day the whole disputes originated from this point where the owners are saying, "we are hemorrhaging cash without the gate, we need a new deal so we don't lose our shirts."

Good faith to me suggests, since it is their appeal, they communicate what exactly the problem is, so the uniformed party has the tools they need to address it.  Is this an effort to keep the organization solvent, or a hardball renegotiate labor dispute?  It can't be both.

Share this post


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

That's literally the argument the players are making - that they should be paid commensurately based on their contract for the number of games played.

The owners are the ones who are counter offering for a lower percentage.

 

Yes. Because it will be with no fans in the stands. The agreement from March was based on there being fans in the stands to generate revenue, no? Without that revenue, there is less money to shell out to the players. So in this circumstance, the owners should agree to make all concessions and the players should make none? Got it.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I guess that comes down to what your definition of "good faith" looks like.

I would generally agree that, of course, players and owners were both capable of greater compromise than the offers and trial balloons reported in the media.

However, at the end of the day the whole disputes originated from this point where the owners are saying, "we are hemorrhaging cash without the gate, we need a new deal so we don't lose our shirts."

Good faith to me suggests, since it is their appeal, they communicate what exactly the problem is, so the uniformed party has the tools they need to address it.  Is this an effort to keep the organization solvent, or a hardball renegotiate labor dispute?  It can't be both.

Totally agree. Not sure why they couldn't work out a deferred salary plan. Players get 75% this year and the other 25% paid over 2 years or something like that. Owners would be able to cover that cost with one of their Ponzi schemes and this would all be done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Yes. Because it will be with no fans in the stands. The agreement from March was based on there being fans in the stands to generate revenue, no? Without that revenue, there is less money to shell out to the players. So in this circumstance, the owners should agree to make all concessions and the players should make none? Got it.

How much is that revenue?  To me this boils down to the simple fact that owners are asking for alms and are unwilling to share the information necessary for the people they are asking it for to make an informed decision.  That's not reasonable.

Share this post


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

 

However, at the end of the day the whole disputes originated from this point where the owners are saying, "we are hemorrhaging cash without the gate, we need a new deal so we don't lose our shirts."

 

What particular owner are you quoting here?

Share this post


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

 

What particular owner are you quoting here?

I'm paraphrasing.  Would you make the argument that the ask was fundamentally different?

Share this post


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

How much is that revenue?  To me this boils down to the simple fact that owners are asking for alms and are unwilling to share the information necessary for the people they are asking it for to make an informed decision.  That's not reasonable.

 

I have no idea.

It's common sense though, is it not? No fans, no ticket sales, etc. That's revenue that is lost, right? Therefor it should logically take away from the amount of money shared with employees (players).

 

To simplify things: Let's say players make $100 a year and play 10 games ($10 a game) and it comes out of $200 that the owners make through different means (tv deals, ticket sales, etc). The other $100 goes to the owners. Now there will be a season where that $200 is less (who knows EXACTLY how less, but we all agree it will be less). You think the players should still get their $100 and the owners should be the ones to take less in their cut?

 

Simple analogy, but I think you get the point. To me, it's the owner's profit. If I'm an owner and  the players aren't generating the same revenue for whatever reason, why should they get paid out of my pocket? Would it be good faith? Sure. But why am I required to do it just because I'm wealthy?

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm paraphrasing.  Would you make the argument that the ask was fundamentally different?

 

It's funny to me. You seem unwilling to make the logical assumption that there will be less money to go around because of there being no fans with the reason of "they wont open the books so no one really knows), but you're happy to misquote and make assumptions about what owners are saying as long as it supports your take.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have no idea.

That's my point.

No one does.  If someone says, "I have a problem, I need your help" good faith to me would be explaining the exact nature of the problem and specifically how I can address it.

That's where this went from being a request to help support the viability of the game to labor negotiation, and I don't see why they can have it both ways.

Share this post


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

 

It's funny to me. You seem unwilling to make the logical assumption that there will be less money to go around because of there being no fans with the reason of "they wont open the books so no one really knows), but you're happy to misquote and make assumptions about what owners are saying as long as it supports your anti owner's take on this.

That's not so much an answer to my question as more of an "attack me" type thing.

Share this post


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

That's my point.

No one does.  If someone says, "I have a problem, I need your help" good faith to me would be explaining the exact nature of the problem and specifically how I can address it.

That's where this went from being a request to help support the viability of the game to labor negotiation, and I don't see why they can have it both ways.

 

You conveniently ignored the rest of my post explaining how loss of ticket sales, etc are a loss of revenue. Based on everything you have said, you must disagree with it and that to me is mind boggling.

 

Yes, no one knows the EXACT dollar amount that will be lost by there being no fans in the stands, but isn't it common sense that there will be an amount of revenue that will not be generated due to no fans being in the stands?

I really can't fathom how this is being missed on your end?

 

3 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

That's not so much an answer to my question as more of an "attack me" type thing.

 

Not at all. I just find it interesting.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You completely ignored the rest of my post explaining how loss of ticket sales, etc are a loss of revenue. Based on everything you have said, you must disagree with it and that to me is mind boggling.

How can you address it with money if you don't know how much money it is?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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