meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

Just now, ThreadKiller said:

 

They didn't offer  reducing their pay though. The reason for not playing 162 isn't the players choice. It's the pandemics.

Dude, in the same thought you say the players made concessions going from 162 to 89 but then concede that it's because of the pandemic. I'm sorry, I just can't label that as this generous concession on the players side.

Like I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree if that's your position.

Share this post


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


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.

 

This. I just can't agree that that is in any way a generous concession made by the players. It's due to the pandemic.

Share this post


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


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.

It's certainly a fantasy if you're unwilling to work it out, because the end of the rainbow for you is paying players for 50 games worth of regular season work and an expanded postseason while taking in billions in guaranteed money through TV deals.

I wouldn't call it "good faith" but perhaps the end result of the grievance will render it legal.  Perhaps we'll find out.

Share this post


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

Like I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree if that's your position.

 

If what is my position? That going from 162 to ____ wasn't really a concession but due to the pandemic? That's not really my opinion though. That's what happened...

 

In a perfect world, the players should get paid their full PER GAME salary. This is not a cut to their salary since their season salaries are based on 162 game seasons I believe.

HOWEVER, in case of economic hardship, I think it's fair to renegotiate a contract due to a pandemic in the event that revenue is lost due to reasons caused by said pandemic.

 

I feel like the players are refusing to budge at all on this and have the mentality of "well, the owners are rich so they can afford it". I just think that mentality is wrong and entitled.

Are the owners showing entitlement too? Sure, they are showing that they are entitled to THEIR money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

At the end of the day though, both sides screwed up (Whether you think it was more the players or the owners fault doesn't matter). They have squandered a HUGE opportunity in a time when baseball could have been at the forefront.

 

I think a lot of people are going to be turned away. The lunatics like us who play fantasy sports won't be, but you can bet the more casual fans will be. And they all have themselves to blame at the end of the day.

Edited by ThreadKiller
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

If what is my position? That going from 162 to ____ wasn't really a concession but due to the pandemic? That's not really my opinion though. That's what happened...

 

In a perfect world, the players should get paid their full PER GAME salary. This is not a cut to their salary since their season salaries are based on 162 game seasons I believe.

HOWEVER, in case of economic hardship, I think it's fair to renegotiate a contract due to a pandemic in the event that revenue is lost due to reasons caused by said pandemic.

 

I feel like the players are refusing to budge at all on this and have the mentality of "well, the owners are rich so they can afford it". I just think that mentality is wrong and entitled.

Are the owners showing entitlement too? Sure, they are showing that they are entitled to THEIR money.

Part and parcel of the offers and counter offers have been about the number of games played.

So how is it that 89 games at 75% pro rata is a reasonable concession and 89 games at 100% pro rata is a fantasy unavailable because of a global pandemic.

It's not about the schedule, it's about the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could have easily played over 100 games if they agreed on money and set a date of July 4th. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's not about the schedule, it's about the money.

 

This is something we can certainly agree on. It's all definitely about the money.

 

Baseball needs an overhaul with the new CBA. To start, I think a salary cap and floor would do wonders for the league but thats a conversation for a different day/thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, duke of queens said:

They could have easily played over 100 games if they agreed on money and set a date of July 4th. 

I think that's a given.

What would have seemed a equitable short term solution to me is:

1.) Owners disclose their expected per game gate loss, and show their work.

2.) Players defer that percentage of their pro rata til next season.

3.) Owners and players discuss how many games they can get in and the logistics.

But 1 would need to happen first.

Edited by JE7HorseGod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It's certainly a fantasy if you're unwilling to work it out, because the end of the rainbow for you is paying players for 50 games worth of regular season work and an expanded postseason while taking in billions in guaranteed money through TV deals.

I wouldn't call it "good faith" but perhaps the end result of the grievance will render it legal.  Perhaps we'll find out.


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!
 

 

Share this post


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

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!

That would not seem in accordance with the idea that both owners and players discussed 89 games.

The schedule argument to me is a red herring.

Share this post


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

 

This is something we can certainly agree on. It's all definitely about the money.

 

Baseball needs an overhaul with the new CBA. To start, I think a salary cap and floor would do wonders for the league but thats a conversation for a different day/thread.

Yes I agree with that.

To me it starts with trust.  Owners disclose financials, everyone gets on the same page with whats to be made and lost with rev share, league enters into a real partnership, league institutes salary cap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That would not seem in accordance with the idea that both owners and players discussed 89 games.

The schedule argument to me is a red herring.

I was speaking to the notion that players agreeing to a less than 162 game season could somehow be classified as a “concession”...

Share this post


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

I was speaking to the notion that players agreeing to a less than 162 game season could somehow be classified as a “concession”...

What I'm saying is, regardless of whether there is 162 games played or 0 games played, MLB Owners are still getting 1 billion dollars from Nike.

Regardless of how many regular season games are played, they still signed a 1 billion dollar deal for postseason games with Turner.

It's only the player's stake which is solely dictated by schedule.  Yes the owners will have per game losses based on lost games, but ALL of the players losses are dictated on a per game basis.  That's the nature of the way this discussion has gone.  Players gave up 45% of what they expected to make and some people don't even see it as a concession.  Owners claim they are losing some amount of undisclosed revenue based on gate and total games lost but they still have a lifeboat, and some people are saying they're trying to meet in the middle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What I'm saying is, regardless of whether there is 162 games played or 0 games played, MLB Owners are still getting 1 billion dollars from Nike.

Regardless of how many regular season games are played, they still signed a 1 billion dollar deal for postseason games with Turner.

It's only the player's stake which is solely dictated by schedule.  Yes the owners will have per game losses based on lost games, but ALL of the players losses are dictated on a per game basis.  That's the nature of the way this discussion has gone.  Players gave up 45% of what they expected to make and some people don't even see it as a concession.  Owners claim they are losing some amount of undisclosed revenue based on gate and total games lost but they still have a lifeboat, and some people are saying they're trying to meet in the middle.


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...

 

Share this post


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


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...

 

Yeah I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  To me it seems like you are saying players had no reasonable expectation to collect their per game salary, but owners have a reasonable expectation to mitigate their per game losses by taking that money away from the players, and to me, though it may be found "legal" is not in the spirit of a good faith conversation.

Share this post


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

Yeah I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.  To me it seems like you are saying players had no reasonable expectation to collect their per game salary, but owners have a reasonable expectation to mitigate their per game losses by taking that money away from the players, and to me, though it may be found "legal" is not in the spirit of a good faith conversation.

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.  

Share this post


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

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.  

And what I'm saying is that what the owners are claiming they are trying to mitigate, which is total revenue losses, is in part unaffected based on the schedule, while the players, position is entirely tied to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, urban2014 said:

Don't you think that the owners and the baseball players did this cause of Covid 19. They can wait it out till August when supposedly there will be a cure. Not saying that's how they feel, but it's fitting 

Cure?

Doubt a vaccine happens anytime soon.

At any rate, you cant force people to get one.

And they are far from 100%

 

Share this post


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

And what I'm saying is that what the owners are claiming they are trying to mitigate, which is total revenue losses, is in part unaffected based on the schedule, while the players, position is entirely tied to it.


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

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

So?

This mindset that people have about wealthy people owing them something because "well, they have the money" is one of the problems in America. It's their money.

I have been preaching this for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duke of queens said:

What do the players owe the owners? They are the ones taking the risk and actually providing the service. 

A big thank you.

Without owners, you have no mega salaries.

You have players going around barn storming for money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duke of queens said:

They didn't ask for their full salary is a big concession.

You serious?

Salaries are based on 162 game schedule with fans.

If I pay you 50 bucks to mow my yard, and you mow half of it, you get 25 bucks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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


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

Let me try one more way.

Owners are saying they will lose a percentage of revenue from gate.  Been estimated at 30% of total revenue, that's not concrete obviously, but let's go with it.

Owners expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their revenue for this year.  Covid hits.

Owners say, "we're going to lose this revenue stream (30%) for an entire season."  They still have guaranteed money from TV and uniform deals, and other revenue streams.

Owners say, "we expected to have this money, now we don't.  Therefore, we can't pay you what your expectation was."

Players expectation pre-Covid was to make 100% of their salary for this year.  Covid hits.

Players say, "we understand that we're both losing money off this deal.  Obviously we're not going to be playing 162, we will agree to be paid for however many games are played."

Players offer a set number of games that would require owners to pay first 70% of what they originally expected, then 55%.

Both sides are giving up money from what they originally expected.  No concession, to me, would be for the players to say, "70% of your revenue stream is guaranteed.  Regardless of how many games we play, pay us our 162 game salary."

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.