meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

Just now, ThreadKiller said:

 

No need for the all caps since no one ever said it was, chief.

 

Everyone with any sense can understand that it's a factor.

Lol.

I was responding in kind.  The players do not need to concede their variable factor against the owners fixed factor in order for it to be good faith.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Lol.

I was responding in kind.  The players do not need to concede their variable factor against the owners fixed factor in order for it to be good faith.

 

You weren't. Responding in kind would mean reiterating something that is obvious and already been stated multiple times (which is what I did).

Share this post


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

 

You weren't. Responding in kind would mean reiterating something that is obvious and already been stated multiple times (which is what I did).

I'm not really interested in a discussion about linguistic styles or posters' attitudes.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

It wasn't my lawn example, but ok...?

At least we can agree that money will be lost. No one knows how much, but common sense tells us it will be something.

In my opinion, the logical thing to do is this:

Hey, we know that the previous salaries were based on x, y & z. Now that z is no longer part of the equation, we need to revise what these salaries are.

That's all I'm saying needs to happen, but it seems like some of you are (speaking in generalities here) of the mindset of "I don't care if the owners have any loss, they should pay the players no matter what bc they are wealthy and they should have planned for this.

I think that stance wreaks of entitlement.

I agree with that entirely, and I don't hear most people saying "IDGAF bout the owners", I hear most of it being more of a "Other sports do X and Y, why can't MLB?"

 

The rage I personally have for the owners is purely one of being disingenuous.  If they want a cost reduction to X dollars, don't frame multiple "offers" like "Didn't like 20?  How bout 2 10s? 4 5s?"  Come out and say it, take the heat and move on in the negotiation (which in my opinion, the players are right to ask for a books opening during).

Share this post


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

My stance is simply this: There will be less revenue so therefore it makes sense to revisit the previously agreed to amounts of money that is paid on a per game basis (players should be paid per game played). Reason being that the numbers were previously agreed to based on a set of circumstances that are no longer the circumstances.

 

@JE7HorseGod

 

This is my take simplified. I still can't understand how you can so adamantly disagree with this.

Share this post


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

I agree with that entirely, and I don't hear most people saying "IDGAF bout the owners", I hear most of it being more of a "Other sports do X and Y, why can't MLB?"

 

The rage I personally have for the owners is purely one of being disingenuous.  If they want a cost reduction to X dollars, don't frame multiple "offers" like "Didn't like 20?  How bout 2 10s? 4 5s?"  Come out and say it, take the heat and move on in the negotiation (which in my opinion, the players are right to ask for a books opening during).

 

This I can agree with.

 

I tend to site with the owners in the sense that, it's their money. Just because they are wealthy doesn't mean "well, they can afford it". On one hand, I understand why they stuck to their original offer while changing the language (bc they shouldn't have to budge more than they have IMO), but on the other hand, it would have been easier to admit it rather than play this game and participating in dragging this thing on and on.

 

We just need baseball.

Share this post


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

 

@JE7HorseGod

 

This is my take simplified. I still can't understand how you can so adamantly disagree with this.

I'm not.

I'm saying it's impossible to "revisit" in good faith until we know how much "less revenue" that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, some States have stated that a % of fans will be allowed to attend games if a season were to occur, no? Texas and some others have stated such, If so, I'd assume that this information, or knowledge, would make the negotiations on the owners side about no fans in the stands being a HUGE financial loss needing to be amended to reflect a revenue gain, not a 100% loss. So, where do they go from there?  That is only if this information is correct of course, if not, well,.... back to the bickering...

Share this post


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

I'm not.

I'm saying it's impossible to "revisit" in good faith until we know how much "less revenue" that is.

 

You have been clearly disagreeing with me actually...

Either way, glad to see you come around finally.

Share this post


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

If I'm not mistaken, some States have stated that a % of fans will be allowed to attend games if a season were to occur, no? Texas and some others have stated such, If so, I'd assume that this information, or knowledge, would make the negotiations on the owners side about no fans in the stands being a HUGE financial loss needing to be amended to reflect a revenue gain, not a 100% loss. So, where do they go from there?  That is only if this information is correct of course, if not, well,.... back to the bickering...

 

It would have to be all states though, right? Just because Texas comes out and says they will allow fans doesn't mean it will happen (or at least it shouldn't).

 

All teams should be allowed the same amount of fans. If team A allows fans but team B won't yet, then the league should side with team B and allow fans otherwise it wouldn't be fair. At least in my opinion that is...

Share this post


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

 

It would have to be all states though, right? Just because Texas comes out and says they will allow fans doesn't mean it will happen (or at least it shouldn't).

 

All teams should be allowed the same amount of fans. If team A allows fans but team B won't yet, then the league should side with team B and allow fans otherwise it wouldn't be fair. At least in my opinion that is...

I think that would actually be an interesting experiment on Home Field Advantage.

 

ARE the Fans a boost?  How much?  How much is Stadium Layout ect?  Season's fubared as far as historical stats go anyway.  Who really cares if it's the usual level of "Fair".  The reduction in games already alters that.

Edited by Heretic

Share this post


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

 

You have been clearly disagreeing with me actually...

Either way, glad to see you come around finally.

I haven't changed my position, this is literally what I've been saying in this thread for months.

I have no idea how you interpreted that I meant something else.

Share this post


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

I think that would actually be an interesting experiment on Home Field Advantage.

 

ARE the Fans a boost?  How much?  How much is Stadium Layout ect?

 

That's a different discussion though. At the end of the day, it needs to be fair and equal IMO.

Share this post


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

I haven't changed my position, this is literally what I've been saying in this thread for months.

I have no idea how you interpreted that I meant something else.

 

LOL ok. Then why have you been arguing every point I have made that literally points to that?

Share this post


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

 

LOL ok. Then why have you been arguing every point I have made that literally points to that?

Perhaps we've been misinterpreting each other's positions?

Share this post


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

 

NO. THEY. HAVEN'T.

 

It's not a concession if the pandemic is what is behind the 162 game season being a much lesser number. That is something that is mandated so therefor it's not a concession made by the players.

Owners: "Here's a salary based on a 162 game season."

Now there is a pandemic causing the 162 game season to now be 50.

Players: "Ok, ok, ok. You can pay us for the 50 games and not 162."

How anyone can look at that and think it's a generous concession made by the players rather than an inevitability based on reality. is mind boggling lol.

The Collective Barging agreement was about X revenue sharing. Not about how many games they played. MLB has revenue that is independent of X games play into the equation. That is why this logic does not fly.

Major sports do NOT operate under a normal business model. Normal business model allows an employee to quit and join a competitor at any time. Universal Player Contracts do not allow free will employment. It ties them to one team. The players gave away those rights for benefits, like being able to scale pay based off revenue.

Edited by Slatykamora
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The Collective Barging agreement was about X revenue sharing. Not about how many games they played. MLB has revenue that is independent of X games play into the equation. That is why this logic does not fly.

Major sports do NOT operate under a normal business model. Normal business model allows an employee to quit and join a competitor at any time. Universal Player Contracts do not allow free will employment. It ties them to one team. The players gave away those rights for benefits, like being able to scale pay based off revenue.

 

I don't think anyone said that the CBA was about how many games are played, but thanks for the insight!

Edited by ThreadKiller

Share this post


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

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.

And they could have gotten in 162 if they figured out the money early. Could have started playing in June with double-headers once or twice a week and went into October. Just about every state has reopened in some capacity and a lot with sporting events without fans. Some, like Florida, has had live horse racing without fans all throughout the pandemic. 

Share this post


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

 

It would have to be all states though, right? Just because Texas comes out and says they will allow fans doesn't mean it will happen (or at least it shouldn't).

 

All teams should be allowed the same amount of fans. If team A allows fans but team B won't yet, then the league should side with team B and allow fans otherwise it wouldn't be fair. At least in my opinion that is...

Interesting take, however, not all ball parks are the same size, so the equal aspect is a non factor here, it's been proposed as a percentage, not an actual set number of fans league wide....

I'm curious to your take as far as, if there is a season, and Texas does allow fans, should Texas and Houston owners factor in the fans in attendance when negotiating with their ball players? Or do they get to negotiate as do the other owners factoring in zero gate? Thus pocketing all the gate monies that the other owners don't?  To me, this is a very interesting development that should be addressed by all the owners...Another question about fans in attendance that I have zero knowledge and hope to be enlightened by those that do, do they share gate monies with the visiting club? or does it 100% stay with the home owner? Serious question...if shared, that also needs to be included in these negotiations as revenues by the owners.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players are 100% more wrong here than owners. The players are lucky there’s even a season at all and that they get paid any amount let alone millions. They play a kids game throwing and hitting a ball. Guys like Snell are real douche bags they could care less that many clubs are supporting employees with pay and that many employees are laid off. 100% the players are wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, duke of queens said:

And they could have gotten in 162 if they figured out the money early. Could have started playing in June with double-headers once or twice a week and went into October. Just about every state has reopened in some capacity and a lot with sporting events without fans. Some, like Florida, has had live horse racing without fans all throughout the pandemic. 

I think if they wanted to start out with an equally unreasonable position as the owners first floated with revenue share without financial disclosures, a good place to start would have been, "schedule and/or pay us for 162 games."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND, what happens, if, as the summer goes on, that more states allow fans to attend games? do the player get to renegotiate in-season since the numbers will change as far as gate revenues go? Thus negating the stance that the owners have taken about zero gate and concessions revenues? that would give the owners a whole lot more money, no? 

Admittedly, this only concerns Texas and Houston as of today, but down the line? hmmmm

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

AND, what happens, if, as the summer goes on, that more states allow fans to attend games? do the player get to renegotiate in-season since the numbers will change as far as gate revenues go? Thus negating the stance that the owners have taken about zero gate and concessions revenues? that would give the owners a whole lot more money, no? 

Admittedly, this only concerns Texas and Houston as of today, but down the line? hmmmm

Seems likely at this point the forced agreement will be 50ish games at 100% pro rata with an expanded postseason.  No real way to renegotiate that as you probably can't expand the schedule mid season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whitecloud0101 said:

50 games to be announced today

I bet it will be "50-something".  Manfred will give just enough to the players to make it look like he's trying, but still very much siding with the owners.

I'll set the over/under at 54.5.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that scenario, the owners would be able to pocket all monies from the gate, which they're arguing that they'll receive zero gate monies.. It seems that the scales will tip, very favorable in their favor, if/when that happens...and some say the players are the greedy ones....

So, as of today, if a season were to take place,Texas owners, Rangers/Houston, will get to pocket all gate revenues from fans while paying their players as though they receive zero...seems like it in good faith to me..

  • Like 1

Share this post


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