Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[ptatc]

23 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Let there be issues. There was going to be a fight anyway. The owners could have made it a bit better by actually taking some risk here.Caving to ownership isn’t a solid strategy, especially when they won’t prove their claims. If the person or corporation owning the place you work said we didn’t make any money this month, next month looks bad, in fact the next year looks not so hot, we I’ll pay you 1/3 of your salary to work 1/2 the time, I am sure they would be tickled you understood and were on board covering for them. I am guessing most of your colleagues would flee.

The owners are taking the majority of the risk,economically,  by the chance there wont be playoffs. If the players had a proposal of deceased prorated pay if there were no playoffs but full prorated pay if there were playoffs it would be different. But the players didnt want that risk. Which is there right but I'm sure the union just turned up the tension for the CBA which they can do as well.

When the state did not give the university money during the budget impasse a few years ago we did renegotiate our CBA. The union realized that if we dont help out there could be serious consequences for the university.  We did take a pay cut to ensure that instructors and staff were not laid off. We also took no raises for 2 years in an attempt to make up those lost millions. Both sides gave some for the benefit of the students and the university. 

[ptatc]

29 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

Some of you must have sore backs carrying water for the owners. There is so much supposition on this thread, without having any facts in evidence.

 

We all want to have MLB on TV this year. But I can't feature the socialization of losses for a group of @ssh0les that have all the advantages that MLB owners have. 

 

Carry on, then...

You must not have read much of the thread I dont think there has been one person who has said the owners are right and the players are wrong.

[Dick Allen]

40 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The owners are taking the majority of the risk,economically,  by the chance there wont be playoffs. If the players had a proposal of deceased prorated pay if there were no playoffs but full prorated pay if there were playoffs it would be different. But the players didnt want that risk. Which is there right but I'm sure the union just turned up the tension for the CBA which they can do as well.

When the state did not give the university money during the budget impasse a few years ago we did renegotiate our CBA. The union realized that if we dont help out there could be serious consequences for the university.  We did take a pay cut to ensure that instructors and staff were not laid off. We also took no raises for 2 years in an attempt to make up those lost millions. Both sides gave some for the benefit of the students and the university. 

If JR, who, according to Forbes made $66 million with the White Sox last year, and has often said his only goal was to break even, shared that profit with players and White Sox employees, you may have a point. 

[Ducksnort]

Well...what do you all think next steps are? MLB formally sends instructions to teams on when to start the spring training? I would guess that now the focus needs to shift to how the players are going to be kept as safe as possible from Covid.

[hi8is]

Too bad we can’t orchestrate a massive fan strike and let the owners know no one will go to any in person games next year if they don’t play an 82 game season this year.

?

[SonofaRoache]

1 hour ago, hi8is said:

Too bad we can’t orchestrate a massive fan strike and let the owners know no one will go to any in person games next year if they don’t play an 82 game season this year.

?

This has been discussed and is an option. Fans need to get serious to avoid a strike in '22 as well. 

[hi8is]

[SoxBlanco]

So when does everybody expect things to be finalized? Something has to happen this week, right?

[ptatc]

14 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

So when does everybody expect things to be finalized? Something has to happen this week, right?

There was a report on the radio this morning that a meeting for the owners was happening today.

[hogan873]

37 minutes ago, ptatc said:

There was a report on the radio this morning that a meeting for the owners was happening today.

They are supposed to decide to either make one more offer or just let Manfred institute the shortened season.  I would hazard to guess that a shortened season of about 52-55 games will be implemented.

[Ducksnort]

13 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

They are supposed to decide to either make one more offer or just let Manfred institute the shortened season.  I would hazard to guess that a shortened season of about 52-55 games will be implemented.

So dumb. We'll get through one month of games and we'll be like, damn season's almost over already. 

2nd wave of virus is coming, probably already here... I love baseball more than the next guy, but maybe they should just cancel it. Is 50 games really worth it?

[Squirmin' for Yermin]

6 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

So dumb. We'll get through one month of games and we'll be like, damn season's almost over already. 

2nd wave of virus is coming, probably already here... I love baseball more than the next guy, but maybe they should just cancel it. Is 50 games really worth it?

Yes.

[ptatc]

24 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

So dumb. We'll get through one month of games and we'll be like, damn season's almost over already. 

2nd wave of virus is coming, probably already here... I love baseball more than the next guy, but maybe they should just cancel it. Is 50 games really worth it?

I'm in the category of some baseball is better than no baseball. Especially with all of the young talent the Sox have. I want them to get as much experience and development as possible. Even if they need to cut it even shorter for a 2nd wave of the virus.

[hi8is]

Bet they come in with a final offer today unexpectedly at these terms:

78 games

85% salary

+15% if playoffs are successful 

+expanded playoffs

[ptatc]

9 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Bet they come in with a final offer today unexpectedly at these terms:

78 games

85% salary

+15% if playoffs are successful 

+expanded playoffs

That would be a good compromise. Not sure f the players go for it though.

There wouldn't be many days off with that many games.

[Y2Jimmy0]

14 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Bet they come in with a final offer today unexpectedly at these terms:

78 games

85% salary

+15% if playoffs are successful 

+expanded playoffs

Players will turn down anything that isn’t full prorated. It’s not even worth it to offer anything else. The owners should offer 65 fully prorated in exchange for expanded playoffs. 

[ptatc]

11 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Players will turn down anything that isn’t full prorated. It’s not even worth it to offer anything else. The owners should offer 65 fully prorated in exchange for expanded playoffs. 

I agree about the players stance. This would be a decent offer.

[turnin' two]

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Players will turn down anything that isn’t full prorated. It’s not even worth it to offer anything else. The owners should offer 65 fully prorated in exchange for expanded playoffs. 

But even that is stupid.  It is such a weird hill to die on.  They would make more, bottom line, in 65 games at 85% ( 341,049 per million) than in 50 full pro rata (308,642 per million).  They would make more in 81 games at 85% (425,000) than 65 full pro rata(401,234).   Yeah, making less per game, and I get that, but for playing another 15 games, they'd make an additional  32.5K per million. (in the 50 vs 65 game scenario).  That's basically another 100K for a guy making 3 million.  For what comes down to 15 games?  

And if they are putting some sort of playoff split on top of it, it shouldn't be that difficult of a decision.

If you got laid off due to  covid, and your employer said you can come back at your full rate in September, or you can come back at 85% now, which would you take?  Yeah, your rate goes down, but your overall bottom line is quite a bit better.

It is like no one negotiating has a brain at all.  And that no one that works for the MLB or MLBPA has any idea how to basically use excel.  Or, they just want to spite the other side so badly they don't really care.

Right now they are looking at a 50 game season with regular playoffs.  Basically a worst case scenario for the owners and players.  Congratulations you idiots, you have successfully negotiated a deal where everyone involved (including the fans, the oft neglected stakeholders) loses.  Freaking morons.  

Both sides have handled this as poorly as they possibly could have.

Edited June 15, 2020 by turnin' two

[Harold's Leg Lift]

 

 

8 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

But even that is stupid.  It is such a weird hill to die on.  They would make more, bottom line, in 65 games at 85% ( 341,049 per million) than in 50 full pro rata (308,642 per million).  They would make more in 81 games at 85% (425,000) than 65 full pro rata(401,234).   Yeah, making less per game, and I get that, but for playing another 15 games, they'd make an additional  32.5K per million. (in the 50 vs 65 game scenario).  That's basically another 100K for a guy making 3 million.  For what comes down to 15 games?  

And if they are putting some sort of playoff split on top of it, it shouldn't be that difficult of a decision.

If you got laid off due to  covid, and your employer said you can come back at your full rate in September, or you can come back at 85% now, which would you take?  Yeah, your rate goes down, but your overall bottom line is quite a bit better.

It is like no one negotiating has a brain at all.  And that no one that works for the MLB or MLBPA has any idea how to basically use excel.  Or, they just want to spite the other side so badly they don't really care.

It's not a weird hill to die on it's THE hill to die on.  Players individual contracts are based on a per game basis,  If they give that up they give it up forever.  This has always been about the players getting full pro rata.  They will not negotate off that stance and have said so since day 1.    

[turnin' two]

2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

 

 

It's not a weird hill to die on it's THE hill to die on.  Players individual contracts are based on a per game basis,  If they give that up they give it up forever.  This has always been about the players getting full pro rata.  They will not negotate off that stance and have said so since day 1.    

Why is this true?  Not enough extenuating circumstances this year? 

 

[hi8is]

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Players will turn down anything that isn’t full prorated. It’s not even worth it to offer anything else. The owners should offer 65 fully prorated in exchange for expanded playoffs. 

If the owners offer that though, they’re going to look a lot better in grievance battles and in the public eye.

Wouldn't be surprised at all and it would actually be a win / win offer for the owners.

Players deny it, owners win.

Players accept it, owners win.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

4 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

Why is this true?  Not enough extenuating circumstances this year? 

 

Once that door is open the owners will try to renegotiate any contract they're not happy with.  When the players say they are protecting future players this is what they're referring to.  They're protecting player contracts.  

[Y2Jimmy0]

4 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Once that door is open the owners will try to renegotiate any contract they're not happy with.  When the players say they are protecting future players this is what they're referring to.  They're protecting player contracts.  

I personally think they've forfeited the right to talk about caring about future players after allowing the owners to machete the amateur draft. 

[southsider2k5]

15 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

 

 

It's not a weird hill to die on it's THE hill to die on.  Players individual contracts are based on a per game basis,  If they give that up they give it up forever.  This has always been about the players getting full pro rata.  They will not negotate off that stance and have said so since day 1.    

How many other occupations are being asked to cut their pro rata right now?

[Harold's Leg Lift]

5 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I personally think they've forfeited the right to talk about caring about future players after allowing the owners to machete the amateur draft. 

They're protecting future MLB players. Amateur players are not part of the union.  It sucks but it is what it is.