Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Sarava said:

Have the players made any proposal yet that was at less than full prorated dollars? I see it as the players being greedy here.

Both sides have dug in their heels and have pointed the finger at the other. 

It's a huge game of chicken. 

The bottom line is the group of people with with the most money should shoulder the burden. Either the owners should shoulder the burden for the next two seasons or open up the CBA now. 

The owners combined have 100x more money than the players do. 

We need to stop with this notion that businesses need to be guaranteed a profit annually in order to continue to operate. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Both sides have dug in their heels and have pointed the finger at the other. 

It's a huge game of chicken. 

The bottom line is the group of people with with the most money should shoulder the burden. Either the owners should shoulder the burden for the next two seasons or open up the CBA now. 

Maybe the group with the least amount of risk should share in the burden. (I know we wont agree).

I bet you can't wait for the graduated tax vote.

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, ptatc said:

Maybe the group with the least amount of risk should share in the burden. (I know we wont agree).

I bet you can't wait for the graduated tax vote.

If they won't operate without guaranteed profits, where's the risk? Oh yeah there is none. The players have more to lose by playing than the owners do. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Sarava]

7 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Both sides have dug in their heels and have pointed the finger at the other. 

It's a huge game of chicken. 

The bottom line is the group of people with with the most money should shoulder the burden. Either the owners should shoulder the burden for the next two seasons or open up the CBA now. 

 The owners combined have 100x more money than the players do. 

 We need to stop with this notion that businesses need to be guaranteed a profit annually in order to continue to operate. 

Oh this reminds me that you have a dislike for business owners. We had a discussion a month or two on HF, right?

But to me this is different than the real world. Because just about all of these people are filthy rich 0- both players and owners. the exceptions being the young players that havent been paid yet.

I don't see why both sides can't meet in the middle.

And for proposals, the owners are offering plans paying out similar dollars, but much different lengths of schedules. If the players are concerned they are risking their health, then one would think they would jump at the lower game total plans, right? Less games is less risk. But they want the opposite. How come? Oh we all know why, don't we?

[iWiN4PreP]

An observation: those strongly siding with the owners are strong conservative/trumpies.

 

Am i off base here? Is this voodoo to speak of? Just my analysis over on Twitter, admittedly a small sample size.

[ptatc]

7 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

If they won't operate without guaranteed profits, where's the risk? Oh yeah there is none. The players have more to lose by playing than the owners do. 

It's not guaranteed profits its guaranteed break even. And the risk is exactly enacts happening. The players not agreeing. The players have nothing to lose other than this years salary caused by the enforced shutdown. They have guaranteed  contracts as long as they play. The owners are losing billions of revenue even if the players play. Zero risk for the players.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, iWiN4PreP said:

An observation: those strongly siding with the owners are strong conservative/trumpies.

 

Am i off base here? Is this voodoo to speak of? Just my analysis over on Twitter, admittedly a small sample size.

Not in my case.

[Jack Parkman]

2 hours ago, Sarava said:

Oh this reminds me that you have a dislike for business owners. We had a discussion a month or two on HF, right?

But to me this is different than the real world. Because just about all of these people are filthy rich 0- both players and owners. the exceptions being the young players that havent been paid yet.

I don't see why both sides can't meet in the middle.

And for proposals, the owners are offering plans paying out similar dollars, but much different lengths of schedules. If the players are concerned they are risking their health, then one would think they would jump at the lower game total plans, right? Less games is less risk. But they want the opposite. How come? Oh we all know why, don't we?

I wouldn't say I have a dislike for business owners....I don't blame them for it. I have a skeptical view of business in general because at least in this country, it doesn't have a conscience and I think it's borderline immoral without one. 

Teams paying their minor leaguers and vendors during this time is an example of proper behavior. The fact that some only did it through May isn't. 

I'd call out the players if I thought they were being unreasonable. If a new CBA had just been signed and we were 8 years away from a labor negotiation, then I might feel a bit differently. 

I'm very pro-union in general but I'm not afraid to call one out if I think they're being ridiculous, because that happens too. 

The owners have essentially not budged on dollars the entire time. There's no reason for the players to negotiate against themselves. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[iWiN4PreP]

18 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Not in my case.

So you support the owners side over the players and you are not a conservative? 
 

ps no ill feelings on this matter, just pure curiosity 

[Ducksnort]

16 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

So you support the owners side over the players and you are not a conservative? 
 

ps no ill feelings on this matter, just pure curiosity 

I usually side with the owners...I'm far from a trump supporter and I'm not really conservative 

[iWiN4PreP]

8 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I usually side with the owners...I'm far from a trump supporter and I'm not really conservative 

What's the rationale of siding with the owners? (I'm not forcing you to give me the reason, I can search it later, but if you care to indulge me I'd appreciate it!) 

[ptatc]

58 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

So you support the owners side over the players and you are not a conservative? 
 

ps no ill feelings on this matter, just pure curiosity 

I like to say I take all situations individually and see what makes the most sense. I would say I'm fiscally conservative but not in areas like education. I don't necessarily  support the owners in everything but when it comes to the finances it's just common sense. If the league doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself, there is no league. It's pretty obvious that there is financial issues.  The league will have lost at least 2/3 of its revenue. You can make a valid case that the players shouldn't help the owners. In a normal CBA negotiation that true. However, this isn't normal and financial issues are real.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

12 hours ago, ptatc said:

Where is that stadium. I've never heard of them.

Franklin, WI. 

[ptatc]

6 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Franklin, WI. 

Thanks. I'll need to check this out.

[Dick Allen]

35 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I like to say I take all situations individually and see what makes the most sense. I would say I'm fiscally conservative but not in areas like education. I don't necessarily  support the owners in everything but when it comes to the finances it's just common sense. If the league doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself, there is no league. It's pretty obvious that there is financial issues.  The league will have lost at least 2/3 of its revenue. You can make a valid case that the players shouldn't help the owners. In a normal CBA negotiation that true. However, this isn't normal and financial issues are real.

You are all for owners not having to lose any money, but seem to have no problem with the player supposedly guaranteed $20 million this season getting paid $6 million. 
 

Ken Rosenthal had a proposal which, if the owners are being straight, something most people find laughable, would cost them each $20 million this year. Or one year of James Shields. 72 games full pro rated salaries. Seems reasonable. If that is too much water for an ownership to take on, they need to get out of the business.

 

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

Edited June 13, 2020 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

You are all for owners not having to lose any money, but seem to have no problem with the player supposedly guaranteed $20 million this season getting paid $6 million. 
 

Ken Rosenthal had a proposal which, if the owners are being straight, something most people find laughable, would cost them each $20 million this year. Or one year of James Shields. 72 games full pro rated salaries. Seems reasonable. If that is too much water for an ownership to take on, they need to get out of the business.

I think it's a give and take. The players are still making money regardless of what agreement there is. They are not going to lose money. The owners in this situation could lose money and cause issues for the league going forward. The owners can certainly afford to lose some, that's why they need to negotiate it. Again if you believe the owners number of around 58 games is break even, knowing negotiations it's probably higher, if they settle on games somewhere in the 60s at full prorated rate it's a good deal.

It's all for the good of the league this year. This cant happen if too many teams need to borrow money to make expenses. This will only hurt the league in the long run.

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think it's a give and take. The players are still making money regardless of what agreement there is. They are not going to lose money. The owners in this situation could lose money and cause issues for the league going forward. The owners can certainly afford to lose some, that's why they need to negotiate it. Again if you believe the owners number of around 58 games is break even, knowing negotiations it's probably higher, if they settle on games somewhere in the 60s at full prorated rate it's a good deal.

It's all for the good of the league this year. This cant happen if too many teams need to borrow money to make expenses. This will only hurt the league in the long run.

If the owner is losing money, they can sell the team and never worry about money again. The owners agreed to guarantee these players these salaries whether they made millions or lost millions. The players are willing to play for the pay they would have received per game. Very fair. The Forbes link said teams made, on average, $50 million last season. Record profits. Now they are crying poor. The media has held their water forever. The poor billionaires. They have made this very ugly for no reason other than to try to intimidate a Union they have had their way with in recent times. This stupidity is going to cost everyone.

[ptatc]

16 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

You are all for owners not having to lose any money, but seem to have no problem with the player supposedly guaranteed $20 million this season getting paid $6 million. 
 

Ken Rosenthal had a proposal which, if the owners are being straight, something most people find laughable, would cost them each $20 million this year. Or one year of James Shields. 72 games full pro rated salaries. Seems reasonable. If that is too much water for an ownership to take on, they need to get out of the business.

 

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall

I do think baseball is coming to a crossroads. The are paying players like they are still America's past time and the popularity and revenues are keeping pace with that. The NFL salary cap is about 200 million. This is for 53 players. There were teams in MLB that surpassed that for 26 players and the NFL doesnt need to support a MILB system. Either the business model needs a drastic change or the salaries are going to need to come down. The owners see this coming and are starting to cut costs by trimming the costs in MILB. Baseball as it currently stands cant continue. It will be interesting to see how t unfolds. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Eugene Freedman has been an incredible source of knowledge throughout this entire "negotiation." This is even hard for me to believe.  The owners are a buch of shitbags.  

[ptatc]

8 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

If the owner is losing money, they can sell the team and never worry about money again. The owners agreed to guarantee these players these salaries whether they made millions or lost millions. The players are willing to play for the pay they would have received per game. Very fair. The Forbes link said teams made, on average, $50 million last season. Record profits. Now they are crying poor. The media has held their water forever. The poor billionaires. They have made this very ugly for no reason other than to try to intimidate a Union they have had their way with in recent times. This stupidity is going to cost everyone.

We've had this discussion already. We arent going to agree. They made profits but it goes back into the team and the fan experience. They can make money when they sell but the new owners will have borrow a billion to buy the team. The new owner will be in the same situation. Normally, these are valid arguments however for this season everyone knows they have only about 1/3 of their revenues but still need to pay the same debts other than salaries.

As I said in another post, I do think there is a big issue with the way baseball is going and there will need to be changes.  This path it is on is not sustainable.  This year with minimal revenues though is different.

Edited June 13, 2020 by ptatc

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

What's the rationale of siding with the owners? (I'm not forcing you to give me the reason, I can search it later, but if you care to indulge me I'd appreciate it!) 

In retrospect from the discussion, I'm really not on the owners side. I've stated before that I can see both points of view. It's just that so many others are so anti-owner that I find myself attempting (and failing) to explain their point of view. No owners are going to run their team as a deficit for any length of time. Just not going to happen, especially with a new CBA coming up. People can talk about the billionaires should take the hit but they arent in business to lose money. Even if they sell the team and make their money the next owner will be the same.

In the end it really doesnt matter to me. I love the game and if the 2 sides are too stubborn and idiotic to come to an agreement,  I will mourn the loss of baseball this year. However, I will go back next year as I enjoy watching the game regardless of how much the player or owners make and regardless of how many other fans are there. I remember the days of the late 80s when it was just me and a friend in right field talking to ivan Calderon because there was no one else there. It was still baseball

[Sarava]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I wouldn't say I have a dislike for business owners....I don't blame them for it. I have a skeptical view of business in general because at least in this country, it doesn't have a conscience and I think it's borderline immoral without one. 

Teams paying their minor leaguers and vendors during this time is an example of proper behavior. The fact that some only did it through May isn't. 

I'd call out the players if I thought they were being unreasonable. If a new CBA had just been signed and we were 8 years away from a labor negotiation, then I might feel a bit differently. 

I'm very pro-union in general but I'm not afraid to call one out if I think they're being ridiculous, because that happens too. 

The owners have essentially not budged on dollars the entire time. There's no reason for the players to negotiate against themselves. 

I guess we can agree to disagree. Because to me - the players are expecting full pay despite massive revenue hits. I find it ridiculous for them to even suggest full prorated pay.

Whatever...hopefully both sides find common ground before it's too late.

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I guess we can agree to disagree. Because to me - the players are expecting full pay despite massive revenue hits. I find it ridiculous for them to even suggest full prorated pay.

Whatever...hopefully both sides find common ground before it's too late.

That opinion requires belief that the owners are telling the truth about their finances.....I happen to believe that they're full of shit. 

If they want to have anything less than prorated salary which in and of itself is fair, they better be willing to open their books. Prove it. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Jack Parkman

[Harold's Leg Lift]

5 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I guess we can agree to disagree. Because to me - the players are expecting full pay despite massive revenue hits. I find it ridiculous for them to even suggest full prorated pay.

Whatever...hopefully both sides find common ground before it's too late.

They're expecting full pay because that's what the two sides agreed to back in March.  The Owners made a bad deal and now they're holding the baseball world hostage, furloughing employees, releasing/not paying players because they're mad.  They can leak all the bullshit propaganda to the media they want but it's not going to change the fact that this is 100% their fault.  

 

[ptatc]

5 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They're expecting full pay because that's what the two sides agreed to back in March.  The Owners made a bad deal and now they're holding the baseball world hostage, furloughing employees, releasing/not paying players because they're mad.  They can leak all the bullshit propaganda to the media they want but it's not going to change the fact that this is 100% their fault.  

 

This deal however was based upon the 3xpectations of fans eventually returning and the playoffs occurring,  both of which are looking less possible. The players dont need to change but they are the ones that arent sacrificing anything else while the owners are.