Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It's not that they want the playoff money faster, they want fewer regular season games to pay less of the full prorated salary.

No, they want the principle that the players will have their salaries limited/slashed based on revenue to be established. The players already agreed to fewer regular season games and MLB could set the number of games right now. The players already agreed to fewer regular season games and a lower share of their full salaries accordingly.

[ptatc]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This is why it isn't good faith.

The Owners have an agreement in hand saying the players will play for their full salaries pro-rated to the number of games in the regular season. 

The agreement says the 2 sides will bargain in good faith if the economics don't work.

The players say "We will allow you extra playoff revenue in exchange for extra games at the agreed rate".

The owners say "No. You must accept pay cuts under any circumstances we will offer".

So the players are willing to give the owners extra revenue to help their economics, but the owners are not willing to give the players extra games in exchange for the extra revenue. 

If the owners can break even at 50 games and a full playoffs, where is the offer of 65 games, expanded playoffs, and full pro-rated salaries? Why haven't they made that offer?

From the owners point of view the extra round of playoffs doesnt make it "economically  feasible" In order to make it economically feasible they need to have the players to take a 20% cut in pay. Playing games where the players are making full salary but the owners do not have the revenue from the fans for those games isn't economically feasible. This is why they can say the players weren't bargaining in good faith. This is with the playoffs. If there are no playoffs the owners will not get most of their revenue. So, the players not giving any leeway for there not being playoffs really gives the owners more issue with the players.

Its is all about the numbers of those games without the revenue from the fans especially if there are no playoffs. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

No, they want the principle that the players will have their salaries limited/slashed based on revenue to be established. The players already agreed to fewer regular season games and MLB could set the number of games right now. The players already agreed to fewer regular season games and a lower share of their full salaries accordingly.

Not in his scenario where the only reason they are playing fewer games is to the playoffs faster.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

From the owners point of view the extra round of playoffs doesnt make it "economically  feasible" In order to make it economically feasible they need to have the players to take a 20% cut in pay. Playing games where the players are making full salary but the owners do not have the revenue from the fans for those games isn't economically feasible. This is why they can say the players weren't bargaining in good faith. This is with the playoffs. If there are no playoffs the owners will not get most of their revenue. So, the players not giving any leeway for there not being playoffs really gives the owners more issue with the players.

Its is all about the numbers of those games without the revenue from the fans especially if there are no playoffs. 

Nonsense. 

The players do not get paid for the playoff games. If there were 0 games in the regular season, and only playoff games played (imaginary scenario), the owners would still clear a billion dollars or more. There does not need to be any paycut whatsoever to make that happen, and the players already signed onto the original agreement. The players are offering a fair deal - increasing the playoff revenue for increasing games, which follows the language of the original agreement. The owners will not accept any version of that, so now the players are saying they'll just abide by what they already signed. 

Just now, ptatc said:

Not in his scenario where the only reason they are playing fewer games is to the playoffs faster.

The players already agreed to that!

[ptatc]

11 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Nonsense. 

The players do not get paid for the playoff games. If there were 0 games in the regular season, and only playoff games played (imaginary scenario), the owners would still clear a billion dollars or more. There does not need to be any paycut whatsoever to make that happen, and the players already signed onto the original agreement. The players are offering a fair deal - increasing the playoff revenue for increasing games, which follows the language of the original agreement. The owners will not accept any version of that, so now the players are saying they'll just abide by what they already signed. 

The players already agreed to that!

That was his scenario not mine.

 

As for the previous statement. You truly think that if the owners pay the full prorated salaries for the season with no fans  and there arent playoffs that the owners wont lose a ton of money?

[SonofaRoache]

30 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It's not that they want the playoff money faster, they want fewer regular season games to pay less of the full prorated salary.

If their big money maker is the playoffs, wouldn't it make sense for them to do both? Shorten the season and ensure the playoffs actually happen? If the players said they give them 50 games, but the season must start in August, the owners would not accept the deal, because it would endanger the lengthy  playoffs. 

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That was his scenario not mine.

 

As for the previous statement. You truly think that if the owners pay the full prorated salaries for the season with no fans  and there arent playoffs that the owners wont lose a ton of money?

You really think that a 20% pay cut would bring things into balance if there were no playoffs? 

[Balta1701]

Just now, SonofaRoache said:

If their big money maker is the playoffs, wouldn't it make sense for them to do both? Shorten the season and ensure the playoffs actually happen? If the players said they give them 50 games, but the season must start in August, the owners would not accept the deal, because it would endanger the lengthy  playoffs. 

This could happen right now with no new agreement. 

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

If their big money maker is the playoffs, wouldn't it make sense for them to do both? Shorten the season and ensure the playoffs actually happen? If the players said they give them 50 games, but the season must start in August, the owners would not accept the deal, because it would endanger the lengthy  playoffs. 

Trying to figure out when that spike will happen is tough. I'm not sure shortening the season would help.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

You really think that a 20% pay cut would bring things into balance if there were no playoffs? 

No. But it would help. This is the owners point. They are willingly to deal to prevent them from losing to much. It gives them a little protection.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This could happen right now with no new agreement. 

Yep. Since there wouldnt be an expanded playoffs, it could happen now. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by ptatc

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Trying to figure out when that spike will happen is tough. I'm not sure shortening the season would help.

Well it's already underway right now in any part of the country that has largely "re-opened". I can't see how Arizona and Florida and a few other spots aren't in full crisis mode by early July, and Texas a few weeks later as their hospitals overflow. But that illustrates another problem...

The players are the ones who are putting themselves most at risk by having to travel and be out of any quarantine during this. So, they're not only having to take a paycut on their normal rate, they're also being asked to take a paycut under hazardous conditions.

[ptatc]

14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Well it's already underway right now in any part of the country that has largely "re-opened". I can't see how Arizona and Florida and a few other spots aren't in full crisis mode by early July, and Texas a few weeks later as their hospitals overflow. But that illustrates another problem...

The players are the ones who are putting themselves most at risk by having to travel and be out of any quarantine during this. So, they're not only having to take a paycut on their normal rate, they're also being asked to take a paycut under hazardous conditions.

The players arent taking a cut on their normal rate. The are getting their normal rate.  They also arent the only ones working under the harazdous conditions. All of the staff and medical personnel will be there too. Which are miniscule costs compared to the players and the staff doesnt have the option to opt out and still get paid.

Regardless if all this comes to fruition and there are no playoffs the players will still make money and then owners will lose a ton and then players wouldnt give the owners any concessions to make this an "economically feasible" season.

I think this gives the players enough fault to say that both sides are culpable in creating this fiasco of a season that didnt need to be this bad.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The players arent taking a cut on their normal rate.  

You and the owners are insisting they should.

[ptatc]

29 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

You and the owners are insisting they should.

Yes. But they aren't currently. I thought that is what you meant by that statement.

Edited June 14, 2020 by ptatc

[maxjusttyped]

Now that it's established players aren't going to cave on prorated salaries, wouldn't an agreement in the 60 game range that features expanded playoffs and a universal DH make sense?

[ptatc]

13 minutes ago, maxjusttyped said:

Now that it's established players aren't going to cave on prorated salaries, wouldn't an agreement in the 60 game range that features expanded playoffs and a universal DH make sense?

It probably would but I dont think the players will give the owners the extra playoffs if the owners will only give them 60 games.

[Y2Jimmy0]

13 minutes ago, maxjusttyped said:

Now that it's established players aren't going to cave on prorated salaries, wouldn't an agreement in the 60 game range that features expanded playoffs and a universal DH make sense?

Of course but it sounds like both sides are done negotiating. It made sense before for sure. 65 game schedule (10 vs division teams and 5 each vs NL division) with expanded playoffs and universal DH. Made lots of sense. 

[zisk]

4 hours ago, Quin said:

Players: We know were going to make $20, but we'll take $10.

Owners: How about $5?

Players: No

Owners: 50% of $10?

Players: No

Owners: 50% of $20, but that percentage only comes out of half of the $20.

Players: No

Owners: Why are you negotiating in bad faith???

When teams signed contracts they assumed fans would attend games and spend money.  A 100 year pandemic has changed all that. Players want full pay for

each game played, even though owners won't take in as much per game(TV money only). This is an unusual problem, but not an unsolvable one. If each side

gave a little we could start playing July 4th. If not, both sides will be blamed. That won't be good for any one.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

The owners acknowledge they would be losing even more if they don’t play. The players are the ones taking health risks. Many businesses gave their employees taking these risks, more money. Owners won’t show their books, showing they can barely make a profit.. Asking the players to take even a bigger pay cut is crazy.

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

21 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The owners acknowledge they would be losing even more if they don’t play. The players are the ones taking health risks. Many businesses gave their employees taking these risks, more money. Owners won’t show their books, showing they can barely make a profit.. Asking the players to take even a bigger pay cut is crazy.

 

I disagree.  The players are essentially getting a pay raise as it is with a bigger piece of the revenue "pie."

For my simple medical brain that cant deal with big numbers

If the revenue from a usual game is 10 million. If it's a 60/40 split the owners get 6 million the players 4 million.

If the fans bring in 3 million, a little less than 1/3, the overall revenue is now now 7 million, 4 million to the players, 3 million to the owners.

This means the players went from 40% of the revenue pie to 57% of the pie. 

At full prorated pay they get a substantial more of the revenues than when there were fans.

[Dick Allen]

10 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I disagree.  The players are essentially getting a pay raise as it is with a bigger piece of the revenue "pie."

For my simple medical brain that cant deal with big numbers

If the revenue from a usual game is 10 million. If it's a 60/40 split the owners get 6 million the players 4 million.

If the fans bring in 3 million, a little less than 1/3, the overall revenue is now now 7 million, 4 million to the players, 3 million to the owners.

This means the players went from 40% of the revenue pie to 57% of the pie. 

At full prorated pay they get a substantial more of the revenues than when there were fans.

That doesn’t matter. Their guaranteed contracts aren’t tied to how much money the owner makes. The owner can make unlimited money. The player only gets paid what his contract says he gets paid.  Besides, even you acknowledge the owners won’t show the players how much they will lose  The players are taking the health risks and having to go through all of what they will go through. Pay them what they are contractually obligated to be paid, and if it results in a loss, that is part of owning a business. If a recently re-opened restaurant wanted to triple their prices to make up for r losses in a pandemic, there is probably a good chance most patrons, even if they were sympathetic, wouldn’t feel obligated to bail them out, and choose some other place to eat.

Now, if they had an attendance clause in their contract, that stated if the team only drew x amount of fans or less, they would be guaranteed less, then they would have a point.

Most people get some sort of raise and some sort of bonus every year. If the company they work for says they didn’t make any money so no raises and no bonuses, they might be able to get away with it once, but even then, tend to lose their  better people.

Sometimes ownership has to bite the bullet. They can afford it.

[ptatc]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

That doesn’t matter. Their guaranteed contracts aren’t tied to how much money the owner makes. The owner can make unlimited money. The player only gets paid what his contract says he gets paid.  Besides, even you acknowledge the owners won’t show the players how much they will lose  The players are taking the health risks and having to go through all of what they will go through. Pay them what they are contractually obligated to be paid, and if it results in a loss, that is part of owning a business. If a recently re-opened restaurant wanted to triple their prices to make up for r losses in a pandemic, there is probably a good chance most patrons, even if they were sympathetic, wouldn’t feel obligated to bail them out, and choose some other place to eat.

Now, if they had an attendance clause in their contract, that stated if the team only drew x amount of fans or less, they would be guaranteed less, then they would have a point.

Most people get some sort of raise and some sort of bonus every year. If the company they work for says they didn’t make any money so no raises and no bonuses, they might be able to get away with it once, but even then, tend to lose their  better people.

Sometimes ownership has to bite the bullet. They can afford it.

That is the philosophy of WHY the players shouldn't take a paycut. Not the fact that they arent getting more of the money. And all of this is based on the revenues from the playoff money. If there are playoffs the players are getting more of the money if there are no playoffs than it's a huge loss for the owners and the players don't seem to care. Which of course is there right. However if the owners lose that much dont think that there arent going to be significant issues down the road when bargaining for the CBA begins. 

As it stands now the way the union and Boras (he finally has 3 out of 8 clients on the union executive committee) are hardlining this, it looks to be a better than average chance of some kind of work stoppage for the next CBA.

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, ptatc said:

That is the philosophy of WHY the players shouldn't take a paycut. Not the fact that they arent getting more of the money. And all of this is based on the revenues from the playoff money. If there are playoffs the players are getting more of the money if there are no playoffs than it's a huge loss for the owners and the players don't seem to care. Which of course is there right. However if the owners lose that much dont think that there arent going to be significant issues down the road when bargaining for the CBA begins. 

As it stands now the way the union and Boras (he finally has 3 out of 8 clients on the union executive committee) are hardlining this, it looks to be a better than average chance of some kind of work stoppage for the next CBA.

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.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Dick Allen

[Two-Gun Pete]

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...