Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[Y2Jimmy0]

10 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

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

Amateur players are future MLB players last time I checked. 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

7 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Amateur players are future MLB players last time I checked. 

A very small percentage who again are not part of the union.  Protecting  contracts will protect the amateurs who actually make it to the big leagues.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Harold's Leg Lift

[ptatc]

59 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.

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.

Agreed. It's become just a precursor to the CBA negotiations and they are both looking out for themselves not the good of the game in a bad situation. These tactics are fine in normal negotiations but not in this extraordinary situation.

[ptatc]

12 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

A very small percentage who again are not part of the union.  Protecting  contracts will protect the amateurs who actually make it to the big leagues.

Right. They aren't part of the union until the MLB and a very small percentage make it. 

[turnin' two]

46 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.  

The owners can try to negotiate it later all they want.  Who says they won't anyways?  The players could even use this to get in writing that they owners will abandon any thoughts of pushing this into the future CBA.  

 

[bmags]

the thing about my company and many public companies is I actually would be negotiating knowing the revenues and state of the league.

The league does not provide that to the players, and has frequently mislead them about the state of the financials. 

So if I'm a player and I know I stand strong in any legal setting that you are owed per game, and they are asking for fairly marginal declines, I'd likely stand strong too.

 

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

the thing about my company and many public companies is I actually would be negotiating knowing the revenues and state of the league.

The league does not provide that to the players, and has frequently mislead them about the state of the financials. 

So if I'm a player and I know I stand strong in any legal setting that you are owed per game, and they are asking for fairly marginal declines, I'd likely stand strong too.

 

I aagree. It's one thing to work for a company that may go out of business if you don't take a paycut. But if you work for one where the owner can sell and wind up with a couple of billion dollarsEi it's hard to justify the cut. The players are getting what they get per game. That makes sense. They are also the ones taking the risk. How many essential companies gave their employees combat pay? 

It is really hard to have any compassion for the owners, especially when they "negotiated" the same monetary deal over and over again. It had to be a play at the dumb public. So, either they think the players are really stupid, the fans are really stupid or both. I go with both.

[ptatc]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I aagree. It's one thing to work for a company that may go out of business if you don't take a paycut. But if you work for one where the owner can sell and wind up with a couple of billion dollarsEi it's hard to justify the cut. The players are getting what they get per game. That makes sense. They are also the ones taking the risk. How many essential companies gave their employees combat pay? 

It is really hard to have any compassion for the owners, especially when they "negotiated" the same monetary deal over and over again. It had to be a play at the dumb public. So, either they think the players are really stupid, the fans are really stupid or both. I go with both.

So what is the loss if there are no playoffs? Inconsequential? It's hard to have compassion for either side, when neither negotiated.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

So what is the loss if there are no playoffs? Inconsequential? It's hard to have compassion for either side, when neither negotiated.

1If ownership doesn't believe they can safely pull off a 3 month season starting in August then they should say so and we wouldn't be having this conversation. They're probably not wrong.

[Quin]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

Journalists, actually.

Some are for high earning journalists ($100k+ at the BIG companies) to prevent cuts (which I haven't heard those people publicly complain about), but they've happened at smaller outlets as well.

[ptatc]

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1If ownership doesn't believe they can safely pull off a 3 month season starting in August then they should say so and we wouldn't be having this conversation. They're probably not wrong.

I think it would be wrong to not to at least try to have a season. All fo the other sports are. They should try it and if they need to cut it short so be it.

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I think it would be wrong to not to at least try to have a season. All fo the other sports are. They should try it and if they need to cut it short so be it.

Then the owners have to take that risk. 

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Then the owners have to take that risk. 

I guess I see it more as the sports needs to take the risk. It good for the overall league to play. If they dont play the sport itself will suffer which will lead to the overall decline. That hurts everyone. 

[Y2Jimmy0]

32 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

1If ownership doesn't believe they can safely pull off a 3 month season starting in August then they should say so and we wouldn't be having this conversation. They're probably not wrong.

I think it's less about safety and more about the Fox television deal personally. They want to be done with the season on September 27th because FOX will not be broadcasting MLB playoff games instead of the NFL. They want to to stick to current deal. 

[ptatc]

Just now, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I think it's less about safety and more about the Fox television deal personally. They want to be done with the season on September 27th because FOX will not be broadcasting MLB playoff games instead of the NFL. They want to to stick to current deal. 

Good point. Comes down to getting the playoff money.

[Dick Allen]

46 minutes ago, ptatc said:

So what is the loss if there are no playoffs? Inconsequential? It's hard to have compassion for either side, when neither negotiated.

Supposedly the owners will lose a lot more money by not playing at all. Considering they need players to play, it seems to me the players would hold the upper hand. They could refuse sighting safety.

[turnin' two]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

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

I mean, it isn't proof, but anecdotally, just about everyone I've spoken with is having some sort of pay and or benefit adjustment.

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

I mean, it isn't proof, but anecdotally, just about everyone I've spoken with is having some sort of pay and or benefit adjustment.

Hours cut is not the same as change in rate.  That is an important distinction.

[soxfan49]

f*** Rob Manfred, seriously

A week ago he said there would 100% be a season. Today, he can't say such. He has the power to impose a short season and just isn't going to

Worst commissioner in pro sports history

[ptatc]

49 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Supposedly the owners will lose a lot more money by not playing at all. Considering they need players to play, it seems to me the players would hold the upper hand. They could refuse sighting safety.

Sure they do. That doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the game. This is why both sides need to give a little for this weird situation.  Negotiate the CBA after the season. 

[hi8is]

4 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

f*** Rob Manfred, seriously

A week ago he said there would 100% be a season. Today, he can't say such. He has the power to impose a short season and just isn't going to

Worst commissioner in pro sports history

What’d he say today?

[southsider2k5]

 

[turnin' two]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Hours cut is not the same as change in rate.  That is an important distinction.

I didn't say hours cut did I?  I meant a change in their rate of pay and in the benefits which they receive.  I was laid off, and recently brought back, at a 10% rate reduction for (at least) the remainder of this year, along with everyone in my division.  Literally thousands of people -- and I know it isn't just me, because it was mentioned in a conference call when the onboarding process was being laid out -- 10% cut for everyone.  I know people in my family that have had their rates decreased.  I know friends that have had their rates decreased.  Not hours, a straight reduction in their salaries.  

There are many others that I have spoken with that have lost things like a 401K match, and even PTO accruals.  

Honestly I didn't respond to your pro rata comment right away because I thought it was tongue in cheek, until someone else commented.

Edited June 15, 2020 by turnin' two

[soxfan49]

2 minutes ago, hi8is said:

What’d he say today?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20 https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20 https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20 https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20 https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20 https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1272634522748715014?s=20