2019 Major League Baseball Thread

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Snell is an idiot. If his manager, agent, publicist, beautician, massage therapist, paying off local politicians, or whatever his expenses are; are on him. Taxes are a burden of all citizens.

If he does half the work, he gets half the pay.

Buttercup needs to make do on $3.5M this season, and accept that he is going to be under higher scrutiny in terms of his health and wellbeing for the rest of the year.

I'd say most of the players agree with Snell though. The article wasn't overly clear, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about the ownership proposal where league revenues are split 50-50. He was saying yes to being paid a pro-rated amount based on games, but no to the 50-50 revenue split.

Honestly, I agree with him. The owners sure didn't want a 50-50 split when times were good, but now they want it when times are bad? Of course the players are not going to be happy with that and I believe contractually they have the high ground here. Here's an article from today:

I’ve been told the owners aren’t going to agree to prorated salaries. The union maintains that its members are not playing for anything less, which is their prerogative. The players would be assuming a considerable health risk, and this has to make sense from their standpoint, obviously. It’s really not their patriotic duty to travel around and play baseball while a pandemic is raging throughout the country.

It's starting to look like the season might be lost if the owners are not willing to budge on simply paying the players a prorated amount.

[flamingred89]

Isn’t the proposed 50-50 split just for this year though? I get the players frustration if the Owners were trying to sneak things in to a CBA going forward. But if it’s just for an abbreviated season this year and things go back to normal in 2021. Then I feel like Snell, Harper, and the other stars are just being brats and not looking out for the hundreds of players making league minimum and trying to crack a roster.

[mrkajz44]

My understanding is the 50-50 split is just for this year, but that doesn't change the fact that the owners are not sharing in good times, but wanting everyone to share in the bad times.

I suppose I just don't understand why it always seems to be the players that are the bad guys when the owners take advantage of them as often as possible. I see nothing unreasonable about they players saying they don't want to make a massive pay cut (ie 50-50 revenue shares) so the owners don't have a bad year when its really the players at risk if anything starts up again.

[flamingred89]

That checks out. The old adage of billionaires vs millionaires for who gets the biggest piece of the pie seems to ring true again. I just hope it doesn’t chalk up to a completely lost season. I think there is a real opportunity for baseball to capitalize on the current situation and try and regain some fan bases that have been dropping off since the steroid era.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

My understanding is the 50-50 split is just for this year, but that doesn't change the fact that the owners are not sharing in good times, but wanting everyone to share in the bad times.

I suppose I just don't understand why it always seems to be the players that are the bad guys when the owners take advantage of them as often as possible. I see nothing unreasonable about they players saying they don't want to make a massive pay cut (ie 50-50 revenue shares) so the owners don't have a bad year when its really the players at risk if anything starts up again.

IMO the baseball owners have not been taking advantage of the players. The lack of a salary cap tied to revenues hasn’t exactly hurt the players. Not like they’ve been asking for one.

Now what the owners are trying to do here is suspect, don’t get me wrong, but let the players come back with a counter. Because if the owners don’t see a reduction in salaries I don’t know if it’s worthwhile for them to have a season. They might lose less money by shuttering the league for a year.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Is there? The only actual strategy there is "should I double switch in the 7th with a pitcher having a good-but-not-outstanding game?" Do you pitch to the 8 hitter? Almost always yes. There might be one at bat in a hundred where it makes sense to pitch around someone who is generally the second worst hitter on the other team. Pitchers bunting is hardly strategic. Got a runner on with less than two outs? Almost always bunt. That's not strategy. That's lack of skill forcing your hand. The 'cat and mouse' of pitching changes vs. pinch hitters exists in DH ball as well.

So yeah, it still all comes back to 4-6 useless at bats a game vs. that rare time the double switch has a material impact on the outcome.

You're viewing strategy just as manager's in game decisions. It's more than that though. Building a good bench is important in the NL and you have to balance decisions based on pinch hitting skills. A team and pitcher need to devote some time to bunting practice as laying down the bunt or not can be a critical part of the game that sets up some offense later in the inning or kills an inning. It's gratifying to see guys who take that aspect seriously be rewarded. Setting a lineup is more significant with a pitcher hitting. Just a lot of elements of the game I enjoy as a long time baseball fan. I find manufactured runs in a tight game to be generally more exciting than a home run without much build up.

Most NL fans I know are against the DH. It seems that most AL fans can't understand why.

[looooob]

1982 all star game on TSN right now which I happened to be at



great night in Montreal with 5 Expos in the game, 19 HOFers (plus Rose) in action!

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by flamingred89

Isn’t the proposed 50-50 split just for this year though? I get the players frustration if the Owners were trying to sneak things in to a CBA going forward. But if it’s just for an abbreviated season this year and things go back to normal in 2021. Then I feel like Snell, Harper, and the other stars are just being brats and not looking out for the hundreds of players making league minimum and trying to crack a roster.

How are people being brats because they don’t feel the risk to their lives is worth the reward of their paycheque? Snell valuing his long term health over playing at a reduced salary is a choice he should be able to make. He isn’t a slave to MLB or Fans. He even said if he was paid his full salary he would feel obligated to hold up his end of the contract because that was the terms he agreed to with his bosses.

The guy doesn’t feel safe playing in this environment let him miss the season. He’s the ace on the baseball team I cheer for and it sucks he may not be back but it’s his body his choice.

[flamingred89]

Then if the MLB resumes he can sit out and another pitcher can take his place in the rotation if he’s that worried. My point was that it’s often the stars that create a stink about not getting their due when there’s hundreds of other replacement level players that’d probably love any type of pay check to play the game.

[Strange Brew]

If it was a safety thing, I’m not sure so much of Snell’s comments would have been about the $’s.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by fundmark19

How are people being brats because they don’t feel the risk to their lives is worth the reward of their paycheque? Snell valuing his long term health over playing at a reduced salary is a choice he should be able to make. He isn’t a slave to MLB or Fans. He even said if he was paid his full salary he would feel obligated to hold up his end of the contract because that was the terms he agreed to with his bosses.

The guy doesn’t feel safe playing in this environment let him miss the season. He’s the ace on the baseball team I cheer for and it sucks he may not be back but it’s his body his choice.

How does money become part of the safety issue??

If he doesnt feel safe at 1/2 his salary, why does he feel safe at full salary even though he will be working half the time he normally would? What changes?

Sorry...thats just nonsense.

Its all about greed, which is fine if thats what he values, but dont try and sugarcoat it as something else.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by transplant99

How does money become part of the safety issue??

If he doesnt feel safe at 1/2 his salary, why does he feel safe at full salary even though he will be working half the time he normally would? What changes?

Sorry...thats just nonsense.

Its all about greed, which is fine if thats what he values, but dont try and sugarcoat it as something else.

I agree almost fully - it's about the money.

There is logic to what he's saying though - he's taking on more risk than normal by playing, so he expects to be compensated for that risk. By that logic sure. However, how can a millionaire demand such a thing knowing the economic situation of his employer? I find that part the part we should be annoyed at. It's no skin off my back but when that's your starting position in a negotiation, it doesn't sound very reasonable.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by fleury

I agree almost fully - it's about the money.

There is logic to what he's saying though - he's taking on more risk than normal by playing, so he expects to be compensated for that risk. By that logic sure. However, how can a millionaire demand such a thing knowing the economic situation of his employer? I find that part the part we should be annoyed at. It's no skin off my back but when that's your starting position in a negotiation, it doesn't sound very reasonable.

The economic situation of its employer? You mean billionaires. Or his direct employer one of the few clubs that laid off most of their staff instead of keeping them on payroll. I really don’t get why people are mad.

If he is paid his salary he would be obligated to pitch for his employer. He has stated he still would not be happy or feel safe but would do it because that is what he agreed upon. One guy isn’t stopping the MLB from returning to play there are other pitchers to replace his spot.

[bluejays]

People are mad because he wants his full salary for playing half games. I'm not saying this with a sense of condescension, but that's really what people would be angry about. The economics of the situation is that teams would get revenue from the tv deal, but no gate revenue, almost not merchandise revenue, and who knows what else would be cut back. As an owner, how can you pay the same salary when there's a ridiculous cut back on revenue? That's just not reasonable to me, billionaire or not. These guys are all going to LOSE money this year, so recuperating some from a half season is their only way of not losing more, billionaires or millionaires, they're going to lose millions each.

If my employer came to me and asked me to take a pay cut (say 20%) because their revenue this year depleted (say 40%). Until the covid situation resolves I'll agree. When it resolves, go back to my regular pay. It beats being laid off. To demand the same salary when you play half the games; when your owners are losing tons of revenue streams, etc., all of which you can see as fact is happening, how can you reasonably demand full pay? This has not been a risk that most people could reasonably plan for so what is his gripe about? If health is your concern, let it be known and sit out. But to say he expects full pay just because he's paid by a billionaire, is pretty unreasonable under these circumstances. Now if that same billionaire made a bad investment choice and couldn't afford to pay his salary, that's a different story, but this is a special circumstance.

[fundmark19]

Originally Posted by fleury

People are mad because he wants his full salary for playing half games. I'm not saying this with a sense of condescension, but that's really what people would be angry about. The economics of the situation is that teams would get revenue from the tv deal, but no gate revenue, almost not merchandise revenue, and who knows what else would be cut back. As an owner, how can you pay the same salary when there's a ridiculous cut back on revenue? That's just not reasonable to me, billionaire or not. These guys are all going to LOSE money this year, so recuperating some from a half season is their only way of not losing more, billionaires or millionaires, they're going to lose millions each.

If my employer came to me and asked me to take a pay cut (say 20%) because their revenue this year depleted (say 40%). Until the covid situation resolves I'll agree. When it resolves, go back to my regular pay. It beats being laid off. To demand the same salary when you play half the games; when your owners are losing tons of revenue streams, etc., all of which you can see as fact is happening, how can you reasonably demand full pay? This has not been a risk that most people could reasonably plan for so what is his gripe about? If health is your concern, let it be known and sit out. But to say he expects full pay just because he's paid by a billionaire, is pretty unreasonable under these circumstances. Now if that same billionaire made a bad investment choice and couldn't afford to pay his salary, that's a different story, but this is a special circumstance.

That’s not the same. He doesn’t want his full salary to play he doesn’t want to play at all. He will concede to play if paid his full salary because that is what he signed up for in his mind. He’s not there saying “I’m the best there is and won’t play for less” he’s legitimately concerned for his well being and doesn’t want to play until things are sorted out. He has a particular skill set where it doesn’t matter if he holds out because someone else will hire him again when he is comfortable playing again.

[tvp2003]

The upcoming E:60 on Doc Halladay looks like a must watch. TSN is featuring Halladay this week, and the E:60 is scheduled to air on May 29:

Trailer:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1258453436091248640

An official trailer for the documentary released on Thursday previews the tragic story of Halladay's struggle with the pressures of fame.

The clip begins with highlights of his perfect game against the Marlins in 2010, the second in Phillies franchise history, before showing clips from interviews with Alex Rodriguez and Robinson Cano explaining their admiration for him as a pitcher. Throughout it all, the idea of having to be "perfect" is a central theme.

"[He was] a man who was expected to be perfect or seen as perfect," his widow, Brandy, notes in the trailer. "I saw how hard that was on him."

…

"Roy would want everyone to know that people are not perfect," an emotional Brandy Halladay continued. "We all struggle, but with hard work, humility and dedication, imperfect people can still have perfect moments."

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/...01mdxryi3nexwv

[nik-]

no, I think I'll just keep my good memories.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by fleury

People are mad because he wants his full salary for playing half games. *snip*

Again - this is false. All the players agreed to pro-rated salaries based on the number of games they play this year (if any). Everyone has essentially agreed to a pay cut of at least 30%-50% depending on if things actually get going.

The players are resisting having their salary tied to a 50-50 split in revenue. The owners did not share when times were good but they want a nice even split when times are bad. It's nearly impossible to know what the player's split was before, but estimates are around 40-45% or so depending on what is included in player compensation.

This is an entirely reasonable stance and I support the players for it.

[flames_fan_down_under]

mrkajz44 I agree with what you're saying and I think the players should absolutely hold their ground on this as what the owners are doing is frankly garbage.

However, after reading Snells comments (again) I think his personal position is in stark contrast with his unions position. It does sound like Snell is saying that he straight up doesn't want to take any pay cut at all, nothing pro-rated, nothing tied to revenue, no 50:50 or anything. He wants his salary in full. Normally I side with the players on these issues but Snells position doesn't really make any sense.

"Bro, I'm risking my life," Snell said. "What do you mean it should not be a thing? It should 100% be a thing. If I'm gonna play, I should be getting the money I signed to be getting paid. I should not be getting half of what I'm getting paid because the season's cut in half, on top of a 33% cut of the half that's already there -- so I'm really getting, like, 25%."

Sounds like he definitely wants to get paid his entire salary for playing half a season and likely only starting 15ish games.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

Again - this is false. All the players agreed to pro-rated salaries based on the number of games they play this year (if any). Everyone has essentially agreed to a pay cut of at least 30%-50% depending on if things actually get going.

The players are resisting having their salary tied to a 50-50 split in revenue. The owners did not share when times were good but they want a nice even split when times are bad. It's nearly impossible to know what the player's split was before, but estimates are around 40-45% or so depending on what is included in player compensation.

This is an entirely reasonable stance and I support the players for it.

I don't think so. What am I misunderstanding in his statement? Seems pretty clear to me he wants his full salary for taking on more risk.