2019 Major League Baseball Thread

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Never thought I would type this but: Wow Trevor Bauer made some pretty great points there.

Rob Manfred has certainly been doing his best to replace Goodell as the ultimate bootlicking corporate shill with absolutely zero tact lately. Not great timing for the owners to see that Turner Sports is giving the MLB 3.29 billion dollars for television rights to playoffs series until 2028. Hard to cry poor and tell the players that they won't be able to pay full prorated salaries now. Nevermind whatever Fox Sports, Rogers and regional sports carriers will be giving the MLB to retain their rights. The St. Louis Cardinals owner said that "baseball isn't really that profitable" anyways so I hope this new deal helps them with their bottom line. I wonder what would happen if Fox or Turner Sports came to the MLB and their owners and asked for a renegotiation of their TV national rights contract because of these unique circumstances, I am sure they would be amenable.

The thing about all these situations is unless someone opens the books, you and I will hear arguments valid from both sides. I don't know who to believe anymore. Even infamous Scott Boras had a valid argument that owners made a killing for years and never shared the profits, but when things go sour they want the players to inherit the risk. I don't know anymore, but part of being an owner is assuming risk. Given baseball doesn't do the same revenue tied to salaries as hockey or basketball, how can an owner even demand this under these circumstances? I think the only thing the owners can demand is prorated salaries to games played, and I think that's fair to both sides. But again, who the heck knows when there's no transparency?

[flames_fan_down_under]

You basically nailed it on the head Fleury. There is no transparency with how much money teams make, and even if there was i am sure there would be quite a bit of accounting jiu-jitsu happening. There's a pretty famous Paul Beeston quote saying something to the effect of 'I can turn a 4 million dollar profit into a 2 million dollar loss and every accountant would sign off on it'. Why should the owners be able to reap the rewards when times are good but the players have to trim their salaries that they signed in good faith when times are bad? These owners are pure american capitalist and they know to privatize profits but socialize losses which is what they are desperately trying to do right now.

[Strange Brew]

So the players have wanted a salary cap tied to revenues all along?

Revenues will be down by much more than just the amount of games missed. No tickets, no concessions, no box rentals. That seems like a fact to me. Do the players have a right to expect their contracts to be honored? Sure, but also assuming there are some force majeure considerations. Do the owners have right to keep their doors closed if opening them would cost them money? Sure But they also need to think about the bigger picture.

Maybe if both sides negotiated in good faith like adults, recognizing the unprecedented times we are in, they could come up with a one time solution to save the season.

[flames_fan_down_under]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1272672563756318721

[Fire]

It's unreasonable for the players to expect to be paid their full pro-rated contracts when revenues will be down significantly. If I was an owner I would rather cancel the season as well. Of course the owners put themselves in this situation by not negotiating a salary cap based on revenues over a decade ago. Hopefully they will realize their mistake and make that a priority even if it means losing another season.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Never thought I would type this but: Wow Trevor Bauer made some pretty great points there.

Yes he did... which really ought to be a signal to Manfred, if Grade A obnoxious ####heel Trevor Bauer has people nodding their heads when he talks about you then you're probably not in the place that you want to be.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Fire

It's unreasonable for the players to expect to be paid their full pro-rated contracts when revenues will be down significantly.

Why? Players don't get top ups when revenue is up so why should the get cuts when it's down. There is no cap and no floor in baseball if the owners want they can just adjust their own spending later to cover any losses now.

If they keep up with this we won't have any baseball until at least 2022.

[Strange Brew]

Were MLP player's guaranteed salaries affected by the collapse in attendance after the 1994 strike? Or the great recession of 2008? Or the drop in interest post steroid era?

No, MLB players were happy to have no pegging of salaries to revenue. To suggest the existing structure has always been to the benefit of the owners s incorrect IMO.

This is an unprecedented situation requiring compromise by all parties.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Strange Brew, I recommend you read up a bit on the lead up to the 1994 strike. Here’s a quote from Fay Vincent regarding how the owners were behaving in 1992:

“The Union basically doesn’t trust the Ownership because collusion was a $280 million theft by Selig and Reinsdorf of that money from the players. I mean, they rigged the signing of free agents. They got caught. They paid $280 million to the players. And I think that’s polluted labor relations in baseball ever since it happened. I think it’s the reason Fehr has no trust in Selig.”

Baseball owners are scumbags man.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Were MLP player's guaranteed salaries affected by the collapse in attendance after the 1994 strike? Or the great recession of 2008? Or the drop in interest post steroid era?

No, MLB players were happy to have no pegging of salaries to revenue. To suggest the existing structure has always been to the benefit of the owners s incorrect IMO.

This is an unprecedented situation requiring compromise by all parties.

That's bananas.

The players get paid to play baseball. How is their job different now? it's not, the difference is how much owners can profit off their business. This is not the players problem.

I mean if this is such a bad deal for owners they just hand their franchises over. They might take a loss this year, their franchises are still worth billions, it happens.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

That's bananas.

The players get paid to play baseball. How is their job different now? it's not, the difference is how much owners can profit off their business. This is not the players problem.

I mean if this is such a bad deal for owners they just hand their franchises over. They might take a loss this year, their franchises are still worth billions, it happens.

How is their job different now? How is anyone’s job different now, who has had to endure pay cuts or reduced work weeks? If you say it’s not the players problem, do you feel that way about any business that is struggling and is reducing personnel costs?

I see this line of reasoning as a sure path to a cancelled season.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Strange Brew, I recommend you read up a bit on the lead up to the 1994 strike. Here’s a quote from Fay Vincent regarding how the owners were behaving in 1992:

“The Union basically doesn’t trust the Ownership because collusion was a $280 million theft by Selig and Reinsdorf of that money from the players. I mean, they rigged the signing of free agents. They got caught. They paid $280 million to the players. And I think that’s polluted labor relations in baseball ever since it happened. I think it’s the reason Fehr has no trust in Selig.”

Baseball owners are scumbags man.

I don’t have a haloed view of sports owners and the fair competitive practices of any pro sports league so what owners did 28 years ago just isn’t overly relevant for me in the context of saving this season. The idea that the players have suffered because they had salaries guaranteed and not pegged to revenues is what I take exception with.

[flames_fan_down_under]

I am sorry man, but I have truly no idea what you're arguing.

However, the existing structure has for the most part been to the benefit of the owners rather than the players. Average MLB player salaries have barely doubled since 2003 while MLB revenue has more than tripled since 2001, including no revenue dip after the steroid era or the great recession which you referenced.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ague-baseball/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lb-since-2005/

[mrkajz44]

Yup - anyone saying this is the players fault is just flat out wrong for 2 reasons:

1) Player's salaries historically have not been tied to revenue per the CBA. Yes, there is a correlation where salaries tend to go up when revenues increase, but they are not actually tied together. If revenues outpace salary increases, which they've done in the past, then the owners make more money. It is completely unreasonable to expect the players' salaries to tied to revenue now that it is dropping

2) An agreement was made between MLB and the MLBPA near the end of March (I believe March 27) where salaries were to be pro-rated based on the length of the season. If the owners really wanted to peg salaries to revenue, that was the time to do it. By the end of March it was clear how big of an impact COVID-19 was going to be, so the argument that things changed since then doesn't really hold water. The players are just saying "we want to keep the agreement that was made in March" which is completely reasonable.

[chummer]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273320338017968130

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by chummer

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273320338017968130

Great news. Not gonna lie I'm a bit indifferent to hockey this summer now but would love to see some ball.

[Roof-Daddy]

I am dying for some baseball.

[KelVarnsen]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1273330040306978816

[bluejays]

I don't know what's true and false, but it seemed really suspicious that 24 hours after being at a low they're suddenly at the brink of a deal with no actual drop deadline. Something like that would be highly unusual in a negotiation. I don't think a deal gets done personally. This isn't posturing at the moment, but two sides that have a wide gap with no side really willing to budge publicly. There should be a drop date set to get the ball rolling on both sides making concessions and actually negotiating.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by fleury

I don't think a deal gets done personally.

I do. It seems likely that at this point MLB's principle objective is to avoid a greivence... I mean he went from 100% certain to not certain the second the players said "just set the schedule". I mean, the players said we'll play however many games you want... and that caused a 180 in MLB's position? A complete surrender on game count weakened MLB's position? That greivence must be incredibly valuable.

Since both sides know that and know that the other side knows it it comes down to an equation... ($X × %Y) + Z$. Where X is the compensation for a won greivence and Y is the percentage chance of winning said greivence and Z is the value of information gained in the greivence process. When MLB concedes that number is when we'll get an agreement.