Will The MLB Suspend The 2020 season

[oldtimer]

And yet you're siding with the owners who are whining that they are not going to make enough money this year. The owners who are contracting MiLB.

 

I believe the players care far more about "the game" and its future than the owners do.

 

The way I understand it, thecontracts are now based on a prorated amount of the total salary committed to earlier based upon the fraction of games played. At 82 games, players would get 505 of their salary, however if 100 games were played the players would get a largeer fraction.

 

The owners are saying wait a minuted, a large fraction of our income comes from ticket sales and concessions. That is not to mention, the fixed costs associated with owning a club. So the owners make a lot less but the players don't want to share in paying for that loss. If it was the reverse situation and the owners were making a lot more, would the players not be looking for a share of the new found income? I think the owners have a reasonable argument regarding players sharing the cost of the lost revenue.

[jad]

IDK, but it seems like you are spending more time criticizing the players than the owners.

 

The owners know exactly what they're doing, setting the stage for the more important battle of a new CBA in another year. Owners know they can turn the public against "greedy players who get paid to play a kid's game". Few fans aspire to be billionaire businessmen, but most think they can swing a stick.

 

The way I understand it, thecontracts are now based on a prorated amount of the total salary committed to earlier based upon the fraction of games played. At 82 games, players would get 505 of their salary, however if 100 games were played the players would get a largeer fraction.

 

The owners are saying wait a minuted, a large fraction of our income comes from ticket sales and concessions. That is not to mention, the fixed costs associated with owning a club. So the owners make a lot less but the players don't want to share in paying for that loss. If it was the reverse situation and the owners were making a lot more, would the players not be looking for a share of the new found income? I think the owners have a reasonable argument regarding players sharing the cost of the lost revenue.

 

Read the Scott Boras letter, which points out that owners make tons of money upgrading their facilities and thus increasing dramatically the value of their franchises. They never share those profits with players. Now, as he points out, they are in financial difficulties because of the business decisions (good ones, it seemed at the time) they made. But these decisions to upgrade stadiums, etc., weren't the players' decisions, and the players should not be the ones 'sharing' in the losses.

[Kimmi]

IDK, but it seems like you are spending more time criticizing the players than the owners.

 

Because I haven't seen any tweets or posts from specific owners, just general statements from MLB that they are losing money.

 

I would criticize similar statements from owners just as much.

[Kimmi]

But there was nothing in the least disrespectful toward the fans in his comments. He wasn't really trying to get in a war, I don't think.

 

Fair enough that he wasn't trying to get in a war.

 

His comments still come across as being disconnected from the realities of what many people are going through, IMO.

[a700hitter]

Its about honor a contract that players committed to. I’m held responsible for rent in Boston because I signed a contract. A global pandemic didn’t get me out of writing a check every month despite not being there

 

I don't get this part of Pillar's comment. ^ I thought the owners were not responsible to pay on the MLB contracts if there was no season.

[mvp 78]

The way I understand it, thecontracts are now based on a prorated amount of the total salary committed to earlier based upon the fraction of games played. At 82 games, players would get 505 of their salary, however if 100 games were played the players would get a largeer fraction.

 

The owners are saying wait a minuted, a large fraction of our income comes from ticket sales and concessions. That is not to mention, the fixed costs associated with owning a club. So the owners make a lot less but the players don't want to share in paying for that loss. If it was the reverse situation and the owners were making a lot more, would the players not be looking for a share of the new found income? I think the owners have a reasonable argument regarding players sharing the cost of the lost revenue.

The employees don't need to share a loss when the owners don't give the employees profit sharing when there is a surplus.

[dgalehouse]

The owners are on the verge of bankruptcy. And the players income is near poverty level. We need your help now . If all fans would contribute nineteen dollars a month we could save them all .. It's really just pennies a day . Operators are standing by to take your call. Please call now , and we will send you a beautiful tote bag with the MLB logo. ( As long as supplies last.)

[mvp 78]

The owners are on the verge of bankruptcy. And the players income is near poverty level. We need your help now . If all fans would contribute nineteen dollars a month we could save them all .. It's really just pennies a day . Operators are standing by to take your call. Please call now , and we will send you a beautiful tote bag with the MLB logo. ( As long as supplies last.)

 

I'm holding out for the umbrella and the VHS box set.

[mvp 78]

@byJulianMack

Red Sox release 22 minor league players

 

Consider this to be a statement from the owners.

[mvp 78]

Pitchers : Matthew Gorst (RHP), Alex Demchak (LHP), Dylan Thompson (RHP), Robbie Baker (RHP), Chris Machamer (RHP), Connor Berry (RHP), Eddie Jimenez (RHP), Kelvin Sanchez (LHP), Zach Schneider (RHP), and Mason Duke (RHP)

 

Catchers: Joe DeCarlo, Samuel Miranda, and Breiner Licona

 

Infielders: Nick Lovullo, Juremi Profar, Korby Batesole, Andre Colon, and Nilo Rijo

 

Outfielders: Edgar Corcino, Keith Curcio, Trenton Kemp, and Marino Campana

 

Don't worry, all the multimillionaires listed here can handle it!

[dgalehouse]

@byJulianMack

Red Sox release 22 minor league players

 

Consider this to be a statement from the owners.

 

Bloom decimated the farm.

[Elktonnick]

Bloom decimated the farm.

 

He plowed it under.

[notin]

Bloom decimated the farm.

 

Most of the released players were 25+ with little experience above A-ball. There were a few surprise ones, at least to me, such as Marina Campana, Samuel Miranda, Andre Colon, Zach Schneider, and Breiner Licona.

 

But Bloom does know these players better than I do...

[Kimmi]

@byJulianMack

Red Sox release 22 minor league players

 

Consider this to be a statement from the owners.

 

Pete Abraham

 

@PeteAbe

·

1h

 

#RedSox announced these minor league cuts:

A little context on these cuts. Many of these, if not all, would have happened in spring training before transactions were frozen.

 

 

But the owners should be paying the employees that they furloughed. They can afford to do so.

[Kimmi]

Pitchers : Matthew Gorst (RHP), Alex Demchak (LHP), Dylan Thompson (RHP), Robbie Baker (RHP), Chris Machamer (RHP), Connor Berry (RHP), Eddie Jimenez (RHP), Kelvin Sanchez (LHP), Zach Schneider (RHP), and Mason Duke (RHP)

 

Catchers: Joe DeCarlo, Samuel Miranda, and Breiner Licona

 

Infielders: Nick Lovullo, Juremi Profar, Korby Batesole, Andre Colon, and Nilo Rijo

 

Outfielders: Edgar Corcino, Keith Curcio, Trenton Kemp, and Marino Campana

 

Don't worry, all the multimillionaires listed here can handle it!

 

Stop.

[jad]

I don't get this part of Pillar's comment. ^ I thought the owners were not responsible to pay on the MLB contracts if there was no season.

 

Wasn't the issue on pay during a partial season? THe players claim the owners agreed to pay them a pro-rated part of their salary (depending on the number of games), and that was that. The owners concede that. What they are arguing now is that the agreement was made on the assumption that fans would be in the stadiums. Players deny that. I don't know. I wasn't there. But the owners aren't stupid, and in March, I distinctly remember discussions about sports with no fans. It is inconceivable to me that owners (and players too, for that matter) did not realize this was a possibility, when it was being talked about quite openly. And it's hard to believe that the owners and players just kicked the can down the road ("Of course, if there are no fans in the stadiums, all this will be renegotiated."). Until the owners can produce the signed statement that specifically and explicitly addresses this issue (which should be easy to do if in fact that was the basis of negotiation in March), I believe the players. (Again, the owners aren't stupid ... well, let me restate that: the LAWYERS for the owners aren't stupid. There is no way they wouldn't insist that such crucial assumptions in negotiations be made explicit.)

[a700hitter]

Wasn't the issue on pay during a partial season? THe players claim the owners agreed to pay them a pro-rated part of their salary (depending on the number of games), and that was that. The owners concede that. What they are arguing now is that the agreement was made on the assumption that fans would be in the stadiums. Players deny that. I don't know. I wasn't there. But the owners aren't stupid, and in March, I distinctly remember discussions about sports with no fans. It is inconceivable to me that owners (and players too, for that matter) did not realize this was a possibility, when it was being talked about quite openly. And it's hard to believe that the owners and players just kicked the can down the road ("Of course, if there are no fans in the stadiums, all this will be renegotiated."). Until the owners can produce the signed statement that specifically and explicitly addresses this issue (which should be easy to do if in fact that was the basis of negotiation in March), I believe the players. (Again, the owners aren't stupid ... well, let me restate that: the LAWYERS for the owners aren't stupid. There is no way they wouldn't insist that such crucial assumptions in negotiations be made explicit.)

Thanks for the explanation. That clears it up. Did they sign an agreement about a shortened season or was that a handshake type agreement?

[jad]

Thanks for the explanation. That clears it up. Did they sign an agreement about a shortened season or was that a handshake type agreement?

 

I think it was signed, but I've never seen it. You're a lawyer, right? Are these kinds of agreements common? You would think, given the animosity between owners and players, that someone would have drawn up a very detailed agreement, since we're talking 100s of $millions. The only descriptions I've seen are like those in the SI article below. But if that kind of language is in there "as long as there are no legal impediments to playing in front of fans", I can see how two different interpretations are possible (i.e., the owners will argue: well sure, there are no LEGAL restrictions about playing in front of fans, but there are health-related ones." whereas the players will say "even 10% full stadiums are playing 'in front of fans'".) Maybe there was a lot of wishful or magical thinking involved on both sides, although what we're facing now seems like it was easily predictable in March.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/03/27/mlbpa-service-time-coronavirus-delay-draft.

[a700hitter]

I think it was signed, but I've never seen it. You're a lawyer, right? Are these kinds of agreements common? You would think, given the animosity between owners and players, that someone would have drawn up a very detailed agreement, since we're talking 100s of $millions. The only descriptions I've seen are like those in the SI article below. But if that kind of language is in there "as long as there are no legal impediments to playing in front of fans", I can see how two different interpretations are possible (i.e., the owners will argue: well sure, there are no LEGAL restrictions about playing in front of fans, but there are health-related ones." whereas the players will say "even 10% full stadiums are playing 'in front of fans'".) Maybe there was a lot of wishful or magical thinking involved on both sides, although what we're facing now seems like it was easily predictable in March.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/03/27/mlbpa-service-time-coronavirus-delay-draft.

If the owners have the ultimate decision on whether the season will be played, they have the leverage regardless of what the agreement says. That's not a legal opinion, but just an observation. Both sides lawyers should have been prepared for and made provision for the possibility that there would be empty stadiums.

[jad]

If the owners have the ultimate decision on whether the season will be played, they have the leverage regardless of what the agreement says. That's not a legal opinion, but just an observation. Both sides lawyers should have been prepared for and made provision for the possibility that there would be empty stadiums.

 

Thanks. Wonder why they didn't. Maybe both sides knew it would be contentious, and didn't want to address it unless they absolutely had to (as they do now).

[OH FOY]

I were the Sox I would vote for suspended season. Get Sale, and Groom healthy, go from there. I heard no season Owners have to Fork over 170 Million between 30 Teams that's squat.

Owners wont make money, but Players lose a year of playing on their career.

Owners, are playing this smart. They are quiet.

Players looking terrible to rest of people not even Fans.

40+ Million Unemployed, they should just shut-up.

[OH FOY]

Had a Poll the other day on Felger and Mazz. For 4 Hrs, 60% of the people of the Poll did not want a Baseball Season at all.

Hard to believe, MLB on shaky Ground.

1 Pats

2 Celtics

3 Bruins

4 Red Sox

That's the New England Poll for Favorite Sports Teams.

[mvp 78]

Sox cut pay to all employees making over 50k.

 

Damn those players making the billionaire owners do that!!!!

[mvp 78]

I were the Sox I would vote for suspended season. Get Sale, and Groom healthy, go from there. I heard no season Owners have to Fork over 170 Million between 30 Teams that's squat.

Owners wont make money, but Players lose a year of playing on their career.

Owners, are playing this smart. They are quiet.

Players looking terrible to rest of people not even Fans.

40+ Million Unemployed, they should just shut-up.

 

Yup, cutting salaries and using Manfred as a mouthpiece is keeping quiet. Sure....

 

You’re just not listening.

[mvp 78]

Stop.

 

Will you be telling people to stop who say the players should just keep quiet?

[Bellhorn04]

Had a Poll the other day on Felger and Mazz. For 4 Hrs, 60% of the people of the Poll did not want a Baseball Season at all.

Hard to believe, MLB on shaky Ground.

1 Pats

2 Celtics

3 Bruins

4 Red Sox

That's the New England Poll for Favorite Sports Teams.

 

That's weird.

[jad]

Presumed sports fans who claim they do not want sports to resume are a complete mystery to me.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Had a Poll the other day on Felger and Mazz. For 4 Hrs, 60% of the people of the Poll did not want a Baseball Season at all.

Hard to believe, MLB on shaky Ground.

1 Pats

2 Celtics

3 Bruins

4 Red Sox

That's the New England Poll for Favorite Sports Teams.

 

Not surprising -- as a listener of WEEI, the majority discussion all year is football, even when the '18 Sox were going for it in the postseason... and even in the summer when baseball was the only pro sport and the Sox were great, there was more talk about the NFL draft and training camp. It's hard to stomach for hardballers, but it's true. Sometimes I tune in to WFAN in NY where more callers want to talk MLB.

 

Look at what the top 3 have in common: goals at each end and clocks running out of time, perfect for the fast-paced, always-in-a-rush-to-gratify-immediate-attention-spans...

 

Baseball is just a leisurely walk in the park -- only there's too many strolls at night when it's late and cold.

 

Now, get those soccer balls off my lawn -- they're crowding my collections of stamps, coins and comic books, which I'm giving away as obsolete artifacts from a bygone century!

[dgalehouse]

Things are not like they used to be . A lot of people, especially the younger generation, are not addicted to the sport of baseball. All the little gimmicks and promos that MLB has tried has not changed that very much . It is not a good idea for any business to alienate their customers. And it certainly is not a good idea for the owners and players to alienate the fans at this time.

[notin]

Presumed sports fans who claim they do not want sports to resume are a complete mystery to me.

 

 

I know. Shortened season? New rules? Weird playoff format?

 

Count me in. It’s stil baseball.

 

 

Except the 3 batter minimum rule, which is stupid and only in consideration for pace and TV considerations...