Will The MLB Suspend The 2020 season

[S5Dewey]

Particularly worrisome to me was Manfred's seemingly positive promise yesterday "100% certain we will have baseball." I expected him to say something along the lines of 'owners and players want the same thing and are getting close.' Instead, the basis of his confidence (he himself said) was the clause in the March agreement giving him the power just to impose a 48 game schedule without the players' approval. (Gee, suddenly the March agreement becomes sacrosanct!).

If Manfred's goal is to piss the players off in the middle of a negotiations this is the way to go about it.

This is the kind of action that could very well bleed over into the next CBA. People don't forget being ignored.

[Thunder]

Particularly worrisome to me was Manfred's seemingly positive promise yesterday "100% certain we will have baseball." I expected him to say something along the lines of 'owners and players want the same thing and are getting close.' Instead, the basis of his confidence (he himself said) was the clause in the March agreement giving him the power just to impose a 48 game schedule without the players' approval. (Gee, suddenly the March agreement becomes sacrosanct!).

 

That's the last thing we need. I was particularly perturbed by that statement as well

[Kimmi]

If the season comes down to Manfred having to mandate a 48 game season against the players' will, it's possible that many players will choose to opt out. Or maybe that's just a negotiating tactic. But if that happens, that won't be any better of a look than if there were no season at all, IMO.

 

As I posted yesterday, the players made a reasonable counter offer. It's now on the owners to make comparable concessions, and for the two sides to agree. This has gone on far too long. Based on Manfred's comments, it does sound like the owners are going to make a reasonable counter. 'Reasonable' is very much up to interpretation, though.

[mvp 78]

If the season comes down to Manfred having to mandate a 48 game season against the players' will, it's possible that many players will choose to opt out. Or maybe that's just a negotiating tactic. But if that happens, that won't be any better of a look than if there were no season at all, IMO.

 

As I posted yesterday, the players made a reasonable counter offer. It's now on the owners to make comparable concessions, and for the two sides to agree. This has gone on far too long. Based on Manfred's comments, it does sound like the owners are going to make a reasonable counter. 'Reasonable' is very much up to interpretation, though.

 

I think fans will be understandable if a player like Blake Snell sits out. It's not like he'll be getting paid to stay home.

[jad]

If Manfred's goal is to piss the players off in the middle of a negotiations this is the way to go about it.

This is the kind of action that could very well bleed over into the next CBA. People don't forget being ignored.

 

If the season comes down to Manfred having to mandate a 48 game season against the players' will, it's possible that many players will choose to opt out. Or maybe that's just a negotiating tactic. But if that happens, that won't be any better of a look than if there were no season at all, IMO.

 

As I posted yesterday, the players made a reasonable counter offer. It's now on the owners to make comparable concessions, and for the two sides to agree. This has gone on far too long. Based on Manfred's comments, it does sound like the owners are going to make a reasonable counter. 'Reasonable' is very much up to interpretation, though.

 

I agree. And many of the best players have more money now than they could ever possibly spend. Why would they play an abbreviated season, taking on all the associated aggravation and risks? If many of them 'opt out', it would have the same effect as a strike (without having to make the younger players pay the price).

[mvp 78]

@DPLennon

MLB and Players Association have been negotiating for a month and the union has not moved a single percentage point on salaries.

For Manfred to say he hopes the players come off 100 percent now was basically just for the TV audience. He must realize that’s not going to happen.

 

@EugeneFreedman

You are right. He knows there is no duty to bargain over that proposal and that the Union will not agree to a further reduction of salaries. The reason they have not moved is because the parties reached an agreement on salaries in the March Agreement.

The sad fact is:

MLB & its media arm, MLB Network (including many but not all of the "journalists" who work on the network) are engaged in a propaganda campaign, instead of engaging in bargaining.

MLB and the PA need a no publicity agreement as part of the ground rules for the next term CBA.

 

@craigcalcaterra

There will always be leaks, but the percentage of major baseball media figures who are paid directly by MLB/MLB Network or RSNs, most of whom are reporting on these negotiations without mention of that fact, is fairly appalling.

[Kimmi]

I think fans will be understandable if a player like Blake Snell sits out. It's not like he'll be getting paid to stay home.

 

Not so sure about that.

[Kimmi]

I agree. And many of the best players have more money now than they could ever possibly spend. Why would they play an abbreviated season, taking on all the associated aggravation and risks? If many of them 'opt out', it would have the same effect as a strike (without having to make the younger players pay the price).

 

If players really want to play like they keep saying they do, then they'll play.

[Kimmi]

@DPLennon

MLB and Players Association have been negotiating for a month and the union has not moved a single percentage point on salaries.

For Manfred to say he hopes the players come off 100 percent now was basically just for the TV audience. He must realize that’s not going to happen.

 

@EugeneFreedman

You are right. He knows there is no duty to bargain over that proposal and that the Union will not agree to a further reduction of salaries. The reason they have not moved is because the parties reached an agreement on salaries in the March Agreement.

The sad fact is:

MLB & its media arm, MLB Network (including many but not all of the "journalists" who work on the network) are engaged in a propaganda campaign, instead of engaging in bargaining.

MLB and the PA need a no publicity agreement as part of the ground rules for the next term CBA.

 

@craigcalcaterra

There will always be leaks, but the percentage of major baseball media figures who are paid directly by MLB/MLB Network or RSNs, most of whom are reporting on these negotiations without mention of that fact, is fairly appalling.

 

People keep mentioning this March agreement, but fail to mention that the agreement was predicated on there being fans at the games. Clark even acknowledged this fact.

[jad]

If Manfred's goal is to piss the players off in the middle of a negotiations this is the way to go about it.

This is the kind of action that could very well bleed over into the next CBA. People don't forget being ignored.

 

If players really want to play like they keep saying they do, then they'll play.

 

Yes. SOME players. But I'm guessing many will not. Perhaps it's because I chose to retire. It's very easy for me now to relate to someone who says "I have enough money to live comfortably. I don't need to kiss your ass to make more. Give me a rational reason to return to work, and I'll listen."

[S5Dewey]

@DPLennon

MLB and Players Association have been negotiating for a month and the union has not moved a single percentage point on salaries.

For Manfred to say he hopes the players come off 100 percent now was basically just for the TV audience. He must realize that’s not going to happen.

 

@EugeneFreedman

You are right. He knows there is no duty to bargain over that proposal and that the Union will not agree to a further reduction of salaries. The reason they have not moved is because the parties reached an agreement on salaries in the March Agreement.

The sad fact is:

MLB & its media arm, MLB Network (including many but not all of the "journalists" who work on the network) are engaged in a propaganda campaign, instead of engaging in bargaining.

MLB and the PA need a no publicity agreement as part of the ground rules for the next term CBA.

@craigcalcaterra

There will always be leaks, but the percentage of major baseball media figures who are paid directly by MLB/MLB Network or RSNs, most of whom are reporting on these negotiations without mention of that fact, is fairly appalling.

 

Gee, I wish I'd thought of THAT!

[Thunder]

Yes. SOME players. But I'm guessing many will not. Perhaps it's because I chose to retire. It's very easy for me now to relate to someone who says "I have enough money to live comfortably. I don't need to kiss your ass to make more. Give me a rational reason to return to work, and I'll listen."

 

The problem is, the ones that choose not to play could potentially cost the others a season, and a future. I don't think the league can survive with no baseball in 2020. They might not die out right away, but long term, I think the MLB will eventually fold.

[jad]

The problem is, the ones that choose not to play could potentially cost the others a season, and a future. I don't think the league can survive with no baseball in 2020. They might not die out right away, but long term, I think the MLB will eventually fold.

 

I don't understand. How? If Mike Trout decides he won't play, so what? If I were a younger player making 500K, I wouldn't base my decision on what someone making 10-50x what I make does. I think the numbers of players who opt out may be significant, but it won't stop games from being played. (On the other hand, it may well be that someone making 20million/year has developed such an extravagant life-style, the thought of losing even a nickel is too horrifying to contemplate.)

[oldtimer]

People keep mentioning this March agreement, but fail to mention that the agreement was predicated on there being fans at the games. Clark even acknowledged this fact.

 

Clearly the situation has changed due to the virus. The pie is smaller so the slice should be smaller. Makes sense to me although the players have a point in saying they want to see the club financial statements to understand how big the pie is. As far as the number of games this year, the players offered 114, which some believe are possible. I would think something around 70 would make sense while Manfred is at 48. Lets hope they reach agreement. From the information leaking out, owners and players are close on the opt out definition. Still, I think it will come back to money, it always does.

[Kimmi]

Clearly the situation has changed due to the virus. The pie is smaller so the slice should be smaller. Makes sense to me although the players have a point in saying they want to see the club financial statements to understand how big the pie is. As far as the number of games this year, the players offered 114, which some believe are possible. I would think something around 70 would make sense while Manfred is at 48. Lets hope they reach agreement. From the information leaking out, owners and players are close on the opt out definition. Still, I think it will come back to money, it always does.

 

The longer they continue to disagree, the fewer games they will be able to play, obviously. The hoped for starting date has already been pushed back one week. The threat of a second wave of the coronavirus in the fall might prohibit them from playing into October, much less November like some are saying. They need to come to an agreement now.

[mvp 78]

The longer they continue to disagree, the fewer games they will be able to play, obviously. The hoped for starting date has already been pushed back one week. The threat of a second wave of the coronavirus in the fall might prohibit them from playing into October, much less November like some are saying. They need to come to an agreement now.

 

IMO, the owners would rather not even have a season.

[Kimmi]

IMO, the owners would rather not even have a season.

 

I'm not sure if they'd rather not have a season, but they would much rather have the 50 game season mandated by Manfred than a longer season, unless players agree to revenue sharing.

[mvp 78]

@karlravechespn

Sources tell me MLB counter proposal today will move towards a season of roughly 70 plus games with a salary percentage on the 80-85 percent of pro rata. Playoff pool bonus. My concern are the recent spikes in COVID -19. Worst case would be to start and stop. Will players move?

 

IMO, players shouldn't budget at all on the pro rata. The pro rata should be 100%.

[Kimmi]

The owners' latest counter proposal looks like a no go. I guess we should be preparing ourselves for a 50 game season.

 

Bob Nightengale

 

@BNightengale

·

30m

 

 

The #MLBPA receives formal proposal from #MLB on 72-game season starting July 14, with 80% guarantee of their prorated salaries with a postseason, 70% with no postseason. Deadline is Sunday for 72-game schedule. Also, 29-man rosters for the first month. Players also have opt-out.

 

The MLB proposal provides players $1.5 billion in total compensation if there's a postseason,_ $1.27 billion during regular season, an increase of $300 million from their Monday proposal.

 

 

The regular season, which would start on July 14 and end on Sept. 27, would allow clubs to carry 29 players the first month of the season.

 

Any player can choose not to play, without pay or service time. Those high-risk players to COVID-19 would still get paid with service time.

 

If you factor in the $50 million playoff pool, players would get 83% of their pro-rated salaries if the World Series is played. The proposal also provides for best-of-three wild-card rounds instead of a one game. So there could be a total of 16 more postseason games this year.

 

So, if the World Series is played to its entirety, there's a $314 million difference between #MLB's proposal and what the players would earn with full pro-rated pay over 72 games. The gap is narrowing.

 

Since there may be no fans at World Series games, the $50 million player pool, per #MLB proposal, would guarantee about $250,000 to players and staffers on the winning World Series team and about $170,000 to those on the losing team.

[oldtimer]

The owners' latest counter proposal looks like a no go. I guess we should be preparing ourselves for a 50 game season.

 

Bob Nightengale

 

@BNightengale

·

30m

 

 

The #MLBPA receives formal proposal from #MLB on 72-game season starting July 14, with 80% guarantee of their prorated salaries with a postseason, 70% with no postseason. Deadline is Sunday for 72-game schedule. Also, 29-man rosters for the first month. Players also have opt-out.

 

The MLB proposal provides players $1.5 billion in total compensation if there's a postseason,_ $1.27 billion during regular season, an increase of $300 million from their Monday proposal.

 

 

The regular season, which would start on July 14 and end on Sept. 27, would allow clubs to carry 29 players the first month of the season.

 

Any player can choose not to play, without pay or service time. Those high-risk players to COVID-19 would still get paid with service time.

 

If you factor in the $50 million playoff pool, players would get 83% of their pro-rated salaries if the World Series is played. The proposal also provides for best-of-three wild-card rounds instead of a one game. So there could be a total of 16 more postseason games this year.

 

So, if the World Series is played to its entirety, there's a $314 million difference between #MLB's proposal and what the players would earn with full pro-rated pay over 72 games. The gap is narrowing.

 

Since there may be no fans at World Series games, the $50 million player pool, per #MLB proposal, would guarantee about $250,000 to players and staffers on the winning World Series team and about $170,000 to those on the losing team.

 

It looks like a reasonable offer from the owners, with some give. Lets see what develops.

[Michigan adam]

The owners will take in roughly 33% of previous revenue on an 82 game season. Sees pretty fair that players receive about 33% of their contract to me. Owners cost are certainly not cut to 33% as things like property takes, stadium payments, etc don't decline due to this mess. I think the players are greedy, and will end up with a 48 game season(29.63%) of their salary.

[mvp 78]

The owners will take in roughly 33% of previous revenue on an 82 game season. Sees pretty fair that players receive about 33% of their contract to me. Owners cost are certainly not cut to 33% as things like property takes, stadium payments, etc don't decline due to this mess. I think the players are greedy, and will end up with a 48 game season(29.63%) of their salary.

 

Owners reap billions every year. Time for them to lose a little. A contract is a contract.

[jad]

Owners reap billions every year. Time for them to lose a little. A contract is a contract.

 

Exactly. And the value of their franchises continue to rise (something they do not count when calculating their profits). But their strategy of demonizing the players may well backfire if the fans agree with them. The owners may learn that fans go to games to see the players, not to pay tribute to some filthy capitalist pig of an owner. (Oh dear, that was harsh. What if an owner finds this hurtful?). Or maybe the owners have already considered this. If baseball dies, they can always turn their state-subsidized assets (stadiums parking lots) into a real estate bonanza?

[Bellhorn04]

Exactly. And the value of their franchises continue to rise (something they do not count when calculating their profits). But their strategy of demonizing the players may well backfire if the fans agree with them. The owners may learn that fans go to games to see the players, not to pay tribute to some filthy capitalist pig of an owner. (Oh dear, that was harsh. What if an owner finds this hurtful?).

 

Now I think you're getting carried away a bit. How are the owners 'demonizing' the players? Looks to me like they're just playing a little hardball on the salaries.

[jad]

Now I think you're getting carried away a bit. How are the owners 'demonizing' the players? Looks to me like they're just playing a little hardball on the salaries.

 

Sure. Hyperbole. We do that here. What I mean is they are treating this as a PR contest, not as negotiations (why should they publicize any of their offers? several of which have amounted, as one poster has noted here, to no more than throwing s*** on the wall to see what sticks). And most fans (we included) go along, asking: "Who is to blame?" But that's ridiculous! The players are their asset (Apple does not start an ad campaign by trashing iPhones!). NBA and Adam Silver of course understand this; even Gary Bettman understands this.

[Bellhorn04]

Owners reap billions every year.

 

Now this is some sweet hyperbole right here.

[S5Dewey]

Sure. Hyperbole. We do that here. What I mean is they are treating this as a PR contest, not as negotiations (why should they publicize any of their offers? several of which have amounted, as one poster has noted here, to no more than throwing s*** on the wall to see what sticks). And most fans (we included) go along, asking: "Who is to blame?" But that's ridiculous! The players are their asset (Apple does not start an ad campaign by trashing iPhones!). NBA and Adam Silver of course understand this; even Gary Bettman understands this.

 

You're right. This is becoming a PR contest where both sides are trying to "demonize" the other to gain public favor. It's also worth mentioning that the owners have the upper hand in this discussion because we know how much money the players make but we have no idea how much the owners are making.

 

Negotiations should never go public. Going public is an attempt to garner public support for one side of the negotiations while the public has no real significant financial stake in the outcome.

[Kimmi]

It looks like a reasonable offer from the owners, with some give. Lets see what develops.

 

From what I've read, the players have more or less already dismissed this proposal. They do not want to back down from getting a full prorated salary.

 

The players can make almost as much money playing the 50 game season, so their reasoning is why should they play 22 more games.

[a700hitter]

My prediction is that there will be no season and the owners will blame it on the safety limitations from the virus... but it will be about $.

[notin]

How long before we see proposals for a 10 game season followed by a 16 team postseason tournament?