jad

Without Dice-K's 18 wins, there's no ring that year.

Well, JD Drew and Agon gave the RS EXACTLY what anyone would have expected. Drew was a .280 hitter and continued to do that. I've never understood the negative reactions toward AGon (I believe he ALSO hit pretty much his career average-- .299 was it? Nothing wrong with that) ... well, I need to qualify that. I think I do know why Boston fans did not like AGon (whereas SanDiego fans and LA fans liked him) ...but it has nothing to do with baseball performance.

OMG! Owners have DEBT!!! And, while their franchises soar in value, they sometimes do not make profits in addition to that. And they lose CONCESSIONS!!! My God, they may actually have to tap into their billions in off-shore bank accounts to feed their families. (I now see the error of my ways.)

But when the owners have unexpected bonanza profits, do they share those with the players? In any case, I agree there likely will be no season. There was also some REALLY bad news today for sports fans wanting sports to 'open up'. Five Alabama football players tested positive. (Unless this is an aberration, and it may well be, NCAA football is in serious trouble. And if this is an indication of what may well happen for other sports ... well, we know the consequences.)

If the owners would open their books for auditing, and they had given any sign in previous negotiations that there was reason for the players to trust them, and if too they made a written vow that 'revenue-sharing' was a one-year proposition and would NOT be part of their proposals in the next CBA ... then I'd be with you. But this is a pipe dream. The owners clearly want to eliminate as many season games as they can (thus reducing what the players get--they claim each game costs them around 600K), and still have play-offs (a major source of income for owners, not so for players). They haven't yet made a significant concession to the players, nor shown a willingness to abide by their agreement in March.

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/06/05/torii-hunter-boston-fans-racism-no-trade-clause Alas, no surprise.

It won't, because he won't have enough at-bats. Still, what does 'legitimate record' mean in the first place? This is nothing to worry about. We just want to see baseball, not tabulate statistics.

Yeah, I can see why. But I give him a lot of slack for calling out a particular teammate (truly one of my least favorite RS players). Can't remember what the issue was--he was asked something about the team or team chemistry and told reporters that they would have to ask 'the captain'.

I will grant the owners this (and I won't grant them much). They're in a tricky situation. They could feel that it's best just to start the season and eat the losses now, then make up for it with, say, reduced spending next year on renewed contracts and free agency. That's reasonable enough. But they cannot state that publicly or even really discuss it openly with other owners, as that would quite legitimately be called 'collusion' ("Hey guys, let's just play, figure out our losses, then have massive salary reductions next year.") I just hope they are smart enough to realize that losing a season and demonizing their players is risking an enormous drop in the value of their franchises. And maybe, with all the real estate they own, whose value continues to increase, they don't give a s***. A really bad situation for fans. I don't see how this season starts (unless there are serious negotiations going on behind the scenes that we know nothing about).

Right. But an important word is "indirectly." Of course players gain when ownership reaps profits; but they do so down the road--at the next CBA? or because the owners decide (unilaterally) to pay higher salaries. And the same holds true for losses. The difference here is that owners are demanding that players share in the losses NOW, not down the road.

Of course it's a metaphor. the point he is making is that owners speak of their businesses in terms of revenue/expenses: how much did they take in, how much paid out. Normally they make gigantic profits, which they then keep (since players are merely salaried employees); they don't hand out end-of-the-year bonuses to players when the profits are large. Yet this year, when there are going to be losses, they want those losses shared by players (which of course they will be, in all scenarios). (A point that I believe he makes elsewhere, but not in his recent article, is that the accounting is to some extent bogus: the actual value of franchises is rising, and owners are increasing that value by investing in new stadiums etc. So if a franchise, say, doubles in value, and the owner then sells it, the owner gets a fortune, the players get nothing. e.g., the Clippers players didn't get a nickel when Sterling sold the team for $2.1 billion [i forget what he paid for it years ago, but it was paltry]).

It's an interesting prospect, as right now, the owners are saying they are losing 600K/game, so they won't go for more than a 50 game season. But even a few thousand fans at game completely changes the calculus. Any deal now that doesn't take the possibility of a limited number of fans into account means that the owners just pocket the profits. Given the rancor between the sides, I'm not sure the possibility of fans helps--it may just increase the distrust of the owners on the part of players. (As Passan noted, the owners have consistently taken the position of privatizing profits and socializing losses).

You would think the owners would at least come up with a conciliatory statement. But then, you would think some national leaders, who do not need to be named here, might have come with one over the problems they're supposed to be dealing with as well.

OK. SO of the 32 mayor who you claimed were fine with mass gatherings, you could not produce one statement by any of them to that effect. And you say the mayors have encouraged looting. Not one of them has made any statement to that effect either. Thanks for your valuable input.

[that was harsh. I'll delete]

Wow. I'm surprised. I just assumed players would be able to opt out of playing. It may be a moot point, as I imagine most players will want to play in hopes of increasing their value.

The news today makes it look more and more like there will be no baseball. Owners are obviously trying to cast players in a bad light. Great job! But since players are their sole and only product, it seems a questionable business decision to discredit what you're selling. (This is why I refer to sports owners as 'hobbyists' rather than 'businessfolks'.). Let's see. I'm the CEO of Apple. My employees threaten a strike. Obviously the first thing I should do is say how crappy iPhones are ...

Are you sure of that? I assumed players would simply be given the option to sit the season out. There is no way the MLB can determine the difference between an 'unhealthy' player or one with family members at risk and a healthy one. They will spend the entire off-season in court if they try to enforce a policy like that.

I assume this is ironic, and I apologize for missing in. On the off chance you were serious, I'd like the names of those 32 mayors and the statements they made that they have no problems with 20-50,000 people in a stadium, please. You can start with de Blasio and Garcetti.

Seems as though they just want maximum revenue at minimum expense, meaning playoff tournaments with no regular season. Then they don't have to pay the players squat. Win-win. (Except when none of us give a s***). All I ever care about is the rhythm of regular season games, and i don't think I'm alone in that.

You're right--it finally won't matter who is at fault. What I don't understand is why the owners have adopted such an overtly combative stance. Why not issue a bunch of banal statements (however insincere!) "We all want the same thing--to play baseball" (then negotiate quietly for some way to make that happen-- e.g., the way the NBA seems to do). How can a business operate that defines its employees, not as partners, but as the enemy, who needs to be defeated? Perhaps this is because sports franchises remain 'hobbies' of the super-rich, not 'businesses' in the ordinary sense.

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

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).

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.

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.)