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.

OMG players can't make 50 bazillion dollars a game this year. How will support their family. These players have a serious case of lost reality. Owners spent at least hundreds of millions on their franchises. Players spent what? Owners support hundreds of people, and pay them. Players support their pose's. Owners make a profit most of the time, but players are guaranteed to make theirs almost all of the time, with no risk of loss. If they have to slum it with the rest of us and owners have to lose a few millions dollars this year then so be it. If both want to make the best of a bad situation and both sacrifice some then we fans win. Absolutely unrealistic for owners to play full game checks IMHO.

Who has all of the debt. Who has almost all of the risk. Players have a short shelf life...yes. But owners have massive expenses, like stadium repairs, debt service, etc. All of the scouts and coaches still had the same job to do in preparation and from what I have heard, still got paid. The owners have to pay that. Player salaries are a large percentage of total costs, but certainly not 100%. Their game day costs are somewhat driven by games played, with the profit margin on that stuff is huge, making a loss of concessions for instance a huge loss. I don't hear these problems in the other sports. The players want no cap and "guaranteed" contracts...these are the penalties for that. If there was a cap at say 50 % of revenue then the cap would fall 40% next year and many many contracts would be torn up and redone at a fraction of the previous value. Unemployment is near 15%. Players may be next. Hope their fine with $$700-900 checks like the rest of us.

Their agreement did not foresee games with no fans, or at least allows for that language. I would not be shocked at all if there is no season at all. If you forget all the auditing talk, most experts estimate no fans costs the owners 40% of revenue. Players need to take their 1/162 of their of their season salary game day check and reduce it by 40%. Status quo achieved. I have no issue reducing the 40% cut to 30%, or making a simple statement that salaries cannot be reduced below the 1/162th of minimum salary . This gives a small bone to low salary players. Let the owners take it on the chin some, but players have to give too.

My opinion is the players need to give here. If the owners are only going to get 80 games with no fans, concessions, parking, etc then they are cutting their revenue substantially more than just the prorated game day checks. The players want every penny they can get, as do the owners, but should be a simply calculation to what percentage of revenue they would get and the split should be based on that.

players have to make sure it makes sense to owners or there will be no games.

All of America is saddled with loss of profits, loss of hours, loss of pay, and or loss of job. Every group has to be willing to compromise here. 82 games with no fans(and therefore no parking, tickets, and concessions) has got to be almost a 75% loss of revenue for the owners. Players have to be willing to AT LEAST cut there salary in half for playing half as many games, and probably closer to 65% cut is more realistic. Impossible situation the country is in, everyone has to be willing to give a little.

good low risk signing.

Are there any teams looking to shed payroll out there? Take on some salary for prospects? Maybe get a pitcher and a prospect for a bucket of balls and take on salary...

If given the choice, would you rather trade Mookie AND Price to get pool of prospects C(dodgers), Mookie alone for pool of prospects B(Dodgers) or Mookie alone for Pool of prospects A plus myers(SD) and not get under the threshold. Obviously A>B>C. I think I take Pool C to empty the salary commitment and allow them to rebuild more quickly out of FAgency next year. I would focus on higher talent, further away prospects if possible. Suffer through a year with holes(maybe take on a couple 1 year deals for short money to patch holes), go after a couple of the bigger FA's next year after reset AND move the long term commitment to price...

I'd rather him play and get something out of him, even if it is a platoon or part time fielder at 1st, 2nd, and DH rather than the 60 day DL. As we are trying to cut salary getting something out of the cap space is probably more important that the 40 man spot next year.

About the only hope for Pedroia is he can play some the next two years and get some value out of his salary. Maybe a decent case is play him at 1st? Limit the wear and tear on the knee? DH next year if JD opts out after next year? Anything is better than what the sox got out of him the last two years. Damn I hate Machado....

I just wish the rules would allow him to retire, join the coaching staff to continue to get his money, and have it not count on the team any more. In the case of career ending injury I think that is very reasonable, just not within the rules. That or a stretch provision kind of like the NBA. Something. He was not too old for the contract he received, he just got unlucky. It would be different if he was 40...

I always thought he was WAY OVER RATED. I thought nomar was better on D, and he wasn't great either. He simply failed the eye test. If the ball came to him he would stop it, but zero range.

For sure. 560-600 and 3.50 to 4.00 Is not unreasonable IF HEALTHY and RELATIVELY close to their recent success. Certainly what you hope for with their contracts(well 2 of them at least).