supac720 372 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 Someone should make a full list of MLB teams doing the humanitarian thing and paying their minor leaguers, keeping employees, etc like Kansas City and which ones are undergoing scummy practices, i.e Oakland and L.A Angels with furloughs. No one has mentioned much about the Red Sox making tiered pay cuts to their employees 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 25 minutes ago, supac720 said: Someone should make a full list of MLB teams doing the humanitarian thing and paying their minor leaguers, keeping employees, etc like Kansas City and which ones are undergoing scummy practices, i.e Oakland and L.A Angels with furloughs. No one has mentioned much about the Red Sox making tiered pay cuts to their employees https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/all-30-teams-employment-plans-for-baseball-operations-employees/ 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Brooklyn Dude 489 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 32 minutes ago, HOOTIE said: This isn't a court of law. What makes you think the owners have to prove things to the players, showing books? Why would one owner, want his business known to the other 29? If I had a business, I'm not showing my books to the competition. The owners don't have to prove anything right now. They should just honor the guaranteed contracts they signed with their players. If they want the players to take less money than those guaranteed contracts, there is room for negotiations if the players agree to take less. The players have already said they would take money for only the games played. A good and fair concession. The owners want further concessions or they will lockout the players for the season. Why should the players concede more money if the owners are crying poverty and not willing to show their revenues ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HOOTIE 1,109 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Brooklyn Dude said: The owners don't have to prove anything right now. They should just honor the guaranteed contracts they signed with their players. If they want the players to take less money than those guaranteed contracts, there is room for negotiations if the players agree to take less. The players have already said they would take money for only the games played. A good and fair concession. The owners want further concessions or they will lockout the players for the season. Contracts are under the implication of a 162 game season, with fans. Link to post Share on other sites
Triple Short Of a Cycle 446 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 1 minute ago, HOOTIE said: Contracts are under the implication of a 162 game season, with fans. I just don't understand why people ignore this? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Triple Short Of a Cycle said: I just don't understand why people ignore this? Because the existing agreement already factored in pro rated salaries for games played, and the prospect that games could be played in empty stadiums was a universally agreed on possibility, yet the owners signed it anyway. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
shakestreet 4,129 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, HOOTIE said: Yes, I get the training, pre game reps, BP, etc. But its not exactly 12 hours in a sweat shop, or working a farm. OK mr. ... Edited June 1, 2020 by shakestreet Link to post Share on other sites
shakestreet 4,129 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 You blame both sides. Owners & players or Players & owners. Not one specific group. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
tucker26 2,390 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 It doesn’t matter what the understanding was anymore regardless. And why do we know each step of this negotiation? Figure out your **** behind closed doors and move. The public posturing is only making everyone look bad. Link to post Share on other sites
countseth 276 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/all-30-teams-employment-plans-for-baseball-operations-employees/ Any list for minor leaguers? This is helpful but only lists MLB team/stadium staff. Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, countseth said: Any list for minor leaguers? This is helpful but only lists MLB team/stadium staff. I can't find a comprehensive one. Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, shakestreet said: You blame both sides. Owners & players or Players & owners. Not one specific group. The reality of the situation is that they would be reporting to ST this week if owners were honoring the agreement they signed in March. If they want to renegotiate that agreement based on some expectation they had that they would get relief because of empty stadiums, they have a projection for those losses which is what they're basing that ask on, but they don't want to share that projection, why should the players be blamed for not having sympathy for them? If they agreed to renegotiate based on good faith, how is that good faith? Link to post Share on other sites
tucker26 2,390 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 The advertising money is per game too. Can’t see how playing more games costs the owners more money. If each game really cost them money, the season would be canceled. Now if owners prove this to be true by opening their books, then I’m sure the players would listen. Funny thing is if the owners take the expanding schedule offer up then you know...the numbers suddenly change when you expand them, wink-wink. And the players offered to give them expanded playoffs 2 years, which players balked at earlier in the offseason, so that has to be pro owner. In any case, the stupid demand made public is dumb and makes the players look like they are providing a long list of demands but it seems like they are compromises. Like taking deferred money instead of a straight loss that owners want them to take. Where has been the compromise by the owners? Surely if you are truly losing money per game, a desperate owner would back that up with proof and provide whatever documentation was reasonably requested. But that has not happened. To me it seems like players are willing to meet in the middle while owners haven’t budged in reality. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HOOTIE 1,109 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 24 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said: The reality of the situation is that they would be reporting to ST this week if owners were honoring the agreement they signed in March. The agreement said no games, if there was a ban on fans at games. There is a ban. So both sides go back and rework it. Link to post Share on other sites
brockpapersizer 12,201 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 2 hours ago, HOOTIE said: If I had a business, I'm not showing my books to the competition. Self proclaimed non business owner explains business strategy. Thank you. The employees are not the competition. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, HOOTIE said: The agreement said no games, if there was a ban on fans at games. There is a ban. So both sides go back and rework it. According to your Verduci article, the agreement said, “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at the appropriate neutral sites.” So, I ask you, what efforts have the owners, via the office of the commissioner, attempted to discuss in good faith economic feasibility of the new reality? By saying, "here's our projected losses, no you can't see how we got there, take a proposal that offers you less money or go screw?" The players have offered a two year deferral of their postseason salaries. They've offered more games to increase TV revenue. They've offered more teams in the playoffs to increase TV revenue. They offered to pay minor leaguers out of their own pocket while the owners were cutting salary. The owners have offered a revenue share, so that they can privatize their gains and socialize their apparent losses, without offering the knowledge that they all hold and share amongst each other as to what those revenues look like. This has 100% been a one sided negotiation. If the owners don't start to compromise JUST A LITTLE BIT, very quickly, there's not going to be baseball this year. And that's going to hurt everyone's revenue this year and in the years to come, as people get turned off by the whole thing and just watch basketball and football and hockey because they can get their stuff together. Link to post Share on other sites
shakestreet 4,129 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said: The reality of the situation is that they would be reporting to ST this week if owners were honoring the agreement they signed in March. If they want to renegotiate that agreement based on some expectation they had that they would get relief because of empty stadiums, they have a projection for those losses which is what they're basing that ask on, but they don't want to share that projection, why should the players be blamed for not having sympathy for them? If they agreed to renegotiate based on good faith, how is that good faith? So, do you think this problem falls solely on the owners? Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, shakestreet said: So, do you think this problem falls solely on the owners? I think the ball's in their court to start showing some good faith. Link to post Share on other sites
tonycpsu 5,534 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 Fangraphs: MLB’s Latest Proposal Caters to Its Richest Teams TL;DR: Those suggesting that we should shed tears for the Roberts Nutting, Johns Sherman, and Peters Angelos of the world need to look at the actual proposal, which isn't doing anything at all to help smaller market teams. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ST. STEVEN 4,497 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 Owners counter with full prorated salaries, but a 50-60 game season and expanded playoffs...yeah this should go over well. Link to post Share on other sites
brockpapersizer 12,201 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, ST. STEVEN said: Owners counter with full prorated salaries, but a 50-60 game season and expanded playoffs...yeah this should go over well. It seems like a reasonable counter? I dunno. They wanted pro rated amounts and they also offered expanded playoffs, so I don't think it's insulting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said: It seems like a reasonable counter? I dunno. They wanted pro rated amounts and they also offered expanded playoffs, so I don't think it's insulting. Yeah I agree. That actually sounds like a good compromise. Link to post Share on other sites
meh2 3,684 Posted June 1, 2020 Author Share Posted June 1, 2020 A 50-60 game season is definitely better than no season, but I’d still be a bit disappointed from a fantasy perspective. I enjoy the skill it takes navigating through a full season. 50-60 games will make it feel like flipping coins to determine the winner. I only play roto leagues but I’d imagine it would be worse in a H2H league. Give us at least 80 games, please. Link to post Share on other sites
JE7HorseGod 2,751 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 Just now, meh2 said: A 50-60 game season is definitely better than no season, but I’d still be a bit disappointed from a fantasy perspective. I enjoy the skill it takes navigating through a full season. 50-60 games will make it feel like flipping coins to determine the winner. I only play roto leagues but I’d imagine it would be worse in a H2H league. Give us at least 80 games, please. From a fantasy prospective, yeah a bit of a drag, but at the end of the day you're saying less 3 weeks from 82 games? That's not the end of the world. Link to post Share on other sites
tonycpsu 5,534 Posted June 1, 2020 Share Posted June 1, 2020 To the extent that the PR battle matters here, the side pushing for less baseball just so they can save some payroll costs is going to have a tough go of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts