2020 Off-Season Rumors/News

Out of the Rafters at the Q said:

If you defend your profits because you're the one taking the risk, then you should shoulder the losses when risk impacts your sport.

Otherwise, there's no defense to the fact that you're exploiting your labor (not just players) for your own profit.

The MLBPA reducing salaries based on number of games played is already a reasonable half-way meeting.

Click to expand...

That just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the players are losing half their games. But so are the owners. The "half season" stuff is a loss for both sides, not just the players. So they both went "half way" already by agreeing to only a half season.

What the players are saying is "we are unwilling to make any adjustments just because fans aren't permitted to attend games." I think a lot of people are thinking to themselves "Wait a minute. You guys are going to be playing all your games in front of no fans at all. So no tickets, no concessions, etc. And you still expect to get paid the exact same amount per game? GTFO."

I think the players are losing the PR battle because fans are having a really tough time getting their heads around that.

daddywags said:

If that's correct, then what's happening now is simply a renegotiation that was built into the earlier agreement. IOW, it's neither the owners fault nor the players fault we are where we are. It's just a planned for contingency playing out pretty much as expected. There are no "bad guys" here, just a group of people with divergent interests trying to reach an agreement to split a large amount of money. Is it tone deaf? Of course it is! What else should we expect from these particular stakeholders?

Click to expand...

I agree with your whole post, and the bolded language in particular. The baseline from which negotiations start isn't "A full, normal season", because that's not happening. The baseline is a completely cancelled season, because that's what the CBA permits under a national emergency. So the question is whether a deal is possible that makes both sides better off than if there was no season at all.

I think some of the fan frustration is that there are deals possible that make both sides better off than if there was no season at all, but that's not good enough for the players. They'd rather cancel the season and be worse off financially than agree to divvy up the burden of no fans in the stands. And because that demand would make the owners worse off than no season at all, they -- quite understandably -- won't agree to that.

The whole issue is the players want their pay, and the owners want to reduce it more than was originally agreed to since fans will be limited in the stands. The players have the right to say no and honestly i cannot blame them. I also cannot blame the owners since they will be losing out on profits already plus losing even more money if they have to pay the players without any additional revenue. Both sides have a legit case, but neither are willing to budge is the biggest issue. The owners aren't going to agree unless the players take a pay cut cause of the differences with no fans vs fans. The players don't want to lose anymore money so the battle won't end anytime soon. At this rate the virus will pass and it will be cold before they come to an agreement sadly. *sighs* I so wanted baseball this year!!!

The Human Q-Tip said:

That just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the players are losing half their games. But so are the owners. The "half season" stuff is a loss for both sides, not just the players. So they both went "half way" already by agreeing to only a half season.

What the players are saying is "we are unwilling to make any adjustments just because fans aren't permitted to attend games." I think a lot of people are thinking to themselves "Wait a minute. You guys are going to be playing all your games in front of no fans at all. So no tickets, no concessions, etc. And you still expect to get paid the exact same amount per game? GTFO."

I think the players are losing the PR battle because fans are having a really tough time getting their heads around that.

Click to expand...

The situation sucks.

The players made concessions outside of the already agreed-upon terms (salary reduction).

The owners are demanding more.

Refer to the first sentence of my post you quoted.

Are we really giving the players all this credit for agreeing to that initial salary reduction? It would've been pretty outrageous to be demanding their full 162 game salary for 81 games played or whatever the partial season would amount to.

Beyond that though, it's hard to side with the billionaire owners when they're unwilling to share their financials.

I am curious to see how the MLB's TV numbers would even look in July and August. They're used to being the only circus in town during those months but would now presumably be competing vs. NBA and NHL playoffs.

The Major League Baseball Players Association delivered a return-to-play proposal to MLB on Sunday that includes a 114-game season, deferred salaries in the event of a canceled postseason and the option for all players to opt out of a potential 2020 season due to coronavirus concerns, sources familiar with the details told ESPN.

The proposal, which was the first from the union and came on the heels of an MLB plan that was loudly rejected by the players, comes at a seminal moment as baseball tries to become the first major American professional sport to return. Although the players expect the league to reject it, they hope it will serve as a bridge to a potential deal this week.

The 114-game season, which under the union's proposal would run from June 30 to Oct. 31, is expected to be immediately dismissed by the league; MLB has proposed an 82-game season and suggested that the more games teams play this year, the more money they lose. The union remains steadfast that players should receive their full prorated salaries, while MLB's plan included significant pay cuts that affected the highest paid players the most but covered all levels.

The inclusion of potential deferrals in Sunday's proposal was an acknowledgement by the players that amid the coronavirus pandemic and unrest around the country, cash-flow issues could prove problematic for owners. The deferrals would occur only if the playoffs were canceled, a concern the league has voiced, and would total $100 million. They would apply to players whose contracts call for $10 million-plus salaries and include interest to make them whole.

Deferrals could be part of any counter from the league, which had not officially responded to the union's proposal Sunday. With the desire to start a season by the first week of July, both parties recognize that time is of the essence for a deal.

While MLB's 67-page health-and-safety protocol draft included the ability for high-risk players -- those with preexisting conditions or family members more susceptible to COVID-19 -- to opt out of the season, the union's proposal suggests that players can do so and receive salary. Players not deemed high risk would be able to opt out but would not receive salary.

Other parts of the players' proposal, sources said, include:

• Expanded playoffs for two years; MLB's proposal suggests one year of a postseason that goes from 10 teams to 14.
• A salary advance of $100 million to split among players during the so-called "spring training 2.0" that leads up to the regular season.
• Additional commitment to players wearing microphones on the field and other broadcast enhancements.
• An offer to hold events such as an offseason All-Star Game or Home Run Derby to generate additional revenue.

Click to expand...

The Human Q-Tip said:

I agree with your whole post, and the bolded language in particular. The baseline from which negotiations start isn't "A full, normal season", because that's not happening. The baseline is a completely cancelled season, because that's what the CBA permits under a national emergency. So the question is whether a deal is possible that makes both sides better off than if there was no season at all.

I think some of the fan frustration is that there are deals possible that make both sides better off than if there was no season at all, but that's not good enough for the players. They'd rather cancel the season and be worse off financially than agree to divvy up the burden of no fans in the stands. And because that demand would make the owners worse off than no season at all, they -- quite understandably -- won't agree to that.

Click to expand...

Thinking about the revenue pie that's being divvied up.. or not...

The pie... can best be described as huge.. and changing.. Without fans in the stands, the home viewership will rise, probably "bigley".. to what degree?.. perhaps several million added fans watching... every night... If the players can be held to some kind of ubiquitous negotiating wording that says.. if.. if... if..., then, especially for the smaller markets, wouldn't a larger return for the TV showing be at hand? Would this be enough to offset the losses of revenue from parking and concessions? allowing the players to receive what they negotiated..?

At the end of the rainbow resides a pot of gold.. & it doesn't matter if you take the gold from the top or bottom of the pot.. A deal can be/should be made.. That deal should have an ABSOLUTE minimum for each player (could be expressed as a percentage..) or a dollar value that has an absolute maximum.. but it has to reflect the actual auditable revenue stream(s)..

If that can be agreed to.. then "play ball" !

Gson said:

Thinking about the revenue pie that's being divvied up.. or not...

The pie... can best be described as huge.. and changing.. Without fans in the stands, the home viewership will rise, probably "bigley".. to what degree?.. perhaps several million added fans watching... every night... If the players can be held to some kind of ubiquitous negotiating wording that says.. if.. if... if..., then, especially for the smaller markets, wouldn't a larger return for the TV showing be at hand? Would this be enough to offset the losses of revenue from parking and concessions? allowing the players to receive what they negotiated..?

At the end of the rainbow resides a pot of gold.. & it doesn't matter if you take the gold from the top or bottom of the pot.. A deal can be/should be made.. That deal should have an ABSOLUTE minimum for each player (could be expressed as a percentage..) or a dollar value that has an absolute maximum.. but it has to reflect the actual auditable revenue stream(s)..

If that can be agreed to.. then "play ball" !

Click to expand...

Agreed -- I think that was the concept of revenue sharing that the players vetoed early on in the negotiations.

The thing is, I'm not sure that the league or individual teams actually benefits financially from more Covid-related viewership. The media outlets that purchased those rights do. There's also the issue of clawbacks by the media outlets for games that were not played. But I agree that some kind of guaranteed minimum plus additional contingent payments may be the best way to go.

Just not sure the players will reverse course and consider that.

Out of the Rafters at the Q said:

The situation sucks.

The players made concessions outside of the already agreed-upon terms (salary reduction).

Click to expand...

And as has been stated repeatedly, the "already-agreed upon terms" to which you refer expressly stated that those would be the terms only if there were no restrictions on fan movement/attendance, and that new terms would have to be negotiated if such restrictions existed. It has now been established that no fans will be permitted to attend, so the prior agreement is null and void by its own terms, and a new one has to be negotiated.

You keep ignoring that.

Players stepping up and doing what the owners refuse to do

The Human Q-Tip said:

And as has been stated repeatedly, the "already-agreed upon terms" to which you refer expressly stated that those would be the terms only if there were no restrictions on fan movement/attendance, and that new terms would have to be negotiated if such restrictions existed. It has now been established that no fans will be permitted to attend, so the prior agreement is null and void by its own terms, and a new one has to be negotiated.

You keep ignoring that.

Click to expand...

I also think the hard part is the difference in salary spend by team, the league average is around 136MM. A the high end you have the Yankees that have 250MM committed for 2020, and at the low end 56MM for Baltimore. Cleveland is at around 90MM.

This is the hard part about any of these negotiations, not only do you have to find a deal that the owners and MLB will agree to, but also one the owners will agree to. It is not like other sports where most teams spend roughly the same amount of money, so it is easier to find a solution on the owners side. I wonder if the owners from the smaller markets will also try to get more from the large market owners in all of this.

I really think in this environment, a deal around where both the players and the owners take the risk/reward is in benefit to both sides.

At this point, I hope the longer this goes on the more change it brings. I think baseball has to be careful in waiting too long. Once the NBA comes back and even Hockey, which will be more playoff based, that is where the viewership will go. Once you get football back, say good buy to even more eyes.

The Human Q-Tip said:

And as has been stated repeatedly, the "already-agreed upon terms" to which you refer expressly stated that those would be the terms only if there were no restrictions on fan movement/attendance, and that new terms would have to be negotiated if such restrictions existed. It has now been established that no fans will be permitted to attend, so the prior agreement is null and void by its own terms, and a new one has to be negotiated.

You keep ignoring that.

Click to expand...

This explains why the current situation is where it is, and why both sides can be technically correct in asking for what they are asking for. I just don't see people discussing the merits of the bargaining process, and rather trying to point fingers at one side or both sides for not giving them their entertainment.

Without a "new agreement" the assumption would be to operate under the previous status quo, which provides two options-- baseball, or no baseball. Only one side is choosing the "no baseball" option there.

I have no problems with players wanting their money ... but don’t blame the owners or try to come off as poor me attitude. I am not angry at Lindor for wanting $40 million but don’t say you love Cleveland more, wanting a championship here, because it can’t happen at $40 mill without NY TV revenue.

Players not taking more of a cut ... owners not opening their books to show they will do a season at a reasonable loss ... is selfish on BOTH sides. Call it what it is. The first agreement was done just to set the stage of a fairer deal later. Owners couldn’t pay players in April till they knew what a season would look like ... no fans, 30% fans or 50%. So, $ based on games played was just to shut things down till a fuller picture was known. Owners can’t pay players 50% when they are losing 70% (50% on TV and 100% on attendance). Because it is not just $20-50 million in loses (20% on 100 million to 200 million payroll) by paying 50% versus 30% but all other expenses from minors, travel, FO, etc. Players saying they will do more games for more pay for those games was just setting owners up for more losses. And, to ask for service time for players who elected not to play due to COVID was just ... you know.

It’s not a good look for either side and people who use to spend $ will reconsider if their hard work should go to millionaires and billionaires in the future. At least some players are chipping in to pay minor leaguers but owners have also done it for 2-1/2 months along w FO personnel too with no revenue.

Out of the Rafters at the Q said:

Without a "new agreement" the assumption would be to operate under the previous status quo, which provides two options-- baseball, or no baseball. Only one side is choosing the "no baseball" option there.

Click to expand...

While this true, but there are a lot of reason why each side would choose it. But both sides right now are choosing to negotiate and compromise. At this point it seems like the owners are willing to compromise but the players are not. At the end of the day, both sides lose long term. But do you know who really loses the most, the fans, and the younger and lower salary MLB players.

Everybody talks about the bonanza in the tv contracts. But remember this: tv contracts are based on advertising. Many national companies are on shakey ground right now. I should know, I was a Hertz employee. Our economy may get worse when everybody's unemployment runs out. The only thing left to advertise might be PSA's for social distancing.

These guys just need to reach a compromise and run with it.