The 2020 Cleveland Indians

MirORich said:

So who’s doing the first official Game/Series Thread? @Stark @Out of the Rafters at the Q @Derek @Real Deal

Excited to start this season off guns blazing

Click to expand...

Working on it now, just got home from work.

Life's been a bit crazy for me lately, but I'll do my best this season with threads. If I ever slack, feel free to cover for me.

Stark said:

Working on it now, just got home from work.

Life's been a bit crazy for me lately, but I'll do my best this season with threads. If I ever slack, feel free to cover for me.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could just do weekly threads to lighten the load

Derek said:

Maybe you could just do weekly threads to lighten the load

Click to expand...

Might not be a bad idea; I'll do one for Opening Day but that might be the way we do things this year since the season is already weird anyways.

Anyone else going downtown to enjoy Opening Day from the plaza?

Wham with the Right Hand said:

If Karinchak is switching his number to 99 then he better throw 99. If you talk the talk you better walk the walk. I think his jersey is writing checks his arm can't cash.

Excuse me while I work up a few more cliches.

Click to expand...

Twins pick up where they left off, scoring 10 runs in a 10-5 win over the White Sox. The good news is Twins ace Jose Berrios gave up 5 runs in 4 innings and struck out only one of the 20 batters he faced.

The Human Q-Tip said:

It's the same point. The owners' ability to finance a season is based upon the reality that they would be losing money with every game played with no fans in the stands. They offered the players two different workarounds for that: 1) a revenue-sharing proposal that would have shared the risks associate with diminished revenues, so that more games could be scheduled and played based on on the possibility that perhaps more revenue might be made, or 2) playing more games at a lower per-game rate to reflect the lack of fans in the stands. The players flatly refuse even to negotiate on either of those two alternatives.

Instead, The players' position was "we are absolutely unwilling to take any of the risk associated with decreased revenues in exchange for a longer season."

So, the owners scheduled a shorter season so as to mitigate their risks, which was the most reasonable course of actions remaining to them if there was going to be a season at all.

Click to expand...

Well Q, couldn't help but think about you and all the times you argued that the owners simply didn't have the money to pay the players full prorata.

So the owners would offer the players these post season kickers ($$$'s) to enhance the players reduced regular season game rate, and to thrust some of the risk on them.

AND BOOM - the owners are paying FULL PRORATA, and now a $50 million post season kicker to boot.

No talk of reducing regular season rates or sifting the risk to the players. But less than a month ago they were telling everyone how they couldn't do "x" and couldn't do "y" because there were no fans and ..... ad nauseam.

Boy those cardboard cutouts in the seats must have really enhanced the owners profitability, because they are doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY SWORE THEY COULD NOT.

Having been peripherally involved in labor negotiations on both sides, the new result is hardly news.

My experience is that both sides often end up accepting positions that they very vehemently decried as impossible before the end agreement. It's called bargaining positions.

My guess is that after the owners began serious talks with the media they discovered...happily...that there were additional revenues available for the expanded playoffs than first estimated.

Which meant that the owners found it MORE profitable to expand the playoffs and give the players the additional revenues requested than not.

The owners certainly didnt agree to this new deal in order to lose money. To the contrary, they will make more money.

CATS44 said:

Having been peripherally involved in labor negotiations on both sides, the new result is hardly news.

My experience is that both sides often end up accepting positions that they very vehemently decried as impossible before the end agreement. It's called bargaining positions.

My guess is that after the owners began serious talks with the media they discovered...happily...that there were additional revenues available for the expanded playoffs than first estimated.

Which meant that the owners found it MORE profitable to expand the playoffs and give the players the additional revenues requested than not.

The owners certainly didnt agree to this new deal in order to lose money. To the contrary, they will make more money.

Click to expand...

And the players agreed to it, because they will make more money

jup said:

Well Q, couldn't help but think about you and all the times you argued that the owners simply didn't have the money to pay the players full prorata.

So the owners would offer the players these post season kickers ($$$'s) to enhance the players reduced regular season game rate, and to thrust some of the risk on them.

AND BOOM - the owners are paying FULL PRORATA, and now a $50 million post season kicker to boot.

No talk of reducing regular season rates or sifting the risk to the players. But less than a month ago they were telling everyone how they couldn't do "x" and couldn't do "y" because there were no fans and ..... ad nauseam.

Boy those cardboard cutouts in the seats must have really enhanced the owners profitability, because they are doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY SWORE THEY COULD NOT.

Click to expand...

Well this is interesting, because the deal for expanded playoffs had me thinking of you the same way. So, in order:

1) I never said the owners couldn't pay full pro rata. I said that there was no way they could pay full pro rata with the number of games the players were demanding because they lost money with each game, and would have to finance those losses from postseason revenue. That turned out to be correct. The players' refused to go below 70 games, and the owners refused to go above 60. That's why they implemented a 60 game schedule without the agreement of the players.

2) As for the expanded playoffs, myself and @bob2the2nd both blasted the players for turning down MLB's final offer including expanded playoffs and the DH, and not even countering. We pointed out the players were turning down more money at a higher per game rate than what they would be playing for during the regular season, and even specifically said the owners were offering that $50M. We said it was a terrible look for the players to turn down expanded playoffs for more money. Here's a link to one of my posts in that string:


You countered by saying that an extra $50M was "not much", and that it made sense for the players to reject it. Here's one of your posts on it, and you can read the whole string for the complete context if you'd like.:

jup said:

That $25-$50 million is such a deceptive and prejudicial figure.

Take the upper limit of $50, but remember it was spread across ALL TEAMS in the offer, so you divide it by 30. Now each team has a 60 player pool, pretty hard to say that they all won't share in it, and you come away with $27K/player if you distribute it evenly. Lets say 25 man guys get a lions share maybe $40K which leaves the other 35 at about $20K.

So $50 million sounds staggering but when you get down to what it might net in the individual players pocket, not so much. For a $4 million 25 man roster guy it is 1% - that is a BFD (be sure to catch the sarcasm) to a guy who probably has earnings of upwards of 30 million already.

For a minimum guy at $563,500. it is 3.5% => maybe enough to get excited about - I'm sure there are a lot of guys that could use an extra $20K at the minimum level, but it still just isn't a whole lot.

I'm not sure how excited you would be if your boss said you would get a 1% or even a 3.5% raise, but it would require more work (more playoff rounds and more teams in them) to get it.

Click to expand...

So as it turns out...the players ended up accepting $50M for increased playoffs this year, which is exactly what @bob2the2nd and I said they should have done in the first place, and you said they shouldn't. So I'm not quite seeing how that proves me/us wrong.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Well this is interesting, because the deal for expanded playoffs had me thinking of you the same way. So, in order:

1) I never said the owners couldn't pay full pro rata. I said that there was no way they could pay full pro rata with the number of games the players were demanding because they lost money with each game, and would have to finance those losses from postseason revenue. That turned out to be correct. The players' refused to go below 70 games, and the owners refused to go above 60. That's why they implemented a 60 game schedule without the agreement of the players.

2) As for the expanded playoffs, myself and @bob2the2nd both blasted the players for turning down MLB's final offer including expanded playoffs and the DH, and not even countering. We pointed out the players were turning down more money at a higher per game rate than what they would be playing for during the regular season, and even specifically said the owners were offering that $50M. We said it was a terrible look for the players to turn down expanded playoffs for more money. Here's a link to one of my posts in that string:

MLB Collective Bargaining Discussion

Whatever money they gave up was minuscule, and they're getting the most amount of games that the owners were willing to offer. Also, not having to play expanded playoffs was a big deal as well. I think that may be where the rub is. A lot of fans assume that baseball players actually like...

realcavsfans.com

You countered by saying that an extra $50M was "not much", and that it made sense for the players to reject it. Here's one of your posts on it, and you can read the whole string for the complete context if you'd like.:



So as it turns out...the players ended up accepting $50M for increased playoffs this year, which is exactly what @bob2the2nd and I said they should have done in the first place, and you said they shouldn't. So I'm not quite seeing how that proves me/us wrong.

Click to expand...

The owners never offered full salaries and a post season kicker. They offered reduced salaries offset somewhat by a post season kicker.

The deal ends up being full salaries and post season kicker.

Maybe I didn't see one of the "supposed offers" as many things were talked about in the press as - the owners are going to, or the players proposed, or even Manfred thought he had a deal during discussions. But that was not a written offer from the owners.

Maybe semantics in your eyes, but we will never really know what Manfred and Clack "supposedly" agreed upon because it wasn't a written proposal. That is why they ended up walking away from the meeting, Manfred thinking he had a deal and Clark saying not so fast. But even then, Manfred never said what the rate was for the 60 games they "supposedly" agreed to. And the expanded post season in the "supposed deal" was only $25 million not $50. The fifty was in a prior deal that was with reduced salaries.



So take what you want from it. And if "being right" is of importance to you then right you and Bob are. Because to me it was an interesting back and forth, which I enjoyed, and being right doesn't mean anything to me one way or another. But since the back and forth was with you, it is just interesting to see where the deal ended up, so I shot the response towards you.

Hopefully you noticed I said "they" as in the owners were telling everyone - not you. Just seemed to me you came down on their side more often than not since that is the side you argued. But maybe it is semantics again given I said that you argued - maybe I should have said you argued for the owners.

Still it was an interesting back and forth. And that is what I come to the board for.

Hey Q can you help me with something.

I wanted to throw up something on Karinchak, but I don't see how to upload an image from my computer.

Is there away without having to go through imagur or something like that, because that is pretty cumbersome. If so can you post me a reply in detail how I find it on the site or how you go about doing it.

Thanks

AZ_ said:

Update: My post had Santana and Luplow flipped.

Its Santana in RF, Luplow in LF

Click to expand...

Santana actually has way more experience in RF than left field in his playing experience, almost 10k in total between the bigs and the minors in RF and not even in 1.5k in LF and almost half of that was last season. Fielding percentage and range is way better in RF as well (now he still stinks but may as well put him in his best position).

Derek said:

Given Domingo's established poor fielding ability, I don't see why we wouldn't at least try to develop Reyes out there a little since he's under team control for so long.

Click to expand...

I dont remember who said it (one of the announcers or Francona), but they stated Reyes isn't playing in the OF cause of the time he missed from the party. Sounds like they don't want him out there because he didn't get to play out there during summer camp.

jup said:

The owners never offered full salaries and a post season kicker. They offered reduced salaries offset somewhat by a post season kicker.

Click to expand...

Full salaries and a post-season kicker was the final MLB offer as reported by everyone I could find, and I never saw the MLBPA say anything to the contrary. There was disagreement as to whether Clark and Manfred actually agreed to that deal,but not disagreement as to what the MLBPA offer was.

The conversation between Manfred and Clark centered on a 60-game season that would start July 19 or 20 and end Sept. 27, sources told ESPN. Players would be paid their full prorated salaries -- a total of $1.5 billion, or about 37% of their full-season salaries -- and would receive another $25 million for postseason play and $33 million in forgiveness on the $170 million advance they received in the March agreement.



All that being said...this was clearly one of those negotiations where emotions took over -- fortunately temporarily. The MLBPA made their stand on no expanded playoffs to satisfy their more militant membership and/or for the bargaining committee/negotiators to establish that they "wouldn't be bullied." Or perhaps they inadvertently boxed themselves in with the "miscommunication" between Clark and Manfred when most everyone seemed to think there was a deal. But then there was the negative reaction of Bauer and some others to not reaching an agreement, and ultimately the deal done through back channels.

It's much better for baseball that everyone came to a seemingly amicable agreement about the postseason.

And no help with my request or did you not see it right below the post you responded to

Hey Q can you help me with something.

I wanted to throw up something on Karinchak, but I don't see how to upload an image from my computer.

Is there away without having to go through imagur or something like that, because that is pretty cumbersome. If so can you post me a reply in detail how I find it on the site or how you go about doing it.

Thanks