2020 Off-Season Rumors/News

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
12,659
Reaction score
15,739
Points
123
50 games? Thats not enough to be honest for the players when they want 114.

That essentially would mean the league minimum guys would make less than 170k this season and all players would make less than 31% of their full season salary. I think the players wanna play, but i don't see them risking their lives for less than what they feel they should get. MLB has got to do better than that!
My understanding is that the players haven't been fighting to get the most money possible. They just want to get paid properly for the games they do play. This seems to accomplish that.
 

cavsfan1985

^ kind of a big deal!
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
3,551
Points
113
I bet this number of games allows them to still collect the tv money, maybe this is the break even point for the league. They can safe face and say we are playing less games for safety and the compressed timeline. Then maybe do do a larger playoff? To me it is great negoations, gives players what they want in prorated salary and sets a floor for salary cost.
 

JDailey23

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
3,021
Reaction score
1,985
Points
113
I bet this number of games allows them to still collect the tv money, maybe this is the break even point for the league. They can safe face and say we are playing less games for safety and the compressed timeline. Then maybe do do a larger playoff? To me it is great negoations, gives players what they want in prorated salary and sets a floor for salary cost.
Which makes sense. Trout for example makes around $185,000 a game, why play for less than that during this “pandemic”.
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
12,659
Reaction score
15,739
Points
123
Which makes sense. Trout for example makes around $185,000 a game, why play for less than that during this “pandemic”.
The money would be much better off in the pockets of the owners.
 

Gson

Rookie
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
52
Points
18
I bet this number of games allows them to still collect the tv money, maybe this is the break even point for the league. They can safe face and say we are playing less games for safety and the compressed timeline. Then maybe do do a larger playoff? To me it is great negoations, gives players what they want in prorated salary and sets a floor for salary cost.
..avoiding the dog days of the summer... when the grind of a baseball season visits every team... every player... in every way...

The beginning of a baseball season is buoyed by early season "sell outs" honoring opening day... almost always a spectacle... a must see/be seen event... The heat of the playoffs.. the chase to get that last chance at glory.. etc.. makes the end of the season always so special... It only takes a bit of good luck and an 11 game hot streak to grab the ring..

Baseball makes it hay while the snow flies.. early and late.. the 50 game schedule means the owners get both ends of the most profitable parts of the season.. the players have a chance to be truly prepared and as safe as they cna be.. the fan interest will rise to see the re-opening.. the penant chase and, of course, the fall classic.. all while paying "only" 1/3rd of the salary..

Who would say no?.. Thoughts?..
 

petes999

Towel Waver
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
336
Reaction score
144
Points
43
Gson, players are going to say no way to this .... At first, I thought it would be good especially solves owner problem of lack of ticket sales by limiting their losses to get to playoffs. Players only get service time out of this and with expanded playoffs are doing more games for free as proposed as they are paid for regular season and gate receipt for playoffs which is now $0.

It is interesting as they just want to get to playoffs before another COVID outbreak in fall ... yet that may just happen in 4 weeks anyways, shutting everything back down. We will see.
 

lebrownsfan

In the Rotation
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
446
Reaction score
569
Points
93
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.
I wondered the exact same thing. MLB will be embarrassed by NFL preseason and the NBA Finals.
 

Gson

Rookie
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
52
Points
18
Gson, players are going to say no way to this .... At first, I thought it would be good especially solves owner problem of lack of ticket sales by limiting their losses to get to playoffs. Players only get service time out of this and with expanded playoffs are doing more games for free as proposed as they are paid for regular season and gate receipt for playoffs which is now $0.

It is interesting as they just want to get to playoffs before another COVID outbreak in fall ... yet that may just happen in 4 weeks anyways, shutting everything back down. We will see.
Of course the players are going to say no.. they want more games w/ full pro-rated salary.. Therein lies the conundrum.. he who blinks.. loses..

and regardless of the outcome (players or owners winning).. so do we, the fans...
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
12,659
Reaction score
15,739
Points
123

Players might simply feel the risk isn't worth the smaller reward a shorter season would bring -- and not just because of COVID-19.

At 25% of their full salary for 25% of a full-length season, risking an arm injury that could linger into future seasons becomes a risky gamble. And what if a player hits .180 in 40-50 games? Cold stretches like that happen all the time, even to very good players. What does his contract via arbitration or free agency look like in 2021?
Good point here about the fear of a little slump costing a player millions in arbitration.

On the flip side, you could also have an unsustainable hot streak and make millions.
 

Mott the Hoople

In the Rotation
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
574
Reaction score
738
Points
93
Maybe we should ask the MiLB players if they would be willing to take "the risk" to play baseball this season.
This is so ridiculous. There are front line people out there every day who take "the risk" . Hell, even people working in a grocery store take "the risk".
 

daddywags

I am JAG
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,029
Reaction score
3,183
Points
113
Almost seems like each side is just trying to do an end around on the straight 50-50 revenue split originally floated and discarded. Since the vast majority of any revenue is coming from post-season TV contracts, the total pot ought to be fairly transparent. Players offering 110 pro-rata salary games is what they feel ought to be their share of that pot. Owners at 50 games are making their counter offer. 50 games is probably less than 50-50 to players and 110 games is probably more.

Wild cards are the possibility of at least some ticket sales (maybe a lot by October) and possibility of no post-season.

If I'm an owner I'm raising an eyebrow at the part of the players' offer that requests a $100 million advance on salaries when training camps open. Is there a faction of players agitating for money now?
 

Derek

1 by land, 2 by sea, 3 Baerga
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
12,659
Reaction score
15,739
Points
123
Maybe we should ask the MiLB players if they would be willing to take "the risk" to play baseball this season.
This is so ridiculous. There are front line people out there every day who take "the risk" . Hell, even people working in a grocery store take "the risk".
I don't understand why your anger isn't directed toward the owners

Almost seems like each side is just trying to do an end around on the straight 50-50 revenue split originally floated and discarded. Since the vast majority of any revenue is coming from post-season TV contracts, the total pot ought to be fairly transparent. Players offering 110 pro-rata salary games is what they feel ought to be their share of that pot. Owners at 50 games are making their counter offer. 50 games is probably less than 50-50 to players and 110 games is probably more.

Wild cards are the possibility of at least some ticket sales (maybe a lot by October) and possibility of no post-season.

If I'm an owner I'm raising an eyebrow at the part of the players' offer that requests a $100 million advance on salaries when training camps open. Is there a faction of players agitating for money now?
Not a chance
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
17,050
Reaction score
12,654
Points
123
Almost seems like each side is just trying to do an end around on the straight 50-50 revenue split originally floated and discarded. Since the vast majority of any revenue is coming from post-season TV contracts, the total pot ought to be fairly transparent. Players offering 110 pro-rata salary games is what they feel ought to be their share of that pot. Owners at 50 games are making their counter offer. 50 games is probably less than 50-50 to players and 110 games is probably more.

Wild cards are the possibility of at least some ticket sales (maybe a lot by October) and possibility of no post-season.

If I'm an owner I'm raising an eyebrow at the part of the players' offer that requests a $100 million advance on salaries when training camps open. Is there a faction of players agitating for money now?
according to an article this week 65% of MLB players make less than a million dollars, and almost all minor league players make peanuts (less than minimum wage).

My guess/hope is that 100 million is primarily for those players
 

September Through December Server Costs

Total amount
$1,275.00
Goal
$1,200.00
Donation ends:

Radio

Top