The 2020 Cleveland Indians

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Right. But if it is all about rights under the CBA, the CBA doesn't obligate the owners to play games or pay players at all under these conditions.

Exactly.

Which is why, repeatedly, some of us have said that if there's no baseball, it is the fault of the owners. They are the ones choosing this course.

If they agreed to pay the players--not their entire salary--just a pro-rated salary based on the number of games played (already a concession by the players) this would be over already.

Sure, the fact that fans aren't in the stands would hurt their pockets. But that's the risk you're taking on as an owner. If you're defending your profits in times of prosperity by claiming you're the one taking the risk, then don't cry poor when risk actualizes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Which is why, repeatedly, some of us have said that if there's no baseball, it is the fault of the owners. They are the ones choosing this course.

If they agreed to pay the players--not their entire salary--just a pro-rated salary based on the number of games played (already a concession by the players) this would be over already.

Of course, the players also could have agreed to any of the owners' offers, and this would be over already too.

Otherwise, all these points have already been discussed in here repeatedly, so I'm not doing it again.

 

[6.19.2016]

That's basically what the players already rejected back in May.



The sticking point seems to be that the union is unwilling to move on the issue of full pro-rated salaries for whatever games are played. So anything asking them to take only 7-80% of that is something they've already said they'd reject.

On the bright side:

While it seems the two sides are completely on opposite ends, an ending to the struggle of starting a season sounds like it might finally be coming to a close, and that a season will indeed happen.

That report comes from SNY.tv’s Andy Martino, who Friday stated that even if it’s 50 games, players are going to report to spring training and games are going to commence at some point in July.

Martino says that he’s spoken to sources that say that the owners may make another fiscal offer to the players to try and get them on the field, and that players “really do appear ready to stand on principle on receiving full prorated salaries.”

Report: Even If It's Just 50 Games, MLB Players Will Report and Play a Shortened Slate in 2020

While the owners and players union continue to debate about how long the already shortened 2020 season would be in Major League Baseball, a report Friday stated that no matter the length, there will be a season even if only 50 games, and players will stay unified in the fight to try and get a...

www.si.com

Interesting sub-link there - https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/next-w...season-starts-in-early-or-late-july/313495662 - detailing some of the minutiae that still remain.

Also of note is that in the original March agreement gives Mr. Hunk-of-Metal a final absolute power here:

Should Rob Manfred Drop the Hammer?

A new wrinkle has developed in the saga of baseball returning to the field in 2020.

www.azsnakepit.com

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Interesting sub-link there - https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/next-w...season-starts-in-early-or-late-july/313495662 - detailing some of the minutiae that still remain.

Also of note is that in the original March agreement gives Mr. Hunk-of-Metal a final absolute power here:

Should Rob Manfred Drop the Hammer?

A new wrinkle has developed in the saga of baseball returning to the field in 2020.

www.azsnakepit.com

Just call it a day and start again next year.

 

[Gson]

Just call it a day and start again next year.

..with the latest proposal (payment to the players of a little over 1/3rd of their salary) from the owners to MLBPA.. it's looking more and more likely...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

..with the latest proposal (payment to the players of a little over 1/3rd of their salary) from the owners to MLBPA.. it's looking more and more likely...

The point at which the owners are willing to pay full pro-rated salaries -- and that appears to be a non-negotiable demand by players -- appears to be something like 48 games. My guess is that where this is going to end up, and it is entirely possible that the players will just say "nah -- screw it" if it gets to that point.

 

[ncinthenext3]

Just another shit sandwich on everyone's plate.

 

[ncinthenext3]

It sure didn't take long for the players to tell ownership to pound sand. Time's running out. Do better.

I was watching the replay of 2017 ALDS G2 last night. Trailing 8-3 in the middle innings, the Tribe launches a huge comeback highlighted by a Lindor GS. Game won in 13 innings. It seemed like yesterday but man the next chapter of baseball sure seems far away now.

 

[Chris]

Not much hope at this point. Gotta love it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It sure didn't take long for the players to tell ownership to pound sand. Time's running out. Do better.

In fairness to both sides, MLB is in a significantly different position from both football and basketball.

The majority of the regular season in basketball was completed, so the players already got most of their money, which the owners could pay because all those games had normal attendance.. That makes it much easier for them to come to a deal for the rest of the season. If all this was happening before the start of the NBA season, and there weren't going to be any fans, my guess is that the NBA and players would be struggling to come to an agreement there as well.

In football, a much larger percentage of revenue comes from TV contracts versus attendance, so it's easier for them to find a solution that works for both sides as well, and they can have a full season even without fans because they'll still have the vast majority of their revenue.

But baseball already is guaranteed to miss a huge number of regular season games, so the MLB players aren't in the position as the NBA players of already having all that money in their pockets. And the MLB owners are much more dependant upon attendance for revenue than the NFL, so they're not in the position of NFL owners who will still make money because of the massive TV contracts.

Maybe there just isn't a deal acceptable to both sides because of the circumstances, not because either side are truly being dicks.

 

[Chris]

I’m sure the owners would be just fine if they gave the players what they wanted.

But it’s more about saving face and pride, rather than just money alone. Give the players an inch they’re likely to take a mile.

Like I said, doubt anything gets done for these reasons alone. I blame both, and neither. Just a bad situation that they both take accountability for but at the same time, I understand both viewpoints.

 

[Otsego Mar]

I’m sure the owners would be just fine if they gave the players what they wanted.

But it’s more about saving face and pride, rather than just money alone. Give the players an inch they’re likely to take a mile.

Like I said, doubt anything gets done for these reasons alone. I blame both, and neither. Just a bad situation that they both take accountability for but at the same time, I understand both viewpoints.

I'm also sure the players would be fine if they took what the owners offered.

Either way, no baseball sucks.

 

[Chris]

I'm also sure the players would be fine if they took what the owners offered.

Either way, no baseball sucks.

A lot of players would. Not every player makes $10 million plus though. In the grand scheme yes they’d all be fine too. But forgive me if I side slightly more with the players whose talent actually brings me the entertainment and not the absurdly rich billionaires, many of whom are notoriously cheap and would probably barely notice it if the season never happened.

Both are at fault as states originally. If I had to side with one, it’s the players.

 

[Huber.]

What's stopping them from using minor league players and independent players this year like they threatened to do in 1994? At this point I think I would rather see it anyways.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

A lot of players would. Not every player makes $10 million plus though. In the grand scheme yes they’d all be fine too. But forgive me if I side slightly more with the players whose talent actually brings me the entertainment and not the absurdly rich billionaires, many of whom are notoriously cheap and would probably barely notice it if the season never happened.

Both are at fault as states originally. If I had to side with one, it’s the players.

One provides a service (entertainment) for us.

One claims in times of prosperity, the reason they should profit is because they're taking on the risk--but now in a time of hardship, is holding the product hostage and complaining that everyone else needs to subsidize the risk for them in order for a season to happen.

If you're not willing to keep the sport going through both the good times and the bad, sell to someone who will.