The 2020 Cleveland Indians

[macbdog]

Blake Snell said that he wouldnt play with a pay cut. Curious to see if other players follow suit.

I don't blame him, as he said he's risking his life! Poor guy. This is why I work shift tonight, so Blake Snell doesn't have to risk his life for only 4.5 million.

 

[MadThinker88]

There is some of that sentiment out there that is for sure. Not sure how vocal they will become, but within the bounds of talking to union reps and fellow players it is there.

Based on Snell's earlier comments it appears to be a money play.
It could be considered safety related IF there was something else out there (from him) since his statements in March 2020 (linked below).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYAjK1WXsAAkgqI?format=jpg&name=medium

 

[Derek]

Based on Snell's earlier comments it appears to be a money play.
It could be considered safety related IF there was something else out there (from him) since his statements in March 2020 (linked below).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYAjK1WXsAAkgqI?format=jpg&name=medium

I mean, I think a lot of people have different thoughts on the virus than we did in March.

Either way, I'm with Snell (the players). It's silly that they're being asked to take a further pay cut after already agreeing to prorated salaries this season.

 

[6.19.2016]

Based on Snell's earlier comments it appears to be a money play.
It could be considered safety related IF there was something else out there (from him) since his statements in March 2020 (linked below).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYAjK1WXsAAkgqI?format=jpg&name=medium

I mean, I think a lot of people have different thoughts on the virus than we did in March.

Either way, I'm with Snell (the players). It's silly that they're being asked to take a further pay cut after already agreeing to prorated salaries this season.

How much does force majeure allow anything in the contracts to be rewritten as either side sees fit, though?

Snell may very not be bluffing, but I have to think that there are enough players who actually need the money that a deal will happen.

By "need the money," I mean that pro athletes so often live an expensive enough lifestyle that they're practically paycheck-to-paycheck.

 

[Gson]

When an owner receives an offer to purchase the club..and thereby realizing the capital gains from the original purchase price to the current sale price.. the owner doesn't automatically contact the players and give them a massive share..

The goose and gander thing only works if it always works..

The players have a contract and a finite duration to earn their "life altering" cash.. If the business cannot pay its bills, the business is either put into receivership or another means to remain solvent has to be found.. If the situation is short term.. then take the reduction in the salary being asked for.. add it to a delayed payment with appropriate cost of money as part of the program.

Sure.. only $ 4.5 MM is being paid to Snell.. if the owners want the number to be half of that ($ 2.25 MM).. then six years from now.. have the owner make a one time payment of $ 6,028,269.00 or begin making 72 monthly payments of $ 364,890.00. The cost of money is the cost of money.. A negotiated settlement with individual contracts should be individually negotiated for just such an adjustment as this example..

The money is there.. or will be.. The short term deficit shouldn't be borne by ONLY the players...

Thoughts?>.

 

[BMAN]

Blake Snell said that he wouldnt play with a pay cut. Curious to see if other players follow suit.

Dude did a 180 from March when he said Covid was blown out of proportion.

 

[Derek]

Dude did a 180 from March when he said Covid was blown out of proportion.

I don't think there's any doubt that Snell came across poorly in his interview.

 

[Huber.]

Are these guys still wanting their total guaranteed money or just their prorated amount?

 

[jup]

Are these guys still wanting their total guaranteed money or just their prorated amount?

Prorated amount.

Owners are proposing further cuts to the proration. As it stands, if only 81 games are played, players have already agreed to get 1/2 their original contract amount. Now the owners want to reduce that 50% pay for another sizable chunk for the fact that those 81 games will likely be fan less

 

[ncinthenext3]

Like I was saying, just don't air your dirty laundry. This virus has cost the vast majority of society a lot of money. If he thinks he should be different and cite his contract he's entitled to his opinion. You may want to be careful though so as to not look like you're out of touch. Very few people have come out of this this without being financially impacted, and I would guess whining in public about your risk (everyone's taking a risk that's been working through this) and your cash won't get you much sympathy. Not from me.

 

[MadThinker88]

Like I was saying, just don't air your dirty laundry. This virus has cost the vast majority of society a lot of money. If he thinks he should be different and cite his contract he's entitled to his opinion. You may want to be careful though so as to not look like you're out of touch. Very few people have come out of this this without being financially impacted, and I would guess whining in public about your risk (everyone's taking a risk that's been working through this) and your cash won't get you much sympathy. Not from me.

Fully agree. BOTH sides need to adapt. BOTH sides need to surrender some 'sacred cows' so the game can move forward & there can be a 2020 season (in some fashion).

Blake Snell is allowed his opinion but based on his prior comments he was a poor choice for the players to get this reaction out there. There are plenty of other players that could/ should have put that initial reaction out there for the public. Plenty of players are donating funds/ items for front-line/ essential workers. It would have been better PR if the concern came from one of them.

 

[daddywags]

Players and owners alike should know that any talk of money at this point is going to be met with derision from fans. Sure, they need to have the discussions, but for goodness sakes keep it to yourselves!

 

[Derek]

Unless the owners are willing to continue doing a revenue split with the players when normalcy resumes, I think the players should stand firm.

The players don't get paid extra in years when business is good.

 

[bob2the2nd]

Unless the owners are willing to continue doing a revenue split with the players when normalcy resumes, I think the players should stand firm.

The players don't get paid extra in years when business is good.

dont they?

As least in the NBA there is definitely a percentage split of revenue sharing. I assumed all sports are the same way

 

[Derek]

dont they?

As least in the NBA there is definitely a percentage split of revenue sharing. I assumed all sports are the same way

Baseball owners don't even disclose their revenue. That's why I'm with the players on this.

The owners want to privatize their earnings but socialize their losses. They simply want to change the rules to best suit themselves.

EDIT: Accidentally put revenue instead of losses