The 2020 Cleveland Indians

[Huber.]

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

Are they currently getting paid anything? Or are they living off those $600 unemployment paychecks and savings?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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 revenue. They simply want to change the rules to best suit themselves.

The problem is that the players are acting on imperfect information. They don't actually know what the tipping point is for owners, where cancelling the season entirely is better than paying players for a partial season. So if the players mistakenly believe they're being cheated, and so refuse to bend...they'll end up with nothing. Salaries for players, unlike gross revenues for owners, are basically all "profit". So if there is no season, it's likely to hurt the players more than the owners.

 

[Derek]

The problem is that the players are acting on imperfect information. They don't actually know what the tipping point is for owners, where cancelling the season entirely is better than paying players for a partial season. So if the players mistakenly believe they're being cheated, and so refuse to bend...they'll end up with nothing. Salaries for players, unlike gross revenues for owners, are basically all "profit". So if there is no season, it's likely to hurt the players more than the owners.

I also believe this, which is why it's disappointing to see so many people trying to pressure the players to take whatever money the owners are willing to throw at them.

The players are 100% being cheated in the proposed deal unless the get the retain revenue sharing rights when things return to normal. The owners shouldn't be allowed to change the conditions of their contracts to best suit their own needs. If they want revenue sharing now, they should be prepared to have it moving forward.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The players are 100% being cheated in the proposed deal....

I don't think that's necessarily true.

The players cannot "lose" money in any given year because they're getting paid a salary. The owners can, and if it turns out that playing those games and paying those salaries will cause them to lose more money this season than they otherwise would...why should they?

Maybe the owners are trying to make extra profits off this, and maybe they aren't. But I don't think we fans are in a position to 100% know that either way.

 

[Derek]

I don't think that's necessarily true.

The players cannot "lose" money in any given year because they're getting paid a salary. The owners can, and if it turns out that playing those games and paying those salaries will cause them to lose more money this season than they otherwise would...why should they?

Maybe the owners are trying to make extra profits off this, and maybe they aren't. But I don't think we fans are in a position to 100% know that either way.

They are under no obligation to, and I would understand if they chose not to play the year and lose more money than they have to.

I really don't care whether the owners are trying to turn a profit here. That's not my issue here.

I like the analogy I saw yesterday:
Let's say somebody owns eight apartment buildings and needs landscaping done at each of them. They contract somebody for $1 million to do the job.

Circumstances beyond anyone's control force the owner to close half their buildings, meaning they no longer need the landscaping services for those buildings.

The contractor agrees to accept $500k instead of $1 million to provide services at the remaining four properties because it's not the owner's fault.

The owner then proposes to pay the contractor $400k because they can no longer afford to pay the previously agreed upon rate.

The contractor has every right to walk away from that deal, and I don't see how you can criticize them for doing so.


I don't fault the owners for not wanting to operate at a loss, but the players shouldn't be forced to take less either. When business is booming, the players don't get to alter the conditions of their existing contracts to get more money out of it, nor should they.

This is the risk you assume as an owner. If you can't pay the agreed-upon wages, the employees are under no obligation to just accept the scraps you can throw at them. It's a dangerous precedent to set allowing owners to take advantage of their employees.

 

[daddywags]

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 revenue. They simply want to change the rules to best suit themselves.

Both sides are trying to "best suit themselves." As they should in a negotiation.

 

[daddywags]

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.

MLB players have always refused any talk of a revenue split. Tony Clark said so last week - too much like a salary cap.

 

[Derek]

MLB players have always refused any talk of a revenue split. Tony Clark said so last week - too much like a salary cap.

That's fine. Then I'm guessing they really don't want it now. I'm pro-consistency. They shouldn't change for just one season to benefit only one party.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

They are under no obligation to, and I would understand if they chose not to play the year and lose more money than they have to.

I really don't care whether the owners are trying to turn a profit here. That's not my issue here.

I like the analogy I saw yesterday:
Let's say somebody owns eight apartment buildings and needs landscaping done at each of them. They contract somebody for $1 million to do the job.

Circumstances beyond anyone's control force the owner to close half their buildings, meaning they no longer need the landscaping services for those buildings.

The contractor agrees to accept $500k instead of $1 million to provide services at the remaining four properties because it's not the owner's fault.

The owner then proposes to pay the contractor $400k because they can no longer afford to pay the previously agreed upon rate.

The contractor has every right to walk away from that deal, and I don't see how you can criticize them for doing so.


I don't fault the owners for not wanting to operate at a loss, but the players shouldn't be forced to take less either. When business is booming, the players don't get to alter the conditions of their existing contracts to get more money out of it, nor should they.

This is the risk you assume as an owner. If you can't pay the agreed-upon wages, the employees are under no obligation to just accept the scraps you can throw at them. It's a dangerous precedent to set allowing owners to take advantage of their employees.

A slight difference in your analogy - the contractor has his own expenses and employees to pay, so taking that much less may mean he would be working at a loss. So of course he'd say no if that is the case. The players' salaries, though, are pure "profit".

It is tough to know whether the owners' offer is reasonable. Yes, they'd still have half the regular season games plus the postseason, so it would seem the players should get at least half of their usual season wages. However, with no fans, there are no gate receipts so the owners aren't making the same per game revenue for even those 80 games.

The players are free to insist on at least 50% of their regular salary, and refuse to play if they don't get it. I'm just not sure it's actually in their interest to do so.

 

[Derek]

A slight difference in your analogy - the contractor has his own expenses and employees to pay, so taking that much less may mean he would be working at a loss. So of course he'd say no if that is the case. The players' salaries, though, are pure "profit".

It is tough to know whether the owners' offer is reasonable. Yes, they'd still have half the regular season games plus the postseason, so it would seem the players should get at least half of their usual season wages. However, with no fans, there are no gate receipts so the owners aren't making the same per game revenue for even those 80 games.

The players are free to insist on at least 50% of their regular salary, and refuse to play if they don't get it. I'm just not sure it's actually in their interest to do so.

Ok, make the analogy a kid raking leaves in his neighbors' yard then you get the point I was making though, right? It's like cutting back an hourly worker's hours and then asking them to get paid less per hour, too.

Personally, I don't think asking the players to take less than their prorated salaries is reasonable.

The owners have every right to try and do what's best for their bottom line, but the players don't have to accept, and I don't think they should take any heat for declining.

I believe the only reason the players are the ones being attacked right now is that the billionaire owners were able to control the media message.


If the owners concede, we get baseball.
If the players concede, we get baseball.

So, why are the players the only ones being vilified?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I believe the only reason the players are the ones being attacked right now is that the billionaire owners were able to control the media message.


If the owners concede, we get baseball.
If the players concede, we get baseball.

So, why are the players the only ones being vilified?

1) The players are insisting on the same per-game paycheck even though nobody will be going to the games. For a lot of folks, that's a bit of a head scratcher.

2) The fans are looking at players saying "Hey, I know it's the coronavirus and all, but you're crazy if you expect me to play baseball for a lousy $3M this year!", and thinking "screw them."

 

[Derek]

1) The players are insisting on the same per-game paycheck even though nobody will be going to the games. For a lot of folks, that's a bit of a head scratcher.

2) The fans are looking at players saying "Hey, I know it's the coronavirus and all, but you're crazy if you expect me to play baseball for a lousy $3M this year!", and thinking "screw them."

1) Why though? Their pay has never been tied to attendance before. They don't get paid extra when their team sells out, so why should they have to take a hit when attendance is down?

2) Why aren't the fans looking at the owners, who are doing the same thing (looking out for their bottom line) just on a larger scale? I've heard the logic "oh, you're making millions, you can take the hit" but wouldn't that mean that the billionaires are in an even better position to take the hit and be fine?

 

[daddywags]

Players are the faces of baseball, as it is with every sport. Very few fans ever even think about owners unless they are Mark Cuban, Bill Veeck or George Steinbrenner.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

1) Why though? Their pay has never been tied to attendance before. They don't get paid extra when their team sells out, so why should they have to take a hit when attendance is down?

1) Isn't the entire country taking a hit because of the coronavirus? Many people are seeing smaller paychecks from businesses struggling to stay afloat, or have lost their jobs entirely. And attendance isn't "down". It's non-existent, because it is banned by the government. That's never happened before either.

If you want to try to sell the idea that this is just a normal down year, I don't think you'll find a lot of buyers. Anyway, if the players don't see why this year is different, or why fans may expect them to take less, I suspect that's exactly why fans aren't on their side.

2) Everyone understands the virus and social distancing requirements, and that fans can't be in the stands. They'd understand if the entire season was cancelled, which is the other alternative and fully within the owners' rights. If the only alternative to shutting down the season is to play with no fans in the seats, then common sense says that financial concessions are going to have to be made. And if the players refuse to make any...they're going to get the blame.

3) Why aren't the fans looking at the owners, who are doing the same thing (looking out for their bottom line) just on a larger scale?

I think they are. The difference is that the owners aren't saying -- at least not publicly -- that they won't have a season unless they can make exactly the same per-game profit they made last year. If the owners were saying that, then they'd be getting as much shit as are the players right now.

 

[Derek]

1) Isn't the entire country taking a hit because of the coronavirus? Many people are seeing smaller paychecks from businesses struggling to stay afloat, or have lost their jobs entirely. And attendance isn't "down". It's non-existent, because it is banned by the government. That's never happened before either.

If you want to try to sell the idea that this is just a normal down year, I don't think you'll find a lot of buyers. Anyway, if the players don't see why this year is different, or why fans may expect them to take less, I suspect that's exactly why fans aren't on their side.

2) Everyone understands the virus and social distancing requirements, and that fans can't be in the stands. They'd understand if the entire season was cancelled, which is the other alternative and fully within the owners' rights. If the only alternative to shutting down the season is to play with no fans in the seats, then common sense says that financial concessions are going to have to be made. And if the players refuse to make any...they're going to get the blame.



I think they are. The difference is that the owners aren't saying -- at least not publicly -- that they won't have a season unless they can make exactly the same per-game profit they made last year. If the owners were saying that, then they'd be getting as much shit as are the players right now.

The players are taking less though. Giving up half your salary is significant. I guess I don't understand why people think the money should be in the owners' pockets instead of the players.

I don't have much much more to say. I appreciate the back and forth.