Jump to content

Recommended Posts


So the marlins would be facing only regional teams...Braves....Nats...Yankees...Red Sox...Rays...Phillies...good lord it’s gonna be a blood bath lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the marlins would be facing only regional teams...Braves....Nats...Yankees...Red Sox...Rays...Phillies...good lord it’s gonna be a blood bath lol

That'd be a rough schedule but on the other hand, shorter season could favor an underdog team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be a rough schedule but on the other hand, shorter season could favor an underdog team.

You’re right, the long season tends to weed out the anomalies. Something to hope for I guess lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean let’s be honest, this season is still probably going to be a growing season. One would hope playing against good talent will help, especially if it’s a blown seasons anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the marlins would be facing only regional teams...Braves....Nats...Yankees...Red Sox...Rays...Phillies...good lord it’s gonna be a blood bath lol

 

I don't quite understand the idea of realigning the schedule based on traveling/ geographical opponents only. The point is to limit traveling/spreading things, but teams will still be traveling, just shorter trips with it all regional.

 

That'd be a rough schedule but on the other hand, shorter season could favor an underdog team.

 

Isn't there also supposed to be expanded playoffs, meaning more teams would make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the rumors that players aren’t happy about the pay with the proposal, can we please just get on with the strike and solve all these long standing issues instead of losing this season and another in the future?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MLBPA officials told Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich of The Athletic on Monday evening that a revenue-sharing pay structure is a "non-starter."

Rosenthal reported Monday afternoon that MLB owners had approved a proposal for a 2020 season possibly beginning in early July that included a 50-50 general revenue split between the players and the league's ownership groups. But that proposal still needs to be presented to the union -- there are virtual meetings scheduled for Tuesday -- and it sounds like negotiations could get testy when it comes to the economic side of things. The players apparently want to keep the normal pay structure intact and feel they already agreed to a significant cut in pay in their agreement with the league back in March, an agreement that included a lump-sum advance but prorated salaries based on how many games are played. Health and safety are obviously huge aspects, and unanswered questions also abound on that side of the debate.

 

RotoWorld

Link to post
Share on other sites

Players did not agree to any pay cut ... merely a proration based on shorter length of season and their contractual salary. You could call it a reduction in hours, I guess, but not a cut.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Players did not agree to any pay cut ... merely a proration based on shorter length of season and their contractual salary. You could call it a reduction in hours, I guess, but not a cut.

The players need to work an "average American job" for a little while, to remember what it's like to get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game that most people would love to play.

Essentially they're wanting to get paid for sold out stadiums, though not a single ticket will be sold.

 

The prorated portion is a no-brainer. I don't know how they could think they took a "pay cut" based on the prorated schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're saying they would take less pay but not at a lesser rate. I think that's a reasonable ask from their perspective.

 

Yes to us they're still making a whole lot of money but I can understand their stance so far if it's the way I think it is.

 

They've already agreed to be paid less this year in total, but cutting the rate would make it even less than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The players need to work an "average American job" for a little while, to remember what it's like to get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game that most people would love to play.

Essentially they're wanting to get paid for sold out stadiums, though not a single ticket will be sold.

 

The prorated portion is a no-brainer. I don't know how they could think they took a "pay cut" based on the prorated schedule.

I'm pretty sure the team owners earn much more outrageous amounts of money for no more effort than the players put in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be fans on both sides of this debate, probably more on the player side. But in the end, most fans will just get angry at both sides and it'll be bad for baseball if it doesn't return due to financial concerns.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the team owners earn much more outrageous amounts of money for no more effort than the players put in.

Maybe not physical effort, but you're talking about organizations that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in several case $1 billion +. You think the owners just woke up and pulled that out of their ass?There were several risks involved, and they continue to take them every day.

If a player fails to perform, he doesn't get paid in the future. If an organization fails to perform, or performs improperly, the owner is at risk of losing their entire net worth.

 

The number being thrown around is that 40% of MLB revenue is made at the gate.

So the players want 100% pay, while the company makes only 60% of it's revenue.

 

I'll take this a step further, because I know it'll come up during the next CBA negotiation.

If the owners agree to pay 100% (pro-rated), The player's union is going to start bitching that their salaries need to be higher anyway, because the owners are too profitable, and can afford to pay the salaries with only 60% revenue. Remember that...it will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not physical effort, but you're talking about organizations that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in several case $1 billion +. You think the owners just woke up and pulled that out of their ass?There were several risks involved, and they continue to take them every day.

If a player fails to perform, he doesn't get paid in the future. If an organization fails to perform, or performs improperly, the owner is at risk of losing their entire net worth.

 

The number being thrown around is that 40% of MLB revenue is made at the gate.

So the players want 100% pay, while the company makes only 60% of it's revenue.

 

I'll take this a step further, because I know it'll come up during the next CBA negotiation.

If the owners agree to pay 100% (pro-rated), The player's union is going to start bitching that their salaries need to be higher anyway, because the owners are too profitable, and can afford to pay the salaries with only 60% revenue. Remember that...it will happen.

I agree with most of this. I didn’t think it was fair to go after the players for being “ungrateful” or “greedy” but not the owners.

 

Remember, the players have risked a ton as well. They have focused on their baseball skills rather than pursuing other valuable paths.

 

Also, most owners have many other streams of income. And to boot, owning a team has historically been an extremely-safe investment.

 

Your point about 60% of revenue and wanting 100% of pay is well-taken creates some interesting questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Quote

 

Major League Baseball issued the following statement this evening:

“We are disappointed that the MLBPA has chosen not to negotiate in good faith over resumption of play after MLB has made three successive proposals that would provide players, Clubs and our fans with an amicable resolution to a very difficult situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The MLBPA understands that the agreement reached on March 26th was premised on the parties’ mutual understanding that the players would be paid their full salaries only if play resumed in front of fans, and that another negotiation was to take place if Clubs could not generate the billions of dollars of ticket revenue required to pay players. The MLBPA’s position that players are entitled to virtually all the revenue from a 2020 season played without fans is not fair to the thousands of other baseball employees that Clubs and our office are supporting financially during this very difficult 2020 season. We will evaluate the Union’s refusal to adhere to the terms of the March Agreement, and after consulting with ownership, determine the best course to bring baseball back to our fans.”

 

Didn't see it posted here yet, sorry if it was posted elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...