| There are 15 comments on this blog. |
|
|
There isn't gonna be a season. Players are openly airing grievances with ownership and calling for the removal of Manfred.
Alex Verdugo, Jeter Downs, and Connor Wong are some very good players that the Dodgers essentially gave away for free.
First the Red Sox fucked the Dodgers in the ass by cheating in the 2018 World Series and then fucked them in the ass again by taking Verdugo, Downs, and Wong in exchange for Betts, who won't ever play a single game in a Dodgers uniform. Pretty hilarious. I thing Wong in particular is going to be a solid catcher. Catchers who rake are a rare commodity these days.
|
|
|
Dodgers aren't about winning championships.
they are worried about the corporate bottom line.
they treat players like commodities.
their own TV network? who, in LA, doesn't wear "LA"?
owners don't care about players, fans, games.
Walter O'Malley, Tommy Lasorda where are you?
|
|
|
Eff the Dodgers!!
|
|
|
Baseball is the only sport where a shortened season really does a disservice to fans and to the spirit of competition. You can pull of a shortened NBA, NHL and NFL season no problem but what makes baseball so unique is the long haul of a 162 game season. There's a lot of drama in the playoff chase like in 2011 with the red sox and Braves collapsing in September and in 2018 with those game 163 for division titles plus playing WC game the next day. I would've taken a 120 or 130 game season but now that I'm hearing of 48, 54 or 72 game season I'd rather have the 2020 mlb season canceled than put up with a joke of a season. Yea sucks for dodgers because of the big possibility that mookie Betts never plays for them but he wont be getting a 300 million or 400 million dollar deal in free agency with the big drop in revenue from this year.
|
|
|
^ Actually it doesn't. The owners are going to lose money no matter what they're just trying to minimize it - Teams like the Dodgers will lose about $150 million this year just from no ticket sales and no concession sales.
Paying the players 75% of their salary would be a huge mistake, from a business standpoint.
Owners want a 72 game season and want to players to take into consideration that there will be no fans. Players are balking so we'll see.
Manfred's an idiot.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
"I'd rather have the 2020 mlb season canceled than put up with a joke of a season"
Same here. There seems to be consensus on that point among players and media, too.
Good news, I guess: "The Major League Baseball Players Association has rejected MLB's latest proposal and will not counter, sources tell ESPN" - Jeff Pissant
|
|
|
SixD
You wrote what the owners say "And the owners were at 50% of salary per game, and the players at 100%.
What the players want is the prorated basis of their full salary. So if they play 50% of the games they would be paid 50% of their contract. They want to get paid the same the same per game rate.
When the owners say they want to pay 70%, what they are saying is that they want to pay the players 70% of the prorated rate. So if 50% of the games are played they only want to pay 50% x 70% = 35% of the contract. They are prorating the per game rate for the lose of fans.
Most of the owners are billionaires. They have made money year after year in their investment not even taking into account what the team has grown in value whenever they sell. The owners have the money to spread this loss over 10/20/30 years of get paid back when they sell the team for many times over what they paid for it (this would not be the case if the teams were not making money).
The ball players only have so many years to make money so they cannot make up what they give up besides the games they are not playing or being paid for. The owners had an agreement that they signed to pay them X amount, which the players are willing for that amount to be prorated by the amount of games played.
Also we all always looking at the few that get a lot, but there are a lot more making the minimum and only for so many years. They are also the ones that went through the farm system not making a lot to try and make money later if they make it to the majors. All along the owners keep making money.
I thought about the big money players taking less to support the lowest paid players until I read what I wrote above about the owners make money every year plus appreciation of the teams value. That made a lot of sense.
If I worked for a company, it would be like them coming to me telling me that this is a down year so I should take a pay cut so the owners could keep making money.
|
|
|
"If I worked for a company, it would be like them coming to me telling me that this is a down year so I should take a pay cut so the owners could keep making money."
Exactly. I don't feel sorry for the millionaire athletes who get paid to play a fun game. But they can't be expected to share the losses when they don't have a share in the capital gains or profits. Fuck the owners. The owners could have offered shares of future profits if they wanted players to bail them out right now. And nobody really believes the owners are actually losing money anyway.
|
|
|
đ
|
|
|
MLB needs to have a preapproved plan or a negotiated formula to prorate salaries. I know the owners wanted an expanded postseason to make up lost revenue. If they really want to be fair put all the revenue in one pot and split it up by team. I guess playing any amount of games is a good thing. The 2020 season will be a learning season to see what works and what doesn't. Fortunately no one dies if they fuck up.
|
|
|
'Exactly. I don't feel sorry for the millionaire athletes who get paid to play a fun game. But they can't be expected to share the losses when they don't have a share in the capital gains or profits. Fuck the owners. The owners could have offered shares of future profits if they wanted players to bail them out right now. And nobody really believes the owners are actually losing money anyway.'
Problem is that players do get a share of the profits. They get a piece of the tv deal, they get a piece of the jersey sales etc etc.
And the fact that the owners are billionaires or that the team's appreciated is irrelevant.
If you bought a house in 1960 for $50,000 and is now worth $1.2 million does that make you a millionaire?
The players and owners had an agreement in place in feb or march. But that agreement was based on the assumption that games would be played in front of fans AND there was a provision for renegotiating the deal if it turned out that the games would have to be played without fans in attendance, which is the case now.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
The playersâ union has remained steadfast in its interpretation of the March agreement â that it guarantees any pay for 2020 will be fully pro-rated based on the number of games to be played. Halem again asserted MLBâs belief that the agreement (which included a $170 million non-refundable salary advance to the players) gave it the right to negotiate player compensation based on economic realities â such as the loss of revenue from games staged without fans in attendance.
During negotiations in March, Halem said in the letter, ownership made it âcrystal clearâ that playing without fans in attendance âwas not economically feasible.â
âWe provided you with financial information showing the amount of revenue from gate/in-park (approximately 50% of local revenue),â Halem said Friday. âThe Commissionerhimself said during the negotiations, according to our bargaining notes, âWeâre not playing empty, it just doesnât work for us.â The Association acknowledged as much, which resulted in Section I of the March Agreement, providing the Office of the Commissioner with the unilateral right to resume the season only when (among otherconditions) there were no restrictions on regular fan access in all 30 Major League ballparks.
âAnd the Association, for giving up essentially nothing because players had no right under their contracts to be paid during the national emergency, received hundreds of millions of dollarsâ worth of benefits, including a full year of service for a shortenedseason ⌠a full year of service if there was no season, and salary advances totaling $170 million (which were non-refundable if there was no season).â
Halem dismisses player suggestions that MLB has an âobligation to play as many games as possible.â That is âflatly contradictedâ by the March agreement, he said in the letter, which places âno obligationâ on teams âto play any games, let alone any particular number of games.â
âWe negotiated that provision precisely to protect the Clubs from being leveraged into the economically infeasible alternative of playing in empty stadiums without a corresponding reduction in salaries,â Halem said.
According to Halemâs letter, âeveryone involved in the (March) negotiations understood that if we could not resume play with regular fan access, the parties would have a subsequent negotiation over reductions to player compensation to account for the loss of billions of dollars of gate/in-park revenue.â
It is clear the two sidesâ different interpretations of the March agreement âhas been a stumbling block to negotiating a resolutionâ â something which has been apparent for weeks now. But Halem adds a further swipe at the unionâs stance
|
|
|
MLBPA is the strongest of the sports unions and I really don't give a shit about the owners on the whole. But this time, the players and the union are on the wrong side of this. The pie is a lot smaller because of everything that's going on and teams WILL lose money regardless.
The union should make sure it's just for 1 year and because of special circumstances and get an agreement done.
If they don't the players will be blamed, especially because of the idiotic statements some players have made, and it'll be '94 all over again. Only this time fans will stay away a lot longer because this time there won't be a home run race to bring fans back.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the small market teams like KC, Oakland, the florida teams, Seattle etc. This could put them behind the 8 ball for a really long time if not force them to go under completely.
Atticus Finch
|
|
|
"And the fact that the owners are billionaires or that the team's appreciated is irrelevant.
If you bought a house in 1960 for $50,000 and is now worth $1.2 million does that make you a millionaire?"
A house doesn't generate revenue. That's apples to oranges.
A for-profit organization increases in value DUE to profits, and projections of future profits.
Players don't get a share of the gains.
|
|
|
Baseball... politics.. this is a quote from Ken Burns, Baseball.
"Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience; that means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half-loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season where small incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose. There's no certainty, no given. You know when a season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time; the worst team is going to win a third of the time. The argument, over 162 games, is that middle third. So it's a game you canât like if winning is everything. And democracy is that way, too."
George Will
|
| There are 15 comments on this blog. |
