Quote from MrPadre19 on June 3, 2020, 10:59 am

Man I  hope they get this worked out.

Thinking about a shortened season actually has me excited.

If they play say 60 games it will be like it's the middle of July and EVERY team in baseball is still in the playoff hunt.

You would think a short season might take some shine off of the games but in a 60 game season every game from the very first will

be important.

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 3, 2020, 1:41 pm

FYI from Investopedia:

Major League Baseball

While NFL players are paid for a 17-game season with games played weekly, MLB players are paid to compete over a 162-game schedule, with games often played on back-to-back days or even doubleheaders. But once the playoffs start, baseball players are mostly in it for the chance to raise the Commissioner's Trophy as MLB champions. According to the MLB Players' Association, the league pays out playoff bonuses based on a percentage of revenue generated throughout the playoff year: "The Players' pool is created from 60% of the total gate receipts from the first four World Series games; 60% of the total gate receipts from the first four games of each League Championship Series; and 60% of the total gate receipts from the first three games of each Division Series. The pool is distributed as follows: World Series Winning Team: 36%; World Series Loser: 24%; League Championship Series Losers (two teams): 12% each; Division Series losers (four teams): 3% each; Non-wild Card ssecond-placeteams (four teams): 1% each." To create more incentive, teams vote as to how to divvy up the bonus cash, allowing top performers to earn a bigger piece of the pie than the pine-jockeys.

So pretty clear why the players might not want that model to continue in 2020 .. if no fans they are playing for free. Even less appealing if they have to take a regular season pay cut to then play for free in an expanded playoff format.

On the other hand can see way the owners want the shortest season possible (under the assumption they lose money for each game played) to lessen regular season losses ... get to the playoffs and reap all the TV profits from an expanded playoff schedule.

The losses for both the teams and players for games not played to date ... probably should be considered "sunk costs" (don't try to recapture those losses). Going forward given the situation the "balance" is among the owners' losses per game played is linked to the player pay agreed upon and should include the playoff revenues. Could create a formula to equalize losses between owners and players, in theory.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 4, 2020, 11:38 am

Players propose unrealistic 114 game season.  Owners propose ridiculously shortened one of 50 games.   Midpoint:  82 games.  Hmmm....   BUT the clock is ticking to even get to 82 with owners "drawing a line in the sand" that they don't want regular season rolling into November.  Assuming that is real, puts the onus on the players to decide quickly, or forgo a season > than 50 games.

So if I'm the players:  1)  Now have a 50-game season at full pay for that # of games in hand.  That is far better than the original "sliding scale" offer across ALL games.  2)  Any $ gained beyond this point is a win.  3) Offer to the owners the sliding scale I proposed a few posts back under these terms:

• ONLY applies to games played AFTER the "full pay" games; if season stops ex. 40 games in, players receive full salaries for those games.
• MAXIMUM # of "sliding scale" games =  50% of "full pay" games.   This offers more games for all, but only if owners give a little bit more; i.e. more full pay games.  Options as I see it..  Best case:  90 games: 60/30.  Most likely:  75 games: 50/25.  But how about:  "Half season" = 82 games:  55/27

Players win:  Almost all Pre Arb players (<600K) get 100% of their salary for all games played.   The lowest paid Padre > 600K (Luis Perdomo @ 950K) would make 93% of his normal per game salary in the "sliding scale" games.  For the season, he would be close to 98% of his full prorated pay (2/3 @ 100%, 1/3 @ 93%).  The point at which a player would go below 50% of normal per game pay on sliding scale is around 6 MM salary.  Even those guys would wind up at 83% of full prorated pay.    The highest paid players are giving up the most $ on a % basis, but are still making the most per game.  Again, the rationale is that any cost cutting proposal is going to affect the highest paid players the most.  The savings HAVE to come from the Manny's (50+ x minimum salary guy), Hos' & Wil Myers (35 x minimum) of the baseball world.  I get SOME (particularly arb or FA eligible) guys might have an issue playing the last 1/3 & risking injury for reduced pay, but vast majority need to perform to get paid going forward into an uncertain last year before new CBA.  For Pads, 3 highest paid players (same true for almost every other team) are on long term deals; get paid next year whether they perform or not.

Owners win:  U-T reported that owners project to lose $640,000 per team per game without fans if players paid full per game salaries.  Assuming true, owners are willing to lose $32 million per team to get 50 games in... probably to get to the juicy fruit of the expanded playoffs revenue.... but not more than that.

My proposal closes most of that gap for the games beyond "full pay".  Just the Padres 5 highest paid players would "save" $400,000 per game.  I estimate all of the Padres taking pay cuts would save about $500,000 per game.   This is about 75% of the shortfall; instead of losing for example 16 MM for playing another 25 games, Pads would now "only" lose about 3.5 MM... only about 10% more than from the first 50 games.  Players can accurately claim that they (collectively) are "losing" more than owners in this portion of season.  I personally think it's extremely likely that fans will start being allowed to attend in limited #'s before the end of the season.  This could easily eliminate the nominal shortfall for the sliding scale games for the owners, maybe even more.

I think owners taking an additional 10% loss for an additional 33% more games is a win-win:  Allows something much closer to a "normal" season before an expanded playoffs.  The risk (Covid resurgence shutdown) / reward tradeoff is definitely worth it.

Bottom line:  An 82-game season split 55 games @ full salary / 27 @ sliding scale is a win-win:  Players lock in 10% more $$ at full salary for all players than owner proposed 50 games (55 vs. 50).   Get over the important 1/3 of full season salary for all (55/162 = 34%).  Almost all pre-arb players (<600K) @100% of salary for duration of season.  Players up to 1 MM @ 97-98% salary across all games played.  Players 600K - 6 MM range from 99-50% of salary for sliding scale portion.  Players >6MM take the biggest hit, but still make the most $.

Owners "sacrifice" 3 MM more in losses for 5 more 'full pay' games to get season extended to 50% of normal & have a greater chance to recover some losses with limited gate receipts; especially in the last 1/3 ("sliding scale") of season.

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 4, 2020, 11:47 am

Please send your proposal to someone that can get it done!

Thanks!

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 4, 2020, 11:55 am

Stated another way, playing a half season under the above proposal would result in players making from 35%+ (Highest salary in MLB) to 50% (almost all pre-arb players: <600K)  of their normal salary for playing 50% of games.

For the most highly compensated players, this $ would be extremely "front loaded":  Manny would make 34% ("full pay") of his normal salary for the first 55 games, but only a little over 3% ("sliding scale") for the last 27 games; > 10 MM 1st 55, < 1 MM last 27.

Highest paid players forego the highest % of their salaries to make the season as long as possible, but lowest paid players have the largest risk of losing the largest % of their total compensation if the season ends up getting cut short.   No scenario where a higher paid player makes less $ per game, OR could make more % of their salary for the season than a lower paid player.

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 4, 2020, 12:38 pm

I know this is playing with unreliable numbers being toss around all over the media BUT

1. the owners say they will loose $640K per team per game with no fans but full player salaries
2. per the note above, players don't get paid for the playoffs unless there are fans
3. one report said the EXPANDED playoffs will generate $1 Billion in TV revenues (lost if no season)

Using a simplistic approach: $1 Billion divided among 30 teams equals $33.3 Million per team divided by 50 games equals $667K ... about the amount the owners say they would loose per game if they pay the players full salary. I guess sort of the "break even" scenario for the owners ... which is the best they should be shooting for at this point.

The risk still however remains that the season is curtailed if Covid-19 returns as an issue before the 50 games and the playoffs are curtailed .... owners take all the additional losses. Counter to that, IF fans do end up attending (especially in the playoffs) how is the additional revenue handed or do the owners take all the incremental gain since they took the risk on season curtailment and, for playing, the players got full salary?

If they want to go to 82 games ... and hedge a bit on the risk of a future shutdown .... maybe the FIRST 32 games are at a reduced player salary and the LAST 50 are at full pay. Would think there could still be a lot of uncertainty moving through July. Need to figure out the TV revenue (national / local) from playing the in season games vs. the player costs and players take a cut to make that "break-even" for the first 32.  However, just estimating to cover the $640K game/term loss players would have to accept an aggregate cut of about 2/3rds (1/3rd pay) for those extra 32 games. If you are not worried about the risk of a curtailed future and no playoffs .... 82 games at about 75% player salaries per game should be about right.

A lot of risk still out there in the form of "what if" scenarios that are hard to cover "fairly" this early with limited knowledge of the future. Neither side wants to lock into an agreement that .. due to future events ... disadvantages them.

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 4, 2020, 1:12 pm

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 4, 2020, 11:55 am

Stated another way, playing a half season under the above proposal would result in players making from 35%+ (Highest salary in MLB) to 50% (almost all pre-arb players: <600K)  of their normal salary for playing 50% of games.

For the most highly compensated players, this $ would be extremely "front loaded":  Manny would make 34% ("full pay") of his normal salary for the first 55 games, but only a little over 3% ("sliding scale") for the last 27 games; > 10 MM 1st 55, < 1 MM last 27.

Highest paid players forego the highest % of their salaries to make the season as long as possible, but lowest paid players have the largest risk of losing the largest % of their total compensation if the season ends up getting cut short.   No scenario where a higher paid player makes less $ per game, OR could make more % of their salary for the season than a lower paid player.

 

Doubt that flies with Union (players) considering the veteran (and more highly compensated) players are the force in the Union and few (if any) are eager to subsidize the lower paid (rookies, fringe players). Fans want to watch the stars not Perdomo, Garcia, et. al. so an argument can be made that the more highly compensated should be paid.

Maybe a more "equitable" approach is (for a 1/2 season) is every player gets a base $300K and then everyone takes an equal % cut on dollars over $300K. Unions want solidarity ... and everyone taking the hit may seem that without picking winners and losers.

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 4, 2020, 1:16 pm

So what happens if/when a player tests positive?

A two week quarantine?

If so....wouldn't it be smart for teams to have their players get tested "now" and get that taken care of before they ever even show up for ST2?

If they wait until these guys show up for ST2,then they test positive and have to quarantine....they won't be ready for the start of the season in early July.

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 4, 2020, 1:19 pm

Hearing that rumors suggest that Manfred may just impose a 50 game schedule (players at full pay per game) ... he apparently thinks he has that authority.

Union seems to not agree (surprised)? They go back to the earlier agreement that says the parties need to make every effort to play the maximum number of games. Expect debate "every effort" meaning.

=====

Not sure when they think a 50 game schedule would start? Mid-July to mid-Sep ... and run the expanded playoffs earlier to still be done by the end of October?