Quote from hoffy51 on June 5, 2020, 4:05 pm

They are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

Quote from fenn68 on June 5, 2020, 4:34 pm

Quote from hoffy51 on June 5, 2020, 4:05 pm

They are going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg!

Well they said that in 1994-95 when the players went on strike in August, 1994 ... post season cancelled ... and play did not resume until April, 1995 (creating a loss of 18 games in 1995).

Fans were irate ... would never follow baseball again. However, they did in droves to create massive increases in revenue for owners and massive pay escalation for players. Likely the owners and union remember and are not worried (about the fans returning) if 2020 is lost.

Side: maybe they should be worried about a lot of other issues that may turn off the next generation of young fans but this ... a bump in the road for at least their time with the game (owners and players).

Actually the same fan sentiment boiled up during the NFL strike (remember the replacement players) and the NHL strike (longer than the MLB strike) ... both are still around making more money than ever.

Fans in general are very forgiving if what they end up with is entertaining for them.

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 5, 2020, 5:28 pm

So basically the longer this drags out the better for the owners.

Less time to play means less games played.

Which is what the owners want.
So if the players want more than 50 games they better find a compromise pretty quickly!

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 5, 2020, 8:04 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 5, 2020, 5:28 pm

So basically the longer this drags out the better for the owners.

Less time to play means less games played.

Which is what the owners want.
So if the players want more than 50 games they better find a compromise pretty quickly!

 

Sort of the sweet spot (if you believe the numbers flying around) for the owners is short season and get to the playoffs. So the 48-52 season is the max if you pay full salary for those games and use the playoff revenues to pay for that.

The only reason the players want to play more games is to net more money BUT the owners seem to be saying that the same money is on the table and more games just means cutting the game salary ... net same dollar payout.

If players get 100% per game for 50 games ... they get 50% per game for 100 played. Zero incentive for the players to play more than 50 under the owners’ plan.

So, other than some PR ... fan engagement benefit ... owners probably would prefer to skip a season without fans in the stands and make it look as though it is the players fault. The wild card is how to handle the possibility (probability) that fans will be in the stands at some venues during the season and in the playoffs which then changes the financial “break even” for the owners (to their benefit) ... not the players if they agree to the current MLB proposal. T’ait easy.

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 6, 2020, 11:08 am

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.

I haven't touched the math on your proposal, but it's really close to mine.  The problem is that the disparity in player salaries is so massive;  Trout & G. Cole @36 MM salary = 64 Minimum salary players... almost 2 1/2 teams worth of minimum guys EACH!  For Pads, just  Manny, Hos, & Myers = 122 Minimum salary players...

The $ is SO unbalanced, that any significant backing off of salary HAS to come from the highest paid players "disproportionately", or you simply can't get there.  Your proposal would lead to lower salaried guys taking massive % cuts (relative to mine) just to preserve a very small %  for the richest players.  That fact may be why the player union isn't willing (so far) to consider it... there's no way to do so "equally" in terms of absolute $ OR % without creating dissension in the ranks.

For comparison, the disparity in total team payrolls is much smaller.   I was actually surprised that if you drop the 3 highest (250MM-NYY, 222-LAD, 211-HOU) & 3 lowest (56MM-Balt, 57MM- Miami, 58MM-Pitt) payroll teams as outliers, there is only a 3-fold difference between the 4th highest (187MM - Cubs) and 4th lowest (67 MM - Rays) payroll.  So the effect of the proposed salary reduction, while different for every team is closer to "equal" than it is for the players on one team.  For example, even the Rays have two 8-figure salary guys, plus 7 more between 2-7 MM salary each.

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 6, 2020, 12:10 pm

Quote from fenn68 on June 5, 2020, 8:04 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 5, 2020, 5:28 pm

So basically the longer this drags out the better for the owners.

Less time to play means less games played.

Which is what the owners want.
So if the players want more than 50 games they better find a compromise pretty quickly!

 

Sort of the sweet spot (if you believe the numbers flying around) for the owners is short season and get to the playoffs. So the 48-52 season is the max if you pay full salary for those games and use the playoff revenues to pay for that.

The only reason the players want to play more games is to net more money BUT the owners seem to be saying that the same money is on the table and more games just means cutting the game salary ... net same dollar payout.

If players get 100% per game for 50 games ... they get 50% per game for 100 played. Zero incentive for the players to play more than 50 under the owners’ plan.

So, other than some PR ... fan engagement benefit ... owners probably would prefer to skip a season without fans in the stands and make it look as though it is the players fault. The wild card is how to handle the possibility (probability) that fans will be in the stands at some venues during the season and in the playoffs which then changes the financial “break even” for the owners (to their benefit) ... not the players if they agree to the current MLB proposal. T’ait easy.

Fenn, I'm hitting on multiple posts you've made here...

Your main point is (mostly) correct:  The owners have drawn a line in the sand:  "50" (46-54) games at full prorated pay.  This gets them to a Regular (not expanded?) Playoff, where they presumably recoup some of the losses incurred.  They have no incentive to go beyond that... without gaining SOMETHING from the players.  Players can bitch, moan, & whine about it, but it would be poor business on owners' part to simply hand over full pay and MORE $ lost for for more games.  I feel extremely strongly at this point that the players' union is doing a TERRIBLE job of acknowledging the current reality we're in.  Look how little $ they took to preserve service time in 2020 if a lost season....  where is that flexibility now in a fan-less environment with a solid "base" offer to build upon?

Your representation that this is the max $$$ amount teams will spend without spending another penny is not correct.   There is no reason to think teams wouldn't move forward playing more games AND players making more $ than only playing 50 @ full pay... as long as teams aren't losing that $640,000/game.   #14 MLB payroll Padres save $500K on my proposal, but all players earn more $; half at 100% of their full/game.   This shrinks the "loss" gap/game dramatically.... further into the season (aside: ZERO % chance players play < full proration games first... that would be going below MLB's standing offer) when there is a greater chance of at least limited fan attendance... giving owners a chance to recoup not only the smaller losses for additional games, but PRIOR losses too.  THAT seems win-win.  Players theoretically could ask for some share of gate revenue, but opens door to future "revenue sharing" which they already rejected as a form of salary cap.  But maybe a % of TV playoff revenue this season for an expanded playoff.

It's likely some higher payroll teams would close >100% of the "$640K/game" loss on my sliding scale, while lower payroll teams would close less of the gap.  But the 640K is probably an average that is smaller for lower payroll teams, higher for higher (many other factors like network revenue etc beyond my scope here).    Additional games beyond "50" at less than 100% of prorated pay f gets more $ to players, AND creates possibility to owners paring of down their losses while taking little additional loss risk.  Players can use this leverage to at least get SOME more games at full pay on the front end, as well as other concessions.

With owners talking about 48-54 games full pay, if I'm players I'd say:  How about 61 full pay, then 21 at lower.   Might wind up meeting at 58 / 24 or something like that.   Players need to realize they HAVE to give something to get more than the low # of games owners have proposed which is blatantly just to "get to the playoffs".   There are a LOT of "soft" benefits to players to playing more games than just the $/game; more stats for future arbitration, etc.   I'm 100% convinced players are shooting themselves in the foot taking a hard line on pay >50 games when they have no leverage.

Quote from fenn68 on June 6, 2020, 1:46 pm

I guess if you accept that about 50 games and the expanded playoffs generates a balance (from a league perspective) between revenues and expenses (with players getting the prorated 100% salary) .... where is the incentive for either the owners or players to play additional games? No more revenues are coming in for extra games (except some TV) and even if the players play for free in those extra games,  the owners are still paying for the non-salary cost of operation ballparks, support staff, et. al.

The only reason the Union wanted more games is to make more money ... owners don't want to pay more money than the equivalent of full pay for 50 games. Players could take a per game cut for more games but only if the owners are willing to pay more than full pay for 50 games .. and take greater losses. Ball is in the owners court if there are going to be more than 50 games.

I am on the side of the players deciding how to take cuts (if any) and maybe lean toward the high paid players earned that pay level through performance and should get that pay for playing ... cuts should be proportional across the board. The owners that maybe hurt more are the owners who made the decision to pay those high salaries ... they were not forced ... and should not get bailed out effectively by other teams. Why should Fowler get a bigger break for signing Myers, Hosmer, Machado while the low salary teams get the lesser break?

MLB owners have their own divide ... big v small ... and do all they can to NOT share revenues / subsidize the OAK of this world. IF players salaries are cut evenly ... shouldn't the owners step up to help their brethren as opposed to manipulate the players salaries? That will not happen.

At this point, maybe the issue is playing with fans which seems to be progressing (league has said it is OK for any venue if local authorities OK even if other venues don't allow). Fans represent a major revenue add (especially in the playoffs .. still four months away). With the current MLB proposal (at 50 games) effectively all the gate revenue goes 100% to the owners to offset loss for games not played (e.g. fixed costs). Union is not going to agree to the 50 games believing that more revenue is coming and some of that could be used to fund more games (increasing total pay to players over the 50 game level). Owners / players need to negotiate a way to share some of that POTENTIAL revenue boost from fans and, if so, they should be able to agree upon a schedule greater than 50ish games.

It is still about money ... number of games only is a fan concern and neither side really cares about what the fans want.

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 6, 2020, 3:53 pm

My head hurts

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 6, 2020, 5:26 pm

Non fan games per MLB lose 640K per game.... AT FULL PLAYER PAY/game.  You're right that owners have calculated "50" games like this is OK due to the playoff revenue.   Now that they have come out & said this, players are not going to, for example play 10% more games for 10% less $ per game; all risk no reward to the players.  But shifting to a sliding pay scale for the last 1/4 - 1/3 of the shortened season AFTER 50 games in order to play more games COULD, but is not guaranteed to, be a win-win. 

Player incentive is pretty obvious:  They get paid more absolute $$ for playing games beyond 50.  My idea is 100% for first 600K of salary, then (all players) next 400K (600K-1MM) is at 80%, next 1 MM (1-2MM) 60% etc.  Owners loss/game drops 75% for Padres from 640K/game to only about 140-150K/game.   It's impossible to make this Math work at an equal % rate across EITHER all players OR all teams due to different team payrolls & especially player salaries:  Applying an equal % across all players decimates low salary guys' pay to save a relatively insignificant $ amount to the high salary guys.    My proposal is the opposite & I can understand some higher paid guys saying "hell no" (not enough "additional" benefit to THEM... relative to their total contracts) to additional games.  Finally, it is theoretically possible to eliminate 100% of the loss while players are still being paid, but it would entail cuts 25% greater overall than mine, where the highest paid guys are already down to only 20-25% of their normal per game salary.

The owners' "winning" in an absolute sense would depend on the additional games >50 generating at least a little fan attendance/revenue.  But the nominal additional loss might simply be worth it to play a season of 50% length vs only 33% from the standpoint of fan acceptance, spending on merchandise, etc  or allowing an expanded playoff & other revenue generators (HR derby, mic'ed players, etc) to be added vs. not, etc.

It seems like a win-win can be negotiated around games > 50.  MAYBE even a small # of additional "full pay" games.  But the most likely scenario right now sure sounds like a ridiculous 50 game MLB "season".... a year after the Nats started 19-31