Quote from Brian Connelly on June 7, 2020, 10:21 am

MLS had regular season paused after 2 games, had an extremely acrimonious "hardball" negotiation with owners, yet still came to this agreement....

Players agreed to a 7.5% salary reduction starting with the May 31 payroll and a $5 million cap on team and individual performance bonuses, a person familiar with the agreement said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because those details were not announced.  Garber said the league expects to take a $1 billion revenue hit because of the coronavirus.

Terms of the deal agreed to in February were pushed back for one year. This year's planned minimum salaries of $81,375 for senior roster players and $63,547 for reserve roster players will be pushed back to 2021. The gradual rise to $109,200/$85,502 will not be complete until 2025.

MLS is at a different ("lower") level than the 4 other major sports; its 10 highest paid players make "only" 2.6 MM - 7.2 MM each....million $ + players are few & far between.   There's tons of details I don't know.  But overly simplistically, their min /max salary range is similar in "spread" to MLB...it's just 5-6 times lower in $$.

But at the end of the day, the players were intelligent enough to realize they had to take a hit $ wise for a season to take place at all.  They weren't in complete denial (MLB union) about their sport losing $ without fans. 

The 2nd concession above applied to  MLB would make very little difference:  Guys reverting back to last year's 555k vs this year's 563.5K prorated doesn't do much.  MLS has a higher % of guys at the lower salaries playing a much higher % of the full season.

But the 1st concession above is interesting to apply.  MLB players already have a "better" deal in hand... on a per game basis:  Full pay for 50 games.  IF they conceded pay on a "straight" (same % to all players) scale ONLY for games beyond 50, that would equate to a 22.5% pay cut for all players for games 51 - 75; 1/3 of the total # of games.  This would in effect be a 7.5% pay cut for all players for all games played.   It would be 30% if the additional games were only 1/4 of total games > 50:  ex. games 51-68; still averages to a 7.5% cut across all games played....

...I haven't done the math, but I know for a fact average 7.5% cut for all across all games (22.5-30% for additional games> 50) doesn't close nearly as much of the "gap" of 640K/game loss as my sliding scale % does.  The highest paid Pads are taking a 75-80% pay cut to preclude lowest paid guys taking any cut, and it still doesn't fully close the "gap".  Because the highest paid guys are making 35-50x the lowest paid, there just aren't enough minimum guys to make up the difference.

Still, the MAIN point is:  MLS players see the obvious; teams/sport not making as much $ losing games and playing with no or many fewer fans...   MLB players union claiming that somehow teams are "making $" even without fans seems idiotic.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 7, 2020, 10:43 am

My cynical side says players are actually completely fine with a ridiculous 50 game season... as long as it's at full pay.  In their defense, with the health risk, there is SOME logic to this.  But it really punishes SO many guys.

What cynical me doesn't like is players positioning themselves "as if " they want to play more games (their 114 game schedule was a ridiculous non-starter) when they're really not willing to do so if they have to sacrifice a nickel.

Do I believe the owners "640K"/game lost #?  No.  But it's ridiculous to argue that # is actually zero, or even positive with no fans.

Summary:  Owners played "hardball" by letting a lot of time go by, putting time pressure on players to give ground to extend the season.  Offer so bad seems evident it was a known non-starter.  Players didn't budge; proposed unrealistic 114 games.  Owners didn't budge.  But MLB / Manfred now saying they can unilaterally impose 48-54 game schedule at full pay... to my eyes I feel like MLB is laying out a path for players to go down by giving them a floor, but it's the players who seem unwilling to budge to make the season "better" (i.e. longer) by giving anything.  Granted, there's extreme time pressure imposed mostly by the owners to make a decision, but that's just a standard negotiation tactic MLBPA presumably anticipated.

Players should push hard for AT LEAST 54 games; at least that's 1/3 of a season.  Concede something to get closer to 1/2.

Quote from fenn68 on June 7, 2020, 11:27 am

For something different ... saw a comment that has me scratching my head about the composition of the “taxi squad”.

Basically it said the MLB was considering allowing teams to have ONE non-roster top prospect who is not ML ready to be on the squad for development. Had not heard anything about restrictions on the composition of the squad before that.

The implication may be that the squad may be designed for players with ML experience and on the fringe (AAA types) .... sort of the Dozier, Lagares, Almonte types vs. prospect development cases such as Arias, Campusano, etc.

Not sure how that would be adjudicated between the league and the teams but I guess that is more equitable to veteran players who would be non-roster AAA types and potentially added to rosters during a normal season getting ML pay and service time. I guess if they have ML service time ... they are still Union members and the Union needs to “protect” them over minor league players.

Just really have heard no details on how the “taxi squad” will be staffed, paid, or what they will be doing to keep in shape.

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 9, 2020, 12:27 am

The latest attempt by the league to return to play would see a 76-game season that pays players at 75 percent of their prorated contracts and concludes on Sept. 27. The postseason would still finish before the end of October, and the players would receive some portion of “playoff pool money.”

Per Drellich, the proposal would pay players only half of their prorated salaries for the proposed 76-game regular season, though that number would rise to 75 percent should a full postseason be able to be played out. Meanwhile, Ravech tweets that some sources contend that this offer translates to about $200MM more in total player salaries being paid out in 2020. That seems contingent on the postseason being played in full, though, so the union likely does not see things that way.

There is no way the players take this; they're at risk of playing 50% more games for 50% less $ per game or 25% less $ total for 50% more games (76 vs. "50" threat) if the playoffs can't be held....  but again, this offer further opens the door:

Offer back:  First 50 games at full pay, LAST 25 games at 50% pay.  Agree to owners' expanded ridiculous playoff structure for 1 year, with greater advantages to higher seeds (No way should it be 3 game series #1 vs #8 seed).   Clawback to only 70% for only those last 25 games IF playoffs are completed.  Only share of gate/fan attendance (if any) along current lines for playoff shares.

Players win:   Longer schedule than 50, way more $ more quickly, more $ total, shifts risk of playoffs not happening much more to owners.

Owners win:  SOME semblance of "reasonable" regular season, try expanded playoff format, only pay out <1/3 as much revenue to players from playoff TV revenue.

The players make more $ on this scenario:  100% for 50 games, 50-70% for 25 games.  Assuming playoffs, they make 90% of full pay average over 75 games, vs. 75% on owners proposal.  Could compromise at 75, bump up to 90% with playoffs across all games; works out the same $ total, but cash flows better for owners.  If owners won't budge, Players can just say "no", nix the expanded playoff proposal where all the $ is (for owners, not them), and still fall back to a shorter season at same amount of pay owners are offering here.... think owners WANT players to make a counteroffer like this!  But trying to force a quick decision on a lowball offer with clock running...

Quote from fenn68 on June 9, 2020, 8:14 am

WHEW??????????? Every iteration gets more difficult to interpret and project. Based on that alone not the path to agreement.

I think it was Rosenthal who stayed away for the "weeds" and summed it up as the owners have a maximum amount they will offer and are just tossing it to the Union to sort how they want that structured.

In the "health" part of any agreement (still not settled) ... the owners have a couple hard to accept elements:

1. players need to sign a waiver to not sue the owners if the player(s) believe there were unsafe playing conditions
2. players with a medically determined underlying condition (not sure who makes that call) will get paid / service time BUT players with family with at risk situations will not get pay OR service time if they opt not to play (think the no service time is the Union issue).
3. Apparently the owners have not been discussion the return conditions with local health officials

16 team playoffs following a shortened season could be OK ... probably not exactly the way the owners suggested with the "short" round 1. At 16, at least everyone plays in round 1 (more TV revenue ... some to the players) and avoids a couple of teams not playing for a week before entering the fray ... which may actually hurt the teams drawing a bye.

If they go with a "short" season (without fans early) that maybe runs July 15 - Sept 15 then start the playoffs the following week with all 7 game series (and by then fans will be likely be more welcome meaning more revenues) Basically more games with fans (and expanded TV) vs season games without fans seems economically better (and this is about money). Follow the money ... more playoff games is more money that could provide more money for owners and players.

 

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 9, 2020, 11:29 am

The shorter season could be a real advantage for the Padres.

Our rotation has guys who the main concern was innings limits and holding up late in the season.

Won't be an issue in a 50-81 game season.

Also the bullpen.

As deep and good as our bullpen is we could just keep throwing these guys out there basically.

5 quality innings by the starter would be enough.

Esp with expanded rosters......we can add Quantrill to the roster to basically be the 6th starter.

Let's get this thing going!

Quote from fenn68 on June 9, 2020, 12:12 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 9, 2020, 11:29 am

The shorter season could be a real advantage for the Padres.

Our rotation has guys who the main concern was innings limits and holding up late in the season.

Won't be an issue in a 50-81 game season.

Also the bullpen.

As deep and good as our bullpen is we could just keep throwing these guys out there basically.

5 quality innings by the starter would be enough.

Esp with expanded rosters......we can add Quantrill to the roster to basically be the 6th starter.

Let's get this thing going!

Agree the bullpen depth to cover the shorter starts should be a significant advantage for the Padres to make the playoffs in a shortened season. Potentially:

5 "starters": Lamet; Paddack; Davies; Richards; Lucchesi (L);

5 "middle / long relievers: Quantrill; Baez; Perdomo; Strahm (L); Bolanos;

5 "set-up": Stammen; Johnson; Guerra; Castillo (L); Pagan;

2 "closers": Yates; Pomeranz (L)

With a 30 man active roster to cover a short season .... 17 pitchers / 13 position players.

Quote from fenn68 on June 9, 2020, 12:24 pm

Statements like this do nothing for the credibility of owners:

DeWitt Claims Baseball Industry "Isn't Very Profitable"

By Jeff Todd | June 9, 2020 at 1:30pm CDT

This in the light of Forbes reporting that, in general, teams have basically doubled in value over the past 8 or so years. (that is a good return on investment)

Not sure why "very smart" billionaire owners remain owning billion dollar franchises when other billionaires are willing to pay premium to buy a franchise if it "isn't very profitable".

 

Quote from fenn68 on June 9, 2020, 1:53 pm

Again out of touch owners ... tomorrow is the draft ... about the only thing that might spur some interest in baseball right now ... should be hyped and a positive focus.

What do the owners do ... they make the decision date on their latest resumption of play proposal ... TOMORROW. The expected rejection by the Union will take the headlines and be a negative.

Maybe they furloughed all their marketing / PR types.