Quote from Brian Connelly on June 10, 2020, 9:48 am

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.

Whether we agree on it or not, it's pretty obvious the owners have come up with "acceptable loss" #$ and are trying to stick to it.

Since they have this fallback / commissioner imposed short schedule, their main strategy has been to give players little time to work with.   I don't really have issues with this overall strategy on the owners part.

What bugs me is that they REALLY want the expanded playoff field, but it feels like they simply aren't allowing enough time to fit it in by the end of October given how slow THEY have been to make D.O.A. proposals...  Maybe they just "know" that the players aren't going to budge on salary cuts, so they'll go to the shorter season?

But yeah, compare how great the NFL draft was handled to this... pretty pathetic!

 

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 10, 2020, 10:15 am

Players counter offer:  89 games ( down 25 from 114) .... at full prorated pay.  Sigh.   The proposal calls for the regular season to begin on July 10 and run through Oct. 11. As Diamond observes, that would ensure that MLB playoffs don’t go up against the NBA playoffs, which are set to conclude on Oct. 12.  IMO, this seems smart, but MLB would then run into November, which owners "adamantly" don't want to.

Only significant concessions to owners are having the expanded 16-team playoff format next year as well as 2020, and a 50 MM cap on player share of playoff $ this year & potentially next (more likely to go back to gate $).  Also HR derby, All star game after season?  Offering expanded playoffs in 2021 is worth SOMETHING to owners to budge off "50" game season full prorated pay... but probably not close to the difference of:

Owners:  76 games @ 50% salary, with players paid to 75% IF playoffs occur.  This "equals" 57 games @ full play (if the playoffs happen).... slightly more $ total than a commissioner imposed season, but with way more risk to players.  So in over simplistic terms it's a 32 games at full pay gulf between the 2 sides, exacerbated by how the pay is structured.   I haven't seen the $$/game calculated anywhere, but that's a HUGE difference in both total $$ AND when it's paid out; i.e. who takes more risk.

Right now I'm going to guess next round both sides say "make last & best offers, and wind up at 65 games full prorated salary with weird playoffs this year & next that likely become some version of "the norm" in 2021 CBA.

Quote from fenn68 on June 10, 2020, 10:58 am

Money ... uncertainty ... risk .... difficult to forecast how the rest of 2021 will play out.

Playoffs are the real money generator for this year. So expanded playoffs to 14 or 16 teams makes a lot of sense just from pure TV revenues. Then add that given the cities "opening up" in mid-June ... very good chance that fans will be in the stands (at some level) in October and more revenue. More revenue "could" fund more games at full pay than the no fan, 14 team playoff proposal.

Add that fans in the stands for regular season games is also likely ... at least by August / September ... adding revenue over the no fan proposal.

However, the owners justifiably fear that that "second wave" of the pandemic may curtail the playoffs ... so are reluctant to pay players for more games in the season given that risk of shutdown. That also makes logic for NOT wanting the playoffs to extend in November when the normal flu season starts to run.

Players may see more revenue in play (assuming all things go right) and the owners don't want to take the risk (assuming nothing goes right).

Maybe from a different perspective maybe a 16 team playoff structure that starts in mid September (significantly reducing the exposure to the next flu season yet still probably that fans are in attendance) might maximize revenues while reducing risk. If that is the case, maybe the owners can justify funding more full pay games in the regular season ... up from 50ish to 60ish especially if a fair assumption is August-September games have fans in the stands.

I can't see the 50 game proposal happening unless it is mandated by the owners using some wording in the earlier agreement ... but the Union also has some verbiage that they could use against the ability to mandate (it was a poorly worded agreement). Ready for the owners to mandate the 50 game season and the players not show up?

Quote from fenn68 on June 10, 2020, 2:58 pm

Heard Manfred comment on extending the playoffs beyond the current schedule ... an issue (not a small one) is the contractual commitments to multiple networks to supply playoff games in a specific time slot.

BIG networks ... BIG contracts ... will not just rollover to MLB unilaterally changing the agreement (without other concessions). MLB can't really agree to an altered schedule with the Union without also getting agreement with multiple networks.

Just layer that on the legit concern of losing a delayed World Series to a "second wave" and can see why the owners are not in step with delaying the start of the playoffs.

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 11, 2020, 3:45 pm

Ken Rosenthal (The Athletic) wrote an article saying OWNERS should propose:  72 games at Full prorated pay; basically dare the players to say "no".   As an agent in his article said (paraphrased), if teams are going to play 50 games with the old playoff format & no other revenue generating concessions, why WOULDN'T the owners go longer to get those things.

Rosenthal breaks out the projected additional losses, and acknowledges his proposal is a significant amount of $ to the owners, but makes good arguments for the "intangible" aspects of such a deal.  One of the biggest is that a one year 10 MM+ "loss" is pretty easy to 'recover' from down the road as a long term, long holding period owner.

Better (for players) than any of my ideas... hope he's right.

Quote from fenn68 on June 12, 2020, 6:32 am

Like Rosenthal's approach ... keep it simple and the owners who are in it for the long term carry the limited risk of the playoffs being curtailed and "invest" any losses as part of maintain future team value.

72 game schedule could have a mid-July start and end "on-time" ... avoid all the issues created by an extended regular season and still could get that 2-3 weeks ST 2.0.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on June 12, 2020, 12:15 pm

MLB plans to offer the players a season of 70-plus games with 80 to 85 percent pro rata salaries and a playoff pool bonus, Karl Ravech of ESPN reports.

It’s expected to be a 72-game offer, per MLB Network’s Jon Heyman, who adds the league will “significantly raise” the players’ share if the COVID-19 pandemic forces the cancellation of the postseason. However, “there’s no confidence” that the players will say yes to the league’s newest attempt, according to Heyman.

This is equivalent of 57 (80%) - 61 (85%) games at full prorated pay.... sounds like more if playoffs happen?

....   OK players:    75 games, 90% pro rated with playoff pool bonus clawback to 95%?   PLAY BALL!!!

Quote from fenn68 on June 12, 2020, 12:59 pm

One way or the other ... we will know what the 2020 season will look like by the middle of next week ... but there will be a season. Mid-July start date.

Other bits:

1. 2:48pm: Jeff Passan of ESPN has more info on roster size: Teams would be able to carry 30 players for the first two weeks, 28 for the next two and 26 for the rest of the season. They’d be able to use a total of 60 players during the season.
2. A BA (I think) report says that all 30 teams have been told to define a site for "taxi squad" workouts within 100 miles of their home ballparks.

That last point should eliminate Peoria. Fowler has close ties with USD and they have a fine ball field with no one on campus ... maybe SDSU Tony Gwynn field. I would expect they don't want all the "extras" over crowding PETCO.

Quote from fenn68 on June 12, 2020, 2:08 pm

side thought on

2:48pm: Jeff Passan of ESPN has more info on roster size: Teams would be able to carry 30 players for the first two weeks, 28 for the next two and 26 for the rest of the season. They’d be able to use a total of 60 players during the season.

What the owners are proposing (vs. the early assumed 30 man active for the season) is effectively reducing the number of players that may get a full year of service time (and pay) ... owners save money and retain more control.

At 26 players by mid August ... more movement between active vs taxi squad as the season progresses ... further reducing players getting max service time.

Could be a sneaky way to retain control on the younger more desirable players with "justifiable" shuffling between the active and the "taxi squad"  ... of course it would only be done to keep the players fresh and healthy.

If Tatis or Paddack goes into a slump but not injured ... maybe a X day rest and controlled workout is the best strategy to have him ready for the playoff run ... oh by the way, he does not get the full season of service time. Doubt the Padres play that game but watch out for that across the league. Might be less obvious if that maneuver happened coming out of a "slumping" ST or if a team is out of the playoffs and the player is "tired" to give a "taxi squad" guy some ML time (and money).

Owners ... MLBPA and Scott Boras are watching ... be smart!