Forum
Forum Navigation
2020 Season
#151 · June 12, 2020, 3:24 pm
Well, when the league /teams are hemorraging $ I always thought it a little weird to just add 4 more guys active all year (that's like a 15% increase in your active roster players right when $ is tight... granted essentially all at minimum league salary). I get the need, especially initially with a compressed schedule. But feel really strongly that 40-man should NOT be expanded beyond current rules.
So I like 30 to 28 to 26. The solution for the compressed schedule is to relax IL rules; but have to make sure teams aren't abusing it to manipulate service time. Point is for no teams to play more important than ever games missing 2 bench players (which it seems like Pads did half of last season) because they "can't afford" to put them on IL, so they decrease their competitiveness while the guy is down... Even if a guy stubs his toe & misses 2 games, his spot on active roster should get filled. Since the taxi squads are all local, this would be easier to do than normal.
Having 60 guys vs 50 in play to draw from makes more sense, but not sure what's meant by: "team can use up to 60 guys" ? Kind of vague.... hard to imagine how anyone beyond guy # 50 or even #40 on roster is going to get to MLB in < half a full season?
#152 · June 12, 2020, 3:28 pm
Modified IL rule proposal... how about 2-day IL minimum for position players, 4-day IL for RP's, 7-day ("must miss 1 regular start" verbage?) for SP's? Want to keep teams from manipulation, but keep active roster at full strength daily since so many fewer games.
#153 · June 12, 2020, 3:54 pm
Yeh, I don't get the 60 man verbiage because they did not tie that to the taxi squad limit (previously reported as 20 over the 30 active) in the note. Can't think of any team that had 60 different players on the active roster in a full season let alone a half a season.
Could they have meant 60 different players on the 50 man limit (sort of limiting a lot of shifting in and out of the taxi squad)? Must be some logic ... just don't see it.
======
Well if MLB wanted to return to the 15 day DL to limit manipulation that is about 11% of the season ... maybe something as simple as 10-11% of what length of the season that is divined .... 76 games ... 7-8 day IL?
=====
Maybe the "taxi squad option period" has to be less than the former minor league option rule (think they wanted that to go to 15 days also). Bring that down to 7-8 days too?
I am beginning to lean more toward keep it simple and straightforward .... so no matter the reason, if removed from the active roster it will take 7 days before returning. Probably enough to eliminate manipulation in a short season ... and would treat all teams equally and on a prorate level of impact on the season.
A lot of clarification on the rules surrounding the "taxi squad" and are there any restrictions on how it is compromised ... especially the non-roster component.
Details ... details ... details
#154 · June 12, 2020, 7:08 pm
talk, talk . . . tick-tock, tick-talk
#155 · June 13, 2020, 12:01 pm
Ugh. Owners now send harshly worded letter essentially accusing players of not "really" negotiating because they won't back down from their "full prorated pay" stance.... while the owners have just packaged the same amount of $ 3 different ways in each of their proposals and utterly refuse to consider pushing playoffs out on calendar (there are broadcasting commitments, timing issues).
Both sides are wrong, but given both sides proposals, the ever shrinking calendar, and the fallback option of "50" games at full prorated pay, I think the players are "winning" the negotiation. The owners last 2 proposals basically only give the players more $ if the playoffs happen, but ask the players to play more games at lower pay to get to that point. The players are giving the expanded playoff format & other revenue generators in 2020 and 2021. What are the owners giving? IF the playoffs don't happen... Nothing. Why should the players shoulder 100% of the risk?
I've blasted the players for not accepting this is a dramatic "one off" season due to Coronavirus, and making SOME pay concession. But from their negotiating standpoint, I agree 100% that there is 0% reason to back off in any way, shape, or form from the baseline: 50 (48-54) games played at full prorated pay with "old" existing 10 team playoff format.
It's simple. If players offer the economic benefit of expanded playoffs & other stuff, the owners have to ADD to that baseline... not subtract initially and then "add" back to the end. No one in their right mind is going to feel sorry for owners game by game cash flow issues (even though they're somewhat real) when the values of their franchises have increased 500-1,000% in 20 years.
The players & even the owners clearly aren't going to adopt the owners first & then my sliding scale (i.e. unequal pay) idea for even a portion of the season. But they theoretically COULD adopt a prorated pay structure once the baseline ends...
54 games full pay, 18 games (last 25% of season) at 80% pay with expanded playoffs (with previously proposed cap on playoff pool $ for players). Breakdown: = 95% pay over the course of the season for players. = adding 14+ games full pay for players (18 x .8), which = a 25% pay increase from the baseline in exchange for expanded playoffs 2020 & 21 (which of course benefits more players too) & other revenue generators both years to owners.
2 years of expanded playoffs, even with no fans at the first one & some risk of it not happening (hard to believe they couldn't go neutral site or something) HAS to be worth less than 1/10 of a normal season of player salaries, doesn't it?? Players would be stupid to give up 25% more pay this year just to maintain their stance on full prorated pay when there IS massive revenue loss this year only.
#156 · June 13, 2020, 2:24 pm
OK, if I am getting the owners last proposal right:
72 regular season games at 70% pay per game as a baseline. So by doing some loose math, that is the same as 50 games at full pay per game. So as a baseline, the owners are offering the players the same total pay for 22 more games with greater risk of injury, et. al. Not going to get a lot of interest from the players to play 22 games for free. Essentially their counter offer is the same money for more work ... not sure that is the direction negotiations should work.
OK, they did add the "if there are playoffs" kicker BUT doing the same math on the numbers, the offer is the same as full pay for about 60 games ... or if you play 22 more games they will pay them for 10 and work the other 12 for free. (betting that additional money is not a 50-50 split of playoff revenues).
Part of what I don't get from the owners is if they keep contending every game they play without fans they loose money ... why make an offer with more games that does not benefit the players or the owners? Add that if the owners are contending they make all their money from the playoffs but are worried about the pandemic cancelling games if the second wave hits (usually as winter approaches ... Oct/Nov) ... should they be offering the shorter regular season ... expanded payoffs starting "earlier" in September. Trying to follow the money from the owners' perspective and not following their logic unless it is just to keep moving the deck chairs on the Titanic to hide they really are not going put more money on the table or take on more risk.
Maybe in a risk shift ... Union counters with 60 games at full pay and no sharing of playoff revenues ... about the same as the owners offer but the the playoff risk (and reward) all to the owners. Union could agree to the expanded playoff for 2020 and 2021 which would be revenue generators for the owners to offset the risk.
I would expect that the Union will fight hard against any "conditional" pay scheme ... especially if it is based on the owners solely determining the dollars involved and then say "trust me". As we can see, "trust" is not the hallmark of either side.
#157 · June 13, 2020, 5:17 pm
Ball back in the owners’ laps. Union is apparently NOT making a counter offer and suggesting the owners just make the call on the length of the season.
I interpret that as the owners pick the number of games ... start date BUT have to pay those games at full prorated salaries (don’t think they have the right to cut them). Plus, think the players had to approve the expanded playoffs ... so not happening with a unilateral declaration by the owners.
So if the owners were at 50 games before ... probably back to 50 games +/- if they just institute a season.
I guess a good move by the Union since the owners were apparently never going to put more money in the pot.
#158 · June 14, 2020, 6:50 am
Well, it looks as though the owners WILL make another offer rather than go to the unilateral declaration of the season.
Just giving another offer may help their case that they negotiated fairly and the Union didn’t even if the offer is not substantially different than the last offer.
The other factor may be the owners’ desire to expand the playoffs (think more money) and they apparently need Union agreement to do that.
If the new offer has a chance to work (and it is getting late) ... owners need to take out any “conditional” pay and select a schedule where all the games are at full prorated pay. That would put the call squarely on the Union ... only thing to reject is the number of games not being enough but the Union doesn’t have the necessary financials to support that claim (and they are getting full pay for games) ... at this late date the owners would put the season on the back on the Union .... advantage owners both financially and PR if the Union rejects.
#159 · June 14, 2020, 10:34 am
There will be NO counter from #MLB. It’s in Commissioner Rob Manfred’s hands. Tweet: Bob Nightengale (pun not intended, but 🙂
Players strategy was to stand firm on getting full pay/game. I thought this was selfish at first, but do get where they're coming from... even though Coronavirus is (hopefully) a one time thing, taking a pay cut would create a bad precedent for the coming CBA negotiation. They had the nuclear fallback option of a commissioner imposed season, and EITHER cynically knew that's where they were going to wind up by asking for full pay & were OK with it, OR (less likely) were genuinely surprised that the owners never really increased their offer even when "given" the incentive of expanded playoffs.
I THINK (?) the owners' strategy was to let a lot of time go by initially to try to "force" the players into making a decision with very little time to work with to lock in more games. But by never incrementally significantly increasing their offer, it didn't make a decision very hard for the players. The owners never made an offer that was significantly "above" the base of a commissioner imposed season; all offers had players playing more games for less per game to get nominally more $ IF the playoffs happen.
Could be both sides knew they would end up here, were actually OK with playing less games, and this was just a pathetic "PR" battle... it's hard to sympathize with either side. As furious as the players make me, I actually DO feel for guys who are at critical points in their career. Example, is a Greg Garcia ever going to make > 1 MM again? Unlikely. Just had his big relatively life altering financial security year yanked out from under him. Millions of people with way bigger problems than that, but most of us aren't looking at the permanent loss of a huge % of our lifetime earning power due to the random timing of a one time event. By contrast I feel zero sympathy at all for any full or part owner whose franchise values have done nothing but increase in value exponentially for the last 20 years for losing some $ this year... like every other business in USA/World!
#160 · June 14, 2020, 11:19 am
Grrr... it's just LUDICROUS that owners/players can't add say 10 more games this season to expand the playoffs to help counteract such a ridiculously short season.
At this point, I'm not taking it as a given that even Manfred's "100% will be a season" statement holds with it so bad between the 2 sides.... don't the sides SOMEHOW have to negotiate all the little details of HOW to execute this short season, even with $/season length now off the table, or does Manfred unilaterally decide all that? Even assuming normal rosters, a lot of the "normal" rules simply won't work. Health stuff, trades (I say none), modifying IL for short season so active rosters are always "full", etc, etc... I am NOT convinced this is all "over".