Quote from fenn68 on June 19, 2020, 6:37 am

I know we all tend to see both the players and owners as a singular block ... but as in any large group there are many conflicting positions / objectives.

Maybe all the owners are aligned in making money / minimizing losses but considering the way MLB divides up money (not equally per team when you consider local revenues) ... it is possible within the range of current proposals that some teams may actually make money (NYY/ BOS / LAD with mega local TV deals and peripheral revenues) while others lose (maybe CLEV/TB/OAK with poor local revenue without fans). So basically it is a team by team analysis of the incremental mix of National TV revenue + Local revenues - payroll - operating cost for games played ... the profit / loss result is different for every team and the more money that accrues to the players ... the more teams shift to a benefit from not playing.

However, their is also the owner contingent that is more focused on the big battle coming over the new CBA after 2021 and will not do anything in the form of a concession that could be seen / used as precedent in those negotiations. Players don't get TV money directly funneled to them ... the union proposal as I read it has some incremental TV revenue shared and that may be a much bigger issue for the owners. Some owners may want to take a loss today to bolster their position in arguing the CBA. At the same time the Union is working hard to inject concessions that benefit their CBA negotiation position.

Then add in some owners ... I am sure ... will take a bigger loss just to try to "break" the current Union leadership and players with the hope of getting a softer line leadership for the next CBA.

We also don't really know who among the owners are the most influential in decision making ... all owners are not created equal and are not all equally engaged.

======

On the players side, the "united" face is probably not real. As I noted before, for players nearing their last paycheck, taking a strategy that results in no season may not be as well supported vs. those who feel their longer term future is secure and could get better with a hard line stance getting owner concessions.

======

No idea where the Padres fall. Middle of the pack payroll around $150MM payroll but not a great local TV revenues (vs the big guys).

Quote from MrPadre19 on June 19, 2020, 6:42 am

I'm thinking the Padres are losing out a bit more percentage wise than most teams.

Huge splash made changing colors back to brown my guess is if this season was a normal 162 game season the excitement level(ticket sales) and merchandise sales(brown hats/jerseys etc.) would have been HUGE in 2020.

Instead the biggest fans are just buying on line and the casual fans are waiting.

I realize these funds are split between teams but still,this season would have been a boom IMO with higher than normal attendance.This isn't even considering the fact that we might have actually been pretty competitive also.

Quote from WindsorUK on June 19, 2020, 6:48 am

What are the chances the greedy owners at some point will share their local TV revenue with the poorer ones? Surely a level revenue stream benefits all the players and a majority of the clubs?

Quote from fenn68 on June 19, 2020, 8:51 am

Quote from WindsorUK on June 19, 2020, 6:48 am

What are the chances the greedy owners at some point will share their local TV revenue with the poorer ones? Surely a level revenue stream benefits all the players and a majority of the clubs?

Zero.

Hard to convince any organization that has invested a lot of money in building an organization that generates a premium return to just give that to another organization that has run on the cheap and did very little investment but still is worth a billion dollars. As it is there is a lot of push back on the little revenue sharing that exists (never ever liked by the payers) since at times it is perceived as going as profit to the small owners and not being deployed on payroll or organizational improvements.

The “poorer” owners can be just as greedy as the “rich” owners ... and no one wants to pay the players.

Now if the rich owners wanted to deploy their monies ... probably would prefer to see the poorer clubs file for bankruptcy and just buy them out and contract the league. Result is dividing up the shared revenues in larger bites. Plus probably would be happy not to have to travel to OAK / TB and other places. Not going to happen though.

Quote from fenn68 on June 19, 2020, 10:32 am

This is what we were really hoping would not happen:

Phillies shut down the ST facility indefinitely as 5 of their players and 3 staff were tested positive for COVID-19 plus they spread the virus to numerous family members. Others still being tested.

That is a pretty big red flag on opening the ST now / too soon ... which in turn encroaches on any season start date. No one wants part of the league to shut down at any point plus this may make some of the players even less motivated to show up and risk their health.

=====

Side: one report had the NBA players ... who may not want to play in the bubble ... falling into three camps: 1) fear of catching COVID-19; 2) fear if injury without sufficient build up prior to going all out impacting their career; 3) not wanting to take focus away for the social issues in focus this summer. NBA has said if a player does not want to play ... no penalty ... just forfeit pay. The no shows may be enough to derail the resumption of the NBA season.

Could the same dynamics surface in MLB?

Quote from hoffy51 on June 22, 2020, 4:43 am

The players association is never going to let the individual players "vote" anonymously like in a real election because I think most of the players want to play. Only the reps are going to vote and they will pressure guys to stay in line.

Quote from fenn68 on June 24, 2020, 6:09 am

60 players report to ST2.0 in SD on July 1. It will be “interesting” to see who gets the call.

Any word if the recent US suspension of issuing work visas (at least some versions) impacts any of the ML players who returned to their home countries? Issues with the US allowing “non-citizens” entering the country due to the COVID-19?

Wonder how many players will “opt out”.

Quote from hoffy51 on June 24, 2020, 6:44 am

I wonder if MacKinzie Gore, Luis Patino, Taylor Trammell, or Gabriel Arias will be added to the "taxi squad" so they don't loose a year of development since there will be no minor league season.

Quote from fenn68 on June 24, 2020, 7:43 am

Quote from hoffy51 on June 24, 2020, 6:44 am

I wonder if MacKinzie Gore, Luis Patino, Taylor Trammell, or Gabriel Arias will be added to the "taxi squad" so they don't loose a year of development since there will be no minor league season.

IF (and still a big IF) the club chooses (and can) run a “prospect camp” in AZ later in the summer they may send them there and keep the ST2 roster to players that may be needed (and with better experience) for a 2020 ML season.

I know 60 to start sounds like a lot but, I think, they drop down to 50 when the season starts with 30 active .. not sure what the other 20 will be doing but not sure that would be the better “development” site for prospects.

Still have not seen the rules on adding / dropping players from the “taxi squad” who were not on the original 60 in ST2.