Quote from Brian Connelly on May 19, 2020, 7:22 am

Imagine 1st day of Spring Training 2.  There might be more than 25 guys playing in that single game with all the subs.

Of course they will be socially distanced, etc....  but at the time ST stopped in mid-March, teams were around that 50 players left in ST mark.  There is no way to "re-start" without an initial pool much > 26 guys.  My point is:  If 50 guys can be "together" with the new rules 1st day of new ST, then I don't see why a different mix of 50 guys can't (temporarily) be "together" after the MLB teams head out and the initial 50 guys is down to 2o-25 on the taxi squad.  Why NOT bring that # back up to 50, and have 2 teams:  "AAA"/Taxi - to start playing games maybe 7-10 days after MLB starts (likely at the complex, I agree); with the new 25-30 guys just starting their ST and (mostly) comprising a AA team with a goal of maybe playing 2 months or so also at the ST sites.

Would have 50-ish guys all the way until the MLB roster is set; i.e. guys optioned down would still be in that group, not moved to minors camp like a regular year.  Then you'd go back up to 50 guys when MLB team headed out, but only have that # together for 1-2 weeks at most before they split into 2 teams.

I get there's other logistical/$ etc issues with especially non-roster Minors guys who are under team control.

Quote from fenn68 on May 19, 2020, 8:08 am

I would not yet assume there will be ST2 games ... probably more of ST workouts and controlled scrimmages at each team's home ballpark with that limited to the 50 total.

Note that the leagues that have resumed training in Europe are still training in shifts and with social distancing. Full scale training play has been non existent until the final moments prior to play resuming (so far only in Germany). Some of the initial plans from the NBA seem to be taking a similar route ... and they have a much smaller number of players.

I am guessing the owners have no interest in even opening up their spring training facilities and don't have interest in running any form of games beyond the ML. 50 players to man a 30 man active roster for 1/2 a season should be more than enough and should be able to keep the taxi squad sharp enough if needed. Will it be the same as "normal" ... no ... not for the replacements players or the active 30.

Health concerns and cost of players, housing, running facilities and similar testing for running something in the minors / AZ just is hard to justify under the current situation.

I am still interested to see what veteran non-roster players are willing to actually show up ... for three months at some minor league pay ... having to relocate to SD (with its cost of living) ... to just workout / scrimmage with a low probability to actually get on the 30 man. Hard to see clubs paying some premium to veteran non-roster players while at the same time asking the ML players to take a pay cut. IF that is a challenging scenario when they are housed in SD ... has to be much less appealing to get placed in Peoria and its heat.

I am expecting the "lowest cost" strategy in every aspect of resumption. Yes, that may diminish some "quality of play" and delay some player development ... but no scenario gets MLB back to normal.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 19, 2020, 12:13 pm

All of these social distancing measures will all be mostly for show anyway.

If the players are all tested that means no one will be on the field unless they don't have it.

If they don't have it there is no reason to need to distance from each other.

You could put 100,000 people in the stadium and if none of them have the virus all is well.

It's the same as not needing to distance yourself from your family members.

You either have the virus or you don't.

But just imagine the angst from the American public if they see ballplayers spitting and high fiving each other while they are still panicked over this thing?

We have been back to just about normal here in Georgia for over three weeks....nothing has changed.

I worked through the whole thing anyway...other than washing my hands and using sanitizer I really haven't taken many precautions.It's just not possible in my job to completely stay away from people and not touch their vehicle etc..

At this point if you're not 60+ years of age or have other health issues it's just not that serious any more.

Obviously if someone gets it they can transmit to others who could be older or have health issues but IMO "those" people need to continue to shelter in place.

We don't need Randy Jones in the dugout!

Speaking of which...there is no way they will be able to stop ballplayers from celebrating with team mates and/or spitting in the batters box or on deck circle.

It will just happen.

 

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 19, 2020, 1:26 pm

Jon Heyman is reporting the owners are giving a choice (ultimatum) to the players:

1. Agree to revenue sharing (which translates into a pay cut) ... something the union has fought against for years ... in part because the owners will not open their books to an independent review and a very contentious what actually is considered “revenue”. Any decent accountant can make “revenue” dance around in the short run and if the go with “profit / loss” that is subject to more “creativity”.

OR

2. Wait until fans are allowed back in the stands (which translates into cancelling the season and get no pay).

Keep in mind the players agreeing to a pay cut (which is still the likely outcome) is different than “revenue sharing” based on the owners “trust us” on the numbers. Clearly the owners are wanting to put all the blame on the players for a lost season (another strategic leak). Side note: did hear a rumor that a number of owners actually don’t want to open the season (not publicly of course) since they will lose more if they do open without fans even after players taking a pay cut ... some would say if the players played for free they would still lose money and they don’t want to lose any money. Believe the owners or not ... just a pressure game to get the players to take the maximum pay cut they can squeeze out of them.

 

Quote from hoffy51 on May 19, 2020, 4:58 pm

The players have to realize that they cannot demand a full season's salary when only playing half a season. I think the public sentiment would be against that. The players union may not like it, but getting paid for half a season for playing a half a season is the only way this abbreviated season will work IMHO.

Quote from fenn68 on May 19, 2020, 6:13 pm

Quote from hoffy51 on May 19, 2020, 4:58 pm

The players have to realize that they cannot demand a full season's salary when only playing half a season. I think the public sentiment would be against that. The players union may not like it, but getting paid for half a season for playing a half a season is the only way this abbreviated season will work IMHO.

Actually that is the Union’s position .... they agreed to get paid for only the games played. (So if an 81 game schedule ... 50% of their annual salary).

What the owners are demanding is of that pay for the remaining games be cut (unknown amount but think another 50%). Net the players getting payed 25% of their annual contracts and 50% of their salary for games played.

Yes, players get paid a lot but not sure any union .. even in this situation .... would accept a demand of their members taking a 50% pay cut to work while the even richer owners are not losing value in their business in the long run.

Hard for me to vilify the players when the owners are even richer and not willing to accept the risk of ownership. They did not share with the players the better revenues accrued over the past few years but now when losses appear ... time to share (the losses).

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 20, 2020, 8:13 am

I did see something today that confirms that the owners told the Players Association back in March when the first prorate agreement

was made that this might need to be renegotiated once the plan was put in place due to this possibility of no fans.

So even though they had an agreement they aren't being blindsided by the Owners asking for more due to games with no fans.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on May 20, 2020, 8:25 am

The players are absolutely positively not going to win this standoff.   Even if they DID win, if the league/commissioner's #'s are even half true (let's say lose "only" 2 BB vs 4 BB estimated loss paying prorated salaries without fans) they would ultimately lose next year, when FA falls off a cliff with half of the teams cutting to a bare bones payroll to try to stop hemorraging $.

The answer is pretty straightforward:  Some % cut further for "fan-less" games, with a step back up to the original prorated agreement once fans can attend (# of fans needs to be clearly defined.  Not "500", but maybe > "5,000"/game).

The players simply have no leverage.  Owners are literally better off not playing without fans.

The one "line in the sand" I could see players reasonably demanding is that if they are sacrificing beyond proration, than NO MLB team should make a profit this year because of that.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on May 20, 2020, 8:32 am

Quote from fenn68 on May 19, 2020, 6:13 pm

Quote from hoffy51 on May 19, 2020, 4:58 pm

The players have to realize that they cannot demand a full season's salary when only playing half a season. I think the public sentiment would be against that. The players union may not like it, but getting paid for half a season for playing a half a season is the only way this abbreviated season will work IMHO.

Actually that is the Union’s position .... they agreed to get paid for only the games played. (So if an 81 game schedule ... 50% of their annual salary).

What the owners are demanding is of that pay for the remaining games be cut (unknown amount but think another 50%). Net the players getting payed 25% of their annual contracts and 50% of their salary for games played.

Yes, players get paid a lot but not sure any union .. even in this situation .... would accept a demand of their members taking a 50% pay cut to work while the even richer owners are not losing value in their business in the long run.

Hard for me to vilify the players when the owners are even richer and not willing to accept the risk of ownership. They did not share with the players the better revenues accrued over the past few years but now when losses appear ... time to share (the losses).

 

In principle,  I agree with this.  Buying into a NFL, MLB, NBA team as an owner has been the surest $ maker I can think of for the last 20-30 years....  but anyone with business sense would  correctly point out you've lost a giant revenue stream / cash flow.   Similar to a restaurant moving to takeout only.... something has to give with employee salaries in that situation.

The pretty abstract "value of the franchise" and the loss to annual revenue from no fan attendance are 2 different things.

Under-discussed, but will be in future, that this pandemic should (again, correctly) dramatically lower the value of 100% of all pro sports teams worldwide, because of the possibility that has occurred of a stoppage in play leading to massive revenue loss.  Going forward, some fans will stay away when back to full capacity.  TV contracts likely to be lower, etc etc etc....