Quote from fenn68 on May 20, 2020, 10:08 am

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.

 

Some question about that being in a e-mail from the owners but no confirmation / agreement from the Union documented ... BUT valid or not ... that is what is going on now "re-negotiation" ... a win for the owners playing the "no season" card (which they always held).

====

Something to consider if the owners insist that playing without fans is the trigger to renegotiate the agreement ... shouldn't it be the entire agreement (not just the salary clause) since giving on point A often gets you B as all parts are inter-dependent? Remember service time agreement was a trade-off of sorts with the pay agreement ... along with other stuff. It was a pretty extensive "agreement". Back to square one?

If so, couldn't the players argue they are owed (per the technical wording in the CBA) 100% of their annual salary even if no games are played since the criteria is based on the scheduled start of the season not games played.

To counter this the owners have a "nuclear option" and under pandemic situations just void all the contracts and pay no one for a cancelled season. Then really bring in the lawyers. IF a contract is voided ... it is all the contract (again have to consider interdependence of the parts) implying that anyone on a long term deal becomes a FA ... immediately ... as well as every one year deal. I guess the implication of voiding a contract for someone like Tatis may be interpreted in the manner of a "non-tender" making him also a FA? Every team would have to build a 2021 team from scratch. Actually that could be interesting.

I did assume the "nuclear option" is for player contracts but it could really relate to the whole CBA ... and therefore accelerate CBA negotiations to this winter.

Love to play with the extremes that are very very very unlikely and still believe both sides will settle on something ... and if a season resumes in early July ... makes no difference to me what the come up with as an agreement.

Quote from fenn68 on May 20, 2020, 1:36 pm

Culled from an interview with T. J. Quinn (ESPN investigative reporter) who interviewed a cross-section of 85 key individuals in understanding the issues around resuming play.

To start on the positive side .... the Trump administration is pushing hard for a baseball restart (as are most Governors and local officials) and pressure from top officials resonates strongly with Manfred and the owners.

There is a need for administration support to get Latin players back into the US ... think granting visas ... so a close positive relationship with the administration is critical.

MLB does NOT want to go the quarantine route ... just plan extensive testing the isolating the positive but not follow the guideline of quarantining for 14 days anyone who has been in contact.

However, issue with getting agreement with the local health officials and then IF a wider out break (team or the city) ... no plan on what to do if one team or city has to shut down. Biggest risk is a “second wave” in some areas shutting down all or part of the league ... and since each county has a different criteria ... big uncertainty.

In this interview the uncertainty of restarting and completing a season was the main issue ... players were not even discussed.

My interpretation is positive on a restart but adding a bit more worry about staying open (for everyone) ... although expect the same (or more) pressure from the government to not shut down mid-season.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 21, 2020, 5:55 am

"Every team would have to build a 2021 team from scratch. Actually that could be interesting."

 

Could you imagine?

Wonder what that would look like?

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 21, 2020, 8:03 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 21, 2020, 5:55 am

"Every team would have to build a 2021 team from scratch. Actually that could be interesting."

 

Could you imagine?

Wonder what that would look like?

 

We would find out who ML teams really value based on contracts awarded vs. who falls by the wayside .... especially in 2021 when the owners (in general) will be pulling back on total payrolls to cover some of 2020 losses.

Probably would see the end of the Pujols, Cabrera, et. al (older with minimal production) ... major cuts in pay for the likes of Stanton, Myers. et al (the under performers) ... some major increases for players such as Yelich and any of the league minimum types, et al who are outperforming their current contracts. Still will need to fill 30 roster slots, so almost all the current players will find home ... just at an altered price. Owners being owners and players being players ... a lot of movement to the highest bidder for the "stars".

If I were the Padres ... would take this opportunity to exit the Myers, Hosmer, Machado deals and use my money to focus on signing Tatis, Paddack, et al (they younger and the future) longer term ...keeping in mind that if they are FA there will be a bidding war for them and they will not be cheap.

Will not happen ... owners are not that shortsighted.

Quote from fenn68 on May 21, 2020, 8:49 am

Did a quick estimate of the player salary for 1/2 season (assuming the annual salary is proportioned down by 1/2) and based on 2019 payroll it would be $2 billion. Using no season as the baseline ... this is all incremental cost. Then some unknown costs for support staff, travel, "taxi squad", ballpark operations, heath testing .... no idea on a number for that  ... maybe another $500MM. The incremental expense side should be relatively easy to forecast.

This missing link (and much harder to forecast) is the incremental revenue (from the no games level) for TV revenues, merchandise, advertising, et al plus the TV impact for the expanded playoffs. TV revenues are key and should include both the national contracts and the local contracts. All that could be contentious if some organizations funnel some of those increased revenues to "affiliated" companies not in the MLB umbrella. Think NYY YES Network. Hard enough to get that from the MLB clubs but getting that data from "affiliated" companies would be a real challenge.

Given the low probability that the revenue side of the equation will be "audited" after the season (owners will resist) ... the on-going negotiation will likely settle down to a fixed percentage pay reduction to resume and not get modified by wherever actual revenue / costs settle.

A lot of ebbs and flows in the next 3-4 weeks before ST2 is scheduled to start (whatever that structure is going to be) ... not just between the owners and players but in the conditions on the ground with the local health officials. Plus don't underestimate the point in my previous comment ... a lot of pressure on owners to get this season going from the elected officials at all levels (and Manfred / owners are very sensitive to that). Pressure also on the Union but if the Union concludes (and probably rightly) they would take the brunt of the blame for no season anyway ... maybe not that compelling to buckle to that pressure.

3-4 weeks ... it will get done for a season to start in early July ........ July 4th could be a very symbolic plus that is when LA County is "targeting" for the next level of re-opening (note LA County may be the hardest hit County in CA and the most "controlled" in its return to normalcy). SD is moving faster than most and should have no issue with hosting games without fans.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 21, 2020, 9:08 am

Any idea on how the negotiations are trying to factor in the possibility (maybe remote) that fans could be in the stands in September and for the playoffs in Oct-Nov? The way things are going, states such as FLA and AZ will be agreeable to that in all likelihood. A number of states are planning for schools reopening on campus in September, so fans scattered in a 45,000 seat ballpark should be feasible.

Even if the states OK fans in the stands ... would MLB prohibit them if ALL venues can't have fans? Fairness among the teams for competitiveness.

That unknown level of revenue boost ... how do they negotiate a "no fan" scenario now? If fans show up ... average ticket revenue is $33 per game / per person .. then add concessions (net of cost) ... parking (net of cost) ... incremental ball park operations but no idea if fans will be allowed, when that would happen, and how many will actually show up for regular season and playoffs. Similar issues with identifying the true revenue / expense.

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 21, 2020, 11:07 am

Here's a story on how MLB may use expansion to recoup losses from this shortened season.

If it's going to happen in the next 10 years anyway...this explains why it may happen sooner rather than later.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-the-coronavirus-shutdown-could-lead-to-mlb-expansion-in-the-near-future/

Quote from fenn68 on May 21, 2020, 3:41 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 21, 2020, 11:07 am

Here's a story on how MLB may use expansion to recoup losses from this shortened season.

If it's going to happen in the next 10 years anyway...this explains why it may happen sooner rather than later.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-the-coronavirus-shutdown-could-lead-to-mlb-expansion-in-the-near-future/

He is probably correct ... sort of what "sooner" means vs. "later". MLB has been posturing that expansion would not come until after the next CBA is over ... maybe 10 years. That was before, now I would think some owner motivation to move that into maybe a 5 year target. Union would like the extra jobs.

Given the negotiations with the Union on both this crisis and the coming CBA ... not sure they want it out that the owners will get a "windfall" to offset near term losses when they are trying to get players to cover some of those losses.

Also, add that normally part of expansion debate is leveraging the new cities to spend public money for MLB quality facilities and maybe tax concessions. That is always difficult but with every city losing a lot of tax revenue as a result of the pandemic ... going to take some years to find cities that will play that game. At the same time "moving a franchise" is still a leverage piece to get improved facilities in TB and OAK ... maybe some other cities too. Maybe that needs more time to play out.

No doubt there are big money investors who will be willing (even now) to dive into the very lucrative world of MLB franchise ownership .... but given the other issues we may need to wait for maybe 5 years.

I am for it ... a 32 team league makes for better league structure and scheduling plus all for giving two new cities MLB baseball for it's fans. Will it potentially diminish "quality" ... sure ... but I have said that on every expansion since MLB decided to move on from 2 leagues / 8 teams each. Yet, from a total fan, owner, player perspective, the game is prospering and generating big money for everyone ... so maybe "quality" is not so important and the fun of multiple opponents / rivals sells.

Quote from fenn68 on May 24, 2020, 9:23 am

We should see the owner's financial proposal next week.

One interpretation of what might be their offer is that the entire previous agreement of zero pay for games not played and full pay for games played is scrapped.

Replaced by a percentage of split of the revenues received from the entire season between the owners and players (I guess the union figures out how to split that among the players).

Major problem is what will be put forward as "revenue" (being done unilaterally by the owners) and subject to interpretation (and suspect) by non-owners. Union remembers the three collusion cases the owners lost vs. the union ... doubt they trust the owners who are likely to understate revenues to back door hold on to more revenue ... plus the owners have never been open to sharing their books to outside / independent analysis.

Maybe more importantly to the Union is that any "revenue sharing" construct (in their view) sets precent to a form of salary cap which they have fought against since they came into existence. Precedent could create an issue if any mediation is needed in a future CBA negotiation. It does seem a bit dubious from the owners since they will not do full revenue sharing among themselves and have resisted a salary floor for teams. Agreeing on an equitable base to work off that can be independently audited is a long shot.

Still something will get done (both side feel the pressure / see the long term need) ... guessing the union may just end up agreeing to a flat percentage reduction in their salaries not tied to some phantom revenue construct at the 11th hour.