Quote from fenn68 on May 5, 2020, 11:57 am

Quote from hoffy51 on May 5, 2020, 8:07 am

Has anyone heard anything about the minor league players this season. Will they have an abbreviated season? We really needed Gore, et al, to get some seasoning this year to be ready to contribute next year.

Uh!

Everything I have heard makes it sound like no minor league season. The combination of a "normal" season ending early in September, the fact that minor league clubs exist financially on attendance, the lingering COVID-19 risk to players without significant precautions that are virtually impossible to maintain in a minor league environment (player housing, bus travel, et. al) combined with ML clubs losing money will not finance the affiliate shortfalls and the working agreement between MiLB and MLB expiring (I believe) in September ... a menu to pack it in for 2020.

The ideas I have heard to continue the development (and only for the "better prospects") are an expanded AZ/FLA winter instructional period with more competitive games and a more extensive use of the winter leagues for the better prospects. Additionally, if MLB resumes in July and runs through October with a 30 man roster we could also see a "taxi squad" of non-active players working out with the club (or in AZ) to have replacements if needed but also to continue development of a few key prospects ... if in AZ could have competitive games with other AZ clubs.

However, it is clear that most of the minor league players will be sitting out until 2021 (if they return at all) given the desire to reduce minor league clubs for 2021.

======

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 5, 2020, 12:48 pm

It would be nice if the Padres and Mariners could each send 40-50 guys to Peoria and let them all play full games against each other.

Share the facility and have the majority of AAA and AA players there.

If MLB is going to play an abbreviated season you have to have replacement players ready in case of injury/lack of performance at

the major league level.

You can't expect major league teams to play even an 81 game season with 26 guys only.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 6, 2020, 11:47 am

Flashback: FSSD is broadcasting the Padres game from Sept 30, 1989 ... Flannery’s farewell and Gwynn’s quest for the batting title.

Announcers: Jerry Coleman and Rick Monday

C   Sandy Alomar

1B Phil Stephenson

2B Roberto Alomar

SS Joey Cora

3B Bip Roberts

LF Gerald Clark

CF Shawn Abner

RF T. Gwynn

SP Eric Nolte

plus at one point Mark Grant was warming in the pen.

.... longtime ago

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 12, 2020, 6:39 am

So  MLB was smart to release all the details of "their plan" to get baseball going so it would fall onto the players Union if they start

making money demands and sound like greed on behalf of the players.

Many Americans have been working through this entire pandemic(myself included) and making very little money.

When these millionaire baseball players start holding out for more of the pie it's not going to be a good luck.

Now I'm not even saying they will be wrong to do so....or to be concerned with their health.

Just referring to the Owners strategy and how it will appear to the general public/sports fans who just want baseball back.

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 12, 2020, 7:29 am

Yeh, the "early release" AND the focus on salary is an attempt to put the onus of returning on the back of the union and get the sports fans on "the owners' side" (they usually are anyway). Seems to soft pedal the debate about player / support personnel safety and the basics of needing to consume testing resources (potentially needed for higher priority individuals).

For me this is a hard one to get on the owners' side. We are putting millionaires (players) vs. multi multi millionaires (owners). Players are not getting paid for the games not played and not sure of the owners' pay cut demanded for games played while putting the players in what will be a "higher risk" health environment and potentially quarantine them away from home and family. Not sure any union (autoworkers, teamsters, et. al) would think that is a "fair" offer.

An underlying issue is that part of the argument for lower pay / benefits for the players and the lack of "profit sharing" between the owners and players is that that owners are taking all the risk. Apparently owners interpret "taking risk" as only the risk of more profits but NOT the risk of losses. (also keep in mind that owners are in this long term and get their real profit for the increase in the value of the franchise when it is sold ... short term losses has a minimal affect on that future profit).

My guess the owners' plan will contain a significant demand for a player pay cut ... instant rejection by the union (who will try to divert the discussion to health / safety). At that point, both sides enter a next level negotiation where both sides move to a much lesser pay cut but the union gets some other owner concessions on the playing conditions or off-season / 2021 rules.

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 12, 2020, 10:11 am

The players would be hurt more so than the owners if they can't come to an agreement.

Cancel the season and no players get paid....that's much worse for them.

It is a negotiation so I'm sure no one expects them to approve the first draft of the

"agreement".....let's just hope both sides are reasonable and they figure this out soon.

Otherwise everyone just loses even more money and the fans lose an entire season.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 12, 2020, 12:49 pm

No great outcome for the players unless they leverage this in some non-financial concessions or "future" concessions. It is negotiation ... not ever pretty ... and a cardinal rule is to never have only one issue to get a settlement. (multiple issues allows for concessions in multiple points and both sides "win" from a PR stance).

The players who may be in the worst position are those near the end (or the end) of their careers and these are their last paydays. Especially if the owners are taking this tact to save money now .... might see the writing on the wall for next season where "higher priced" veterans can't find a home ... makes up some more cash short fall and as I said before build a cash fund for the 2022 strike. CBA negotiations were on a track to be contentious before ... with the owners jamming down a major pay cut in 2020 ... the union will be even more motivated to hardball on the new CBA ... increasing the odds of a strike.

 

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 13, 2020, 4:59 am

Surely the players cant expect the Owners to take all the losses here?

The pro rated pay they've already agreed too is about the shortened season.....82 games.

Now you've got to consider the additional loss of revenue due to empty stadiums and the players have

to bear "some" of this.....right?

They can't expect to get paid basically 50% of their pay and the Owners take the brunt of all the rest of the loss revenue.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 13, 2020, 7:52 am

Score one for the owners' gambit by "leaking" the pay cut part of their proposal to put the players on the defense if they reject a pay cut (whatever the level). The owners have shifted the discussion from their lack of a plan for safety of the players and support personnel ... the vagueness of where they might play ... while keeping focus away from their cost cutting in their front offices, with the draft to 5 rounds (from my understanding a pure owners call not embraced by the teams' baseball personnel), and the on-going goal to shrink the minor leagues.

Considering reports are that teams had revenues the exceeded expectations in the past few years ... and shared none of that with the players .... shouldn't they take all the losses in 2020? Owners use the argument that they deserve the high returns because they take all the risks ... that should mean "losses" as well as "profits". The long term value (where they really get the profit) is not being diminished.

Looks as they counted on the public siding against the wealthy players (because the public usually does) and make them the bad guys to pressure players to conceded (and therefore the very very rich owners make more money).

Can argue that players taking a cut hurts players (limited remaining career earnings) much more that the owners eating all the losses (long term team value does not diminish). I see little to side with owners and their enormous future profits. Side: it does not appear that the owners will be willing to open their books to "independent" review to gauge the level of  "losses" in play ... sort of a "trust us" approach we will use our numbers to prove our point.

All of this does obscure what may believe is the real point of contention ... setting union "concessions" leading into the CBA negotiations. Precedent is always an important point in negotiation.

Owners are not willing to offer some non-financial concessions to the union (and likely will not) ... no season will look like the players' fault even though the offer was unilateral from the owners and they would not budge on other issues. Not what I would consider fair an honest negotiation by the owners and should just make the new CBA negotiation even more contentious ... and lead to a strike in 2022.

Any other sports league ... any other major industry .... asking their employees to return to full duty at reduced pay to help the corporation make greater profits?