Quote from fenn68 on May 13, 2020, 2:12 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 13, 2020, 12:32 pm

It may be "full duty" but you have to consider the players(employees) were also given an extra 4 months off and home with their families.

So in any other major industry it's hard to expect the employers to pay for that period of time off.

 

Players agreed some time ago that they would NOT get paid for games not played and their contract would be prorated based on games played ... e.g. if the league played 50% of the games ... players get 50% of their annual contract. Owners and players agreed on that BUT

Owners are now saying that they agreed because they were planning on fans in attendance ... now NEW circumstances ... so that should reopen the negotiations and the players should take a cut from their contract level for the games played as well as continue the part that says they don't get paid for games not played.

Don't know the level of pay cut the owners are proposing for games played but if we assume for illustration purposes it is 50% for games played beyond the zero pay for games not played and an 81 game season ...

players would get 25% of their annual pay ... for 50% playing time.

From the Padres perspective ... about a $150MM payroll down to $75MM for the lost 1/2 season and the "saving" another $37.5MM for the 50% pay cut for games played. Padres would effectively have a $37.5MM payroll for a 1/2 season ... an organization worth over a billion.

Not sure any union would ask their members to go back to work at a reduced hourly wage without some other major concessions from the Company ... unless it was to prevent bankruptcy and to keep jobs and MLB is not anywhere close to a bankruptcy scenario ... in fact the league is quite profitable before 2020 and will be post-2020.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 13, 2020, 7:22 pm

The other concession is the players are getting a full accrued season.

Thos is a HUGE deal for those close to Arbitration or free agency.

I’m guessing If the players demand more pay the Owners could demand only 1/2 a season of  service time.

Who gives?

 

Quote from JasonE135 on May 14, 2020, 12:51 am

It bothers me a great deal that we are losing a year of control of Tatis and Paddack along with our last year of Yates.

I don't see either the owners or the players giving in. The owners certainly aren't going to willingly agree to lose tens of millions of dollars, and possibly more. When a business loses money employees don't get paid. If the owners push too far, I can see some of the players who have more money just calling it quits on the season. Neither side seems willing to give or do what is best for the game.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 14, 2020, 6:09 am

That year of service time is huge.

I can't see any way if the season is completely cancelled the players get that year.

Which would mean Betts is still a Dodger,Yates still a Padre and on and on.

Players who would have hit free agency after this season....won't.

I just can't see the players being willing to give that up so you would think they will come to some kind of agreement to not lose this season.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 7:23 am

This could get real ugly for all concerned.

Technically, the owners and the union have agreed on the trade-off of service time for players not getting paid for games not played. If the owners try to pull out of that agreement and void the terms .... union goes to court / arbitration (whatever the CBA dictates) to argue that players have signed a contract for 2020 and contract law controls the situation and must be upheld (full pay for zero games) ... just as in a "normal" year teams have to honor for players released (Kinsler, Olivera). (owners would likely argue that this is an extenuating situation and should allow them to avoid paying ... but that is not working all that well with leases on establishments that are closed due to the virus).

From an owners perspective saving payroll for non-played games is immediate and covers 100% of the players .... granting full service based on 2019 only impacts a fraction of the players (under 6 years) and any "cost" to the owners is in the loss of a year of service to a few star players (they would have left at the same point anyway) so no increase in future costs. Actually, the owners save a bit in the future since arbitration decisions are likely to be lower without a 2020 to justify increases. Plus few really care if Wingenter, Reyes, et. al leave "on schedule".

Playing the legal game, if the owners refused to honor the contract (without union agreement) .... players could argue that violation voids the contract and declare themselves FA. If an employee is furloughed / laid off without pay they can go get (or at least try) to get another job in their profession .... hard for MLB to argue that they are not paying the players but retain total control.

Again this could get ugly ... and we should really see this as a precursor to the CBA negotiations after 2021 ... and if ugly now .... you ain't seen nothin yet leading to the strike season of 2022. MLB union (and Tony Clark) have been vilified for being the weakest sports union and a lot of pressure to insert more control of negotiations by a veteran labor negotiator.

Side: apparently Fowler is still one of the main negotiators on the owners side (another is the COLO owner).

Quote from hoffy51 on May 14, 2020, 8:38 am

So Snell comes out today and says that he isn't playing for less than his whole salary.

So what if the majority of the players association votes to play, but some players, like Snell, refuse to play. With their guaranteed contracts, what happens if choose not to play?

You could end up with a whole lot of minor leaguers playing for the opportunity to showcase themselves.

This is a mess. Damn you Curt Flood.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 14, 2020, 9:37 am

Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 7:23 am

This could get real ugly for all concerned.

Technically, the owners and the union have agreed on the trade-off of service time for players not getting paid for games not played. If the owners try to pull out of that agreement and void the terms .... union goes to court / arbitration (whatever the CBA dictates) to argue that players have signed a contract for 2020 and contract law controls the situation and must be upheld (full pay for zero games) ... just as in a "normal" year teams have to honor for players released (Kinsler, Olivera). (owners would likely argue that this is an extenuating situation and should allow them to avoid paying ... but that is not working all that well with leases on establishments that are closed due to the virus).

From an owners perspective saving payroll for non-played games is immediate and covers 100% of the players .... granting full service based on 2019 only impacts a fraction of the players (under 6 years) and any "cost" to the owners is in the loss of a year of service to a few star players (they would have left at the same point anyway) so no increase in future costs. Actually, the owners save a bit in the future since arbitration decisions are likely to be lower without a 2020 to justify increases. Plus few really care if Wingenter, Reyes, et. al leave "on schedule".

Playing the legal game, if the owners refused to honor the contract (without union agreement) .... players could argue that violation voids the contract and declare themselves FA. If an employee is furloughed / laid off without pay they can go get (or at least try) to get another job in their profession .... hard for MLB to argue that they are not paying the players but retain total control.

Again this could get ugly ... and we should really see this as a precursor to the CBA negotiations after 2021 ... and if ugly now .... you ain't seen nothin yet leading to the strike season of 2022. MLB union (and Tony Clark) have been vilified for being the weakest sports union and a lot of pressure to insert more control of negotiations by a veteran labor negotiator.

Side: apparently Fowler is still one of the main negotiators on the owners side (another is the COLO owner).

But the agreement to pay the players a prorated salary is based on "games played".

So if the players refuse to play and they play zero games....their prorated pay is also zero.

I find it hard to believe the Owners would still give them a year of service time.

You would think that agreement was all based on "some" games played.

It sure seems like it may come down to "play some games make some money and get service time" vs. "refuse to play and get nothing".

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 10:13 am

With the CBA the owners can’t unilaterally change the terms on calculating service time. So at some level the union has to buy into any deviation ... pay, service time, benefits, rosters, et al.

Although we are debating pay / service time (as the owners seem to want) ... the bigger issue is the criteria from a health and safety view on resuming play which is a precursor to resumption.

As of now, MLB has no idea where they will be allowed to play (not looking good for games in California home parks) but FLA/AZ seems all in. IF the FLA/AZ solution is the end ... a whole set of logistical issues on facilities, weather, housing have to be resolved.

MLB is saying it plans to test everyone multiple time per week (and seem to think they can get tests without impacting the critical shortage ... really?). No plan on how to handle positive test results aside from isolating the individual but not the team (not sure how the players will take to that). No plan on how to handle players / coaches / staff that don’t show up for valid “underlying health concerns” or health concerns of their families  ... especially the older coaches and staff. No plan on what to do if a team (or multiple teams) need to get shut down and how that affects the season / standings.

In the Bundesliga ... back in training to reopen this weekend just to complete their season ... one team has already been shut down for two weeks because of two positive tests. Should we not see the same potential issue in MLB? Is MLB worse off to start a season only to shut it back down in a few weeks?

So the pay / service time negotiation really has to be rolled into the conditions acceptable for play (and non play).

 

 

Quote from hoffy51 on May 14, 2020, 10:46 am

Snell's comments are particularly repugnant at this time in our country. People have lost their jobs and/or their businesses. Some people are literally living day to day. This guy won't play for millions. Really bad image. It would not surprise me at all if there is no baseball at all this season. No pay, no $, no year of service, etc.