Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 1:03 pm

Just heard Blake Snell (TB) ... not the most articulate ... ranting on his not being willing to take the health risk of playing and quarantine while taking an additional pay cut.

In his case, annual about $7MM ... down to $3.5MM for 1/2 season ... down to maybe $2.2MM with another 1/3 reduction ... down to maybe $1.5MM after tax. He is under a longer term contract ($50MM/5 years) so future money is coming. Would I play for $1.5MM ... yes but don't know any team who pay me that for my performance.

Risk and reward on a player by player basis ... what is one's health worth? Probably a lot more if you are rich than if you are poor.

Bet that a lot more players will opt out as this drags on and the season is even shorter ... especially the wealthier players. Trout seems to be on the bubble with his wife due in August with their first kid. Would a Manny Machado be willing to "give up" $7-8MM (after tax) to sit on the beach in Miami knowing he still has $240MM coming over the next 8 years and avoid being on quarantine for months, playing every day in the sweltering AZ heat, away from family (or woman in general) ... while taking the risk of injury or contracting the CV-19. Machado (or any other top pay player) can afford to make that risk/reward evaluation much differently than "everyday" people.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 14, 2020, 1:24 pm

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).

 

 

"Change the terms of calculating service time"?

Does the CBA allow for service time to be accrued when no games are played?

Isn't it all about games played....not calendar days?

 

 

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 14, 2020, 1:31 pm

Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 1:03 pm

Just heard Blake Snell (TB) ... not the most articulate ... ranting on his not being willing to take the health risk of playing and quarantine while taking an additional pay cut.

In his case, annual about $7MM ... down to $3.5MM for 1/2 season ... down to maybe $2.2MM with another 1/3 reduction ... down to maybe $1.5MM after tax. He is under a longer term contract ($50MM/5 years) so future money is coming. Would I play for $1.5MM ... yes but don't know any team who pay me that for my performance.

Risk and reward on a player by player basis ... what is one's health worth? Probably a lot more if you are rich than if you are poor.

Bet that a lot more players will opt out as this drags on and the season is even shorter ... especially the wealthier players. Trout seems to be on the bubble with his wife due in August with their first kid. Would a Manny Machado be willing to "give up" $7-8MM (after tax) to sit on the beach in Miami knowing he still has $240MM coming over the next 8 years and avoid being on quarantine for months, playing every day in the sweltering AZ heat, away from family (or woman in general) ... while taking the risk of injury or contracting the CV-19. Machado (or any other top pay player) can afford to make that risk/reward evaluation much differently than "everyday" people.

While obviously this virus is serious business the folks dying from it(huge majority) are 70+ years of age.

Was just reading the case in Michigan...."average" age of deaths from Covid is 76.1 in men.

I'm not saying the health consideration is nothing but I've worked through the entire thing.

My County has been open for almost 3 weeks and cases are still "dropping".

First responders....UPS drivers/mail men......many many others have been working for their $30k a year and Blake Snell won't work for

$2+ mil.

With the precautions and testing MLB will employ the risk to these players is miniscule.

Sorry....no sympathy here.

 

 

Quote from JasonE135 on May 14, 2020, 1:47 pm

I love Blake Snell as a player but as a person I think he is an idiot. "I won't risk my life and take a pay cut"? Trying to portray himself, a baseball player, as risking his life is incredibly selfish. Health care workers who are working directly with multiple sick people every day are risking their lives. Soldiers during wartime are risking their lives. Him? He is risking his life as much as I am every time I go to the grocery store! He is way out-of-touch with reality.

Quote from fenn68 on May 14, 2020, 4:00 pm

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 14, 2020, 1:24 pm

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).

 

 

"Change the terms of calculating service time"?

Does the CBA allow for service time to be accrued when no games are played?

Isn't it all about games played....not calendar days?

 

 

Believe it is calendar days on the active roster (off days do count).

Think both the owners and players just compromised on no pay for no play with the concession of granting full service time. The fact that both sides agreed on that weeks ago makes be think that worked for owners and the union. This is a big win for the owners as they avoided a legal action based on players signing an annual contract (not a game by game contract) and they did not halt the games ... others did. Unless the contracts had a pandemic clause ... hard to legally break a binding contract without fault by the other party (players).

If the owners could break the contract ... players could argue they become all free agents (good for some bad for others). More lawyers! Breaking the contract could be considered the same as a non-tender and maybe best case with no contracts every player would demand re-negotiation before they played. Probable no but possible yes if either side wanted to play hard ball and not negotiate a middle ground.

Sort of a chess game ... every singular moves has multiple secondary openings.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 15, 2020, 5:47 am

But the season never started.

Players don't accrue service time during the offseason...If the league year never came technically no one has accrued any service time.

The owners "conceded" to the players they would receive a full years service time based on the season starting at some point.

I would think they aren't bound to that if game 1 never comes.

 

Quote from fenn68 on May 15, 2020, 9:25 am

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 15, 2020, 5:47 am

But the season never started.

Players don't accrue service time during the offseason...If the league year never came technically no one has accrued any service time.

The owners "conceded" to the players they would receive a full years service time based on the season starting at some point.

I would think they aren't bound to that if game 1 never comes.

 

Bring in the lawyers ... has the season started but just no games have been played? Sounds dumb but how a season is defined in the CBA and a start date MAY not be how we view it.

Although I do agree that if the entire season lost ... owners and union will be in more negotiation as soon as that decision clear. Actually they may have already addressed this in the earlier negotiation ... we don’t know since we don’t know all the aspects of the initial agreement.

One think is clear ... everyone loses.

Quote from fenn68 on May 15, 2020, 9:43 am

Trying to avoid a COVID-19 debate in this forum but as it relates to safety for players, I have to view SD county stats through the middle of this week and the demographics:

194 deaths ... but “only” 2 under the age of 30 (1%) and another 2 between 30 and 40 (1%) ... as I recall underlying conditions were factors. Yes, a much higher rate for getting the virus but either limited symptoms or recovery.

72.2% of SD County deaths were over age 70 and most were in senior living facilities.

IF the health officials open up for sports .... the athletes themselves don’t appear at risk for serious impact.

Quote from MrPadre19 on May 15, 2020, 11:52 am

Quote from fenn68 on May 15, 2020, 9:43 am

Trying to avoid a COVID-19 debate in this forum but as it relates to safety for players, I have to view SD county stats through the middle of this week and the demographics:

194 deaths ... but “only” 2 under the age of 30 (1%) and another 2 between 30 and 40 (1%) ... as I recall underlying conditions were factors. Yes, a much higher rate for getting the virus but either limited symptoms or recovery.

72.2% of SD County deaths were over age 70 and most were in senior living facilities.

IF the health officials open up for sports .... the athletes themselves don’t appear at risk for serious impact.

Correct.....its the same everywhere.

99% of population don't get it at all and 90% of those who do survive.

Then....90% of those who die are over the age of 70 and/or have other serious health issue.

Of course it's a concern.....but the chances of Blake Snell getting seriously ill from this is like .0001%