Quote from fenn68 on May 28, 2020, 3:06 pm

Now idea the schedule the Union will suggest but consider the feasibility of playing with a flexible 50 player squad ... every day with one double header per week and extending two weeks into October:

92 games ... July 1 - Sep 30

13 games .... July 1 - Sep 30 (second games of double headers)

15 games ... Oct 1 - Oct 15

2 games ... Oct 1 - Oct 15 (second games of double headers)

---

122 game schedule but

15 games ... if the go to two double headers per week

---

137 game schedule ... teams would preserve nearly all the TV revenues

Question would be IF the players would offer to play (and take all the risk) with that schedule ... what would make the owners reject it? Players would likely ask for about 80-85% of their salary but also the owners would be making a lot more. Plus money from the expanded playoffs.

Quote from hoffy51 on May 28, 2020, 3:21 pm

Yeah, the union will propose 82 double headers. They will have this all figured out by April 2021.

Quote from fenn68 on May 31, 2020, 11:29 am

• Some portion of the league’s owners are “perfectly willing to shut down the season,” hears Buster Olney of ESPN. Doing so would obviously reduce teams’ payroll expenditures and their immediate potential operating losses associated with playing games without fans in attendance, but the optics of such a decision during a nationwide economic crisis could certainly diminish the league’s popularity in the longer-term. With that in mind, Olney hears there’s some division among owners about the proper way to move forward with negotiations. Of course, individuals broadly bucketed on the players’ side haven’t been immune to conflict themselves, most publicly one involving Trevor Bauer and Scott Boras.

====================

Now can we figure whether this is a legit split among the owners OR another leak to put pressure on the players under the chance of zero pay?

Given some of the pay cuts / furloughs recently announce buy some clubs ... good chance some clubs would want the season skipped. There is always some fixed costs that have to be covered (e.g. loan interest, rent, etc.) so losses are occurring. Cannot answer the question whether the losses from not playing (no TV but no salaries / operating expenses) are less than the losses of playing ... i.e. does the TV (and peripheral) revenues exceed the incremental salaries / expenses? That likely is a team by team analysis ... and teams generally don't bail out their partners.

So, if you take the cold business approach:

1. IF playing games reduces a team's fix cost loss ... play the season
2. IF playing games keeps a team's fix cost loss the same ... play the season (PR value)
3. IF playing games increases a team's losses ... cancel the season.

Put it another way, the owners (at least some) need to make a "profit" on games played to offset part of the fixed losses or why bother playing.

Quote from fenn68 on May 31, 2020, 5:35 pm

Sort of a follow-up though on the potential split among owners on a restart ...remember the owner proposal to the union that included how to allocate that cut among the players (bigger contract ... bigger percentage).

Now forget about the players and consider how that plays among the owners ... the teams with the largest salaries due to bigger contracts get the biggest benefit (dollars and percentage savings).

Then note that the teams ranked as the most valuable by Forbes last April also have the largest payrolls and will reap the better savings while the little guys in value and low payrolls less percentage savings. HMMM ... maybe a little tension between the big owners and the small owners.

On the value / payroll the top are:

NYY ............... $5.0 Billion / $248MM

LAD ............... $3.4 Billion / $236MM

BOST ............. $3.3 Billion / $195MM

CUBS ............. $3.2 Billion / $195MM

the bottom are:

MIA ............... $1.0 Billion / $  75MM

KC ................. $1.0 Billion / $  88MM

TB ................. $1.1 Billion / $   71MM

OAK .............  $1.1 Billion / $   96MM

Sure looks as though the big owners are adding a squeeze on the poor "partners". Note Padres are #17 in value ($1.450 Billion) and are #13 in payroll ($153MM) per Roster Resource. So considering Machado, Hosmer, Myers ... the Padres should be benefiting from the proposal ... and note that Fowler is on the negotiation team with the COLO exec and not surprisingly COLO is #12 on the payroll list at $156MM.

A lot of considerations (ulterior motives) buried in every proposal it appears.