Jump to content

2020 General MLB off-season

Mo Horn

By Mo Horn
in Baseball

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ss13
ss13

I will personally thank the very first player to kneel solely for this...     

Player
Player

Am I taking crazy pills? Mr. “thin blue line” cop defender himself is crying about injustice? The same arrogant fuckface who assured everyone that HPD and Art fucking Acevedo’s actions in the Harding

UnivTex34
UnivTex34

Posted Images

Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54230

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Helobious said:

For this season, yes. This situation has never happened in sports history (never read much on how sports was handled during Spanish flu). They can take their $36,600 per game and cry about it, see how much sympathy they get. 

They probably wouldn't get much sympathy, because your stupid plan would actually probably cause total salaries rise.  Your World Series winner would have a payroll of over $400M (more than double the luxury tax threshhold), and even the worst teams would have $80M payrolls (the Marlins were scheduled to have a $57M payroll).  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18860

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Helobious said:

If I was Baseball God, I say every player gets $3 million for playing the season (defined as on active roster for at least 75% of games). Each player on a playoff qualifying team gets $1 million extra, and an additional million for each round advanced to.  Every player on WS champion team gets $10 million. So every player on the champion team would make 15 or 16 million this year. 

Or they can get paid under the terms of their contracts. You know, what the owners agreed to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
patrickdrinksbeer

patrickdrinksbeer 791

Posted
Posted
Is the “pay cut” the MLB players keep referring to simply only get a game day check for each game played (no change in amount) as opposed to receiving their full annual salary?
If so, and they won’t budge, no baseball would be my guess. 

no, they quickly agreed to accept that pro-rated salary cut back in march. owners want to pay them significantly less than that with the assumption that fans will not be allowed in ballparks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2268

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, patrickdrinksbeer said:


no, they quickly agreed to accept that pro-rated salary cut back in march. owners want to pay them significantly less than that with the assumption that fans will not be allowed in ballparks.

If the March pro-rated salary deal did not talk about fans then why are so many people up in arms over this and siding with the players? At the end of the day baseball is a business. No owner is going to voluntarily take it in the shorts if the players are open to negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brew

Brew 3049

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

If the March pro-rated salary deal did not talk about fans then why are so many people up in arms over this and siding with the players? At the end of the day baseball is a business. No owner is going to voluntarily take it in the shorts if the players are open to negotiations.

This is out of the Tom Verducci piece on SI.com today. I guess you could read that from the player’s side and say it doesn’t mention further cuts specifically. Both sides are going to have to move to make this work. 

The union sounded like little kids shouting “no backsies!” when it claimed a March agreement with MLB prevented any further economic talks on the possibility of playing in empty stadiums.

In the final proposal dated March 26, a copy of which was obtained by SI, Article I entitled “Resumption of Play” spelled out the very such possibility of re-opening talks: “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at the appropriate neutral sites.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10513

Posted
Posted

Every actual document I’ve seen on the March agreement mentions that a no-fan scenario would require renegotiation. And it’s not going well. The owners first offer was very lowball and the players response actually widened the gap. Unless there are some actual good faith negotiation then things look bleak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild_turkey

wild_turkey 3159

Posted
Posted

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the side of evil billionaire owners, I'm having trouble understanding the MLBPA stance on this. They are clinging to an agreement made in March despite the fact that the COVID pandemic has rapidly changed since then, and what was plausible in March is no longer acceptable. They agreed to a pay cut in March and are now refusing to accept any further cuts even though the situation is continually evolving and the alternative is no MLB at all.

It's just hard to be sympathetic towards them. People across the world in every industry are taking pay cuts due to COVID and those income reductions have evolved with the evolving pandemic.

I'm trying to picture a scenario in which my boss reduced my pay in March, our business continued to get worse throughout April/May, then she informs me my income will be further reduced due to ongoing business constraints from COVID, and I point back to the March agreement and refuse to accept her new offer, preferring instead to sit at home while the business fails. It just sounds absurd when you apply this scenario to any average person outside of professional sports.

Someone feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong with this line of thought.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18860

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the side of evil billionaire owners, I'm having trouble understanding the MLBPA stance on this. They are clinging to an agreement made in March despite the fact that the COVID pandemic has rapidly changed since then, and what was plausible in March is no longer acceptable. They agreed to a pay cut in March and are now refusing to accept any further cuts even though the situation is continually evolving and the alternative is no MLB at all.

It's just hard to be sympathetic towards them. People across the world in every industry are taking pay cuts due to COVID and those income reductions have evolved with the evolving pandemic.

I'm trying to picture a scenario in which my boss reduced my pay in March, our business continued to get worse throughout April/May, then she informs me my income will be further reduced due to ongoing business constraints from COVID, and I point back to the March agreement and refuse to accept her new offer, preferring instead to sit at home while the business fails. It just sounds absurd when you apply this scenario to any average person outside of professional sports.

Someone feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong with this line of thought.

The owners could always show some good will by opening their books to the union so the players can see whether a further pay cut is actually warranted. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
htown85

htown85 159

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the side of evil billionaire owners, I'm having trouble understanding the MLBPA stance on this. They are clinging to an agreement made in March despite the fact that the COVID pandemic has rapidly changed since then, and what was plausible in March is no longer acceptable. They agreed to a pay cut in March and are now refusing to accept any further cuts even though the situation is continually evolving and the alternative is no MLB at all.

It's just hard to be sympathetic towards them. People across the world in every industry are taking pay cuts due to COVID and those income reductions have evolved with the evolving pandemic.

I'm trying to picture a scenario in which my boss reduced my pay in March, our business continued to get worse throughout April/May, then she informs me my income will be further reduced due to ongoing business constraints from COVID, and I point back to the March agreement and refuse to accept her new offer, preferring instead to sit at home while the business fails. It just sounds absurd when you apply this scenario to any average person outside of professional sports.

Someone feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong with this line of thought.

I see both sides of it.  The March agreement has some vague language about negotiating in good faith if there are no fans.  The players agreed to that language and there won't be games with fans...so there should be a good faith negotiation.  The players' hard stance of "we already agreed to a pay cut" isn't 100% in line with the language agreed to.  On the other hand, the owners made a ridiculous initial proposal so I don't blame the players for being pissed. 

In hindsight, I wish MLB and MLBPA would have tried to negotiate the entire CBA over the last 6 weeks that would encompass any exceptions for this season.  Theoretically if the players have comfort that there won't be a salary cap in years forward, maybe they would agree to some revenue-sharing for 2020.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoffaJimmy

HoffaJimmy 316

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the side of evil billionaire owners, I'm having trouble understanding the MLBPA stance on this. They are clinging to an agreement made in March despite the fact that the COVID pandemic has rapidly changed since then, and what was plausible in March is no longer acceptable. They agreed to a pay cut in March and are now refusing to accept any further cuts even though the situation is continually evolving and the alternative is no MLB at all.

It's just hard to be sympathetic towards them. People across the world in every industry are taking pay cuts due to COVID and those income reductions have evolved with the evolving pandemic.

I'm trying to picture a scenario in which my boss reduced my pay in March, our business continued to get worse throughout April/May, then she informs me my income will be further reduced due to ongoing business constraints from COVID, and I point back to the March agreement and refuse to accept her new offer, preferring instead to sit at home while the business fails. It just sounds absurd when you apply this scenario to any average person outside of professional sports.

Someone feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong with this line of thought.

 

Using your example- Let's say you know you only can work in said profession at the same pay for the next year or two, Does that change your stance? Throw in the fact that the average MLB career is 5.6 years the players are the ones that have the most to lose long term.

Owners have a lot less skin in the game then the players do. Take it in the shorts this season for the good of the game. 

The problem of course is any give on either side opens them up for losing more in the upcoming labor negotiation. Neither side is going to want to give in. It's a lose/lose/lose for owners, players, and fans. 

I am far from pro player but in this case I tend to look at the guys at the bottom of the rosters not the top. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
clapclapclap

clapclapclap 9000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

At the risk of sounding like I'm taking the side of evil billionaire owners, I'm having trouble understanding the MLBPA stance on this. They are clinging to an agreement made in March despite the fact that the COVID pandemic has rapidly changed since then, and what was plausible in March is no longer acceptable. They agreed to a pay cut in March and are now refusing to accept any further cuts even though the situation is continually evolving and the alternative is no MLB at all.

It's just hard to be sympathetic towards them. People across the world in every industry are taking pay cuts due to COVID and those income reductions have evolved with the evolving pandemic.

I'm trying to picture a scenario in which my boss reduced my pay in March, our business continued to get worse throughout April/May, then she informs me my income will be further reduced due to ongoing business constraints from COVID, and I point back to the March agreement and refuse to accept her new offer, preferring instead to sit at home while the business fails. It just sounds absurd when you apply this scenario to any average person outside of professional sports.

Someone feel free to enlighten me if I'm completely wrong with this line of thought.

Agreed, good post.  

Unfortunately the owner's took advantage of this with a ridiculously low-ball initial offer and followup.  Gonna have to open the books now for anyone to believe them.

It's the sausage making phase.  I think in a week we'll see significant progress in narrowing the gap between sides.  Will probably pass the supposed deadline, but I still think a deal gets reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild_turkey

wild_turkey 3159

Posted
Posted
 
Using your example- Let's say you know you only can work in said profession at the same pay for the next year or two, Does that change your stance? Throw in the fact that the average MLB career is 5.6 years the players are the ones that have the most to lose long term.


It doesn’t change my stance. My career also has a shelf life, most careers do.

My boss owns the business and she is losing a lot of money due to COVID. I also lose money until things are normal again. If she came to me tomorrow and said the business expects ongoing financial hardship and I need to take less than we agreed on in March, then that’s just the situation we’re all in. I could ask to see the books and then complain if it appears my cut is disproportionate to her cut, and maybe we could negotiate a middle ground, but I can’t tell her that I refuse to accept any cut beyond that initial March agreement. That would be absurd. She’s the boss, I’m the employee. If that system is unacceptable to me then I should work on becoming the boss before the next pandemic hits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoffaJimmy

HoffaJimmy 316

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

 


It doesn’t change my stance. My career also has a shelf life, most careers do.

My boss owns the business and she is losing a lot of money due to COVID. I also lose money until things are normal again. If she came to me tomorrow and said the business expects ongoing financial hardship and I need to take less than we agreed on in March, then that’s just the situation we’re all in. I could ask to see the books and then complain if it appears my cut is disproportionate to her cut, and maybe we could negotiate a middle ground, but I can’t tell her that I refuse to accept any cut beyond that initial March agreement. That would be absurd. She’s the boss, I’m the employee. If that system is unacceptable to me then I should work on becoming the boss before the next pandemic hits.

 

 

All fair points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9836

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The owners could always show some good will by opening their books to the union so the players can see whether a further pay cut is actually warranted. 

 

Question. Does a full canceled season and accompanying lost revenue benefit the owners or players more at the next collective bargaining negotiation?  
 

If there is no season, what are the players paid?  Do the teams receive TV revenues, a reduction or a deferment if no games?

Who has the most to lose in a lost season scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bartles

Bartles 769

Posted
Posted

The players lose the most because the owners are much richer already and can easily pivot their moneymaking to some other area. They can keep the team and re-tool it as they wish whenever the game comes back, or they can sell the team for a profit when the time is right. Even in the depression, live sports TV rights are a valuable commodity.

The players would still have a lot of negotiating leverage over the winter, but the hit they take from almost zero salary in 2020 will hurt. Not to mention the glut of minor leaguers who will need new careers if the stoppage drags into summer 2021.

A lot of fans would say we're done with MLB, but if the 2021 spring weather comes around, along with maybe a working COVID vaccine, we will have a hard time not going back. A lot of places would probably have cheap season tix deals as an olive branch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10513

Posted
Posted

I think many owners would be fine with canceling the season. They would save minimize losses and weaken the players resolve in the upcoming  negotiations when the current contract expires after next year. This season being cancelled due to Covid would be more palatable to the fans than a strike/lockout in 2022 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18860

Posted
Posted
On 5/30/2020 at 9:07 AM, ChickenSandwich said:

Question. Does a full canceled season and accompanying lost revenue benefit the owners or players more at the next collective bargaining negotiation?  
 

If there is no season, what are the players paid?  Do the teams receive TV revenues, a reduction or a deferment if no games?

Who has the most to lose in a lost season scenario?

Let's open the books and see. Full transparency from ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10513

Posted
Posted

. I didn’t think it was possible to widen the gap but the latest MLBPA offer actually did. 
 

On Sunday afternoon, the players association delivered a proposal to the league outlining its vision for the year, according to ESPN's Jeff Passan. Per Passan, the union's proposal calls for a 114-game season that would begin on June 30 and end on Oct. 31. (The postseason would then take place throughout November.) 

Other key parts of the plan include every player having the right to opt out of participating (with those who are deemed "high-risk" receiving salary, and others receiving only service time), and a salary deferral plan in the event that the postseason is canceled due to another wave of COVID-19. 

The proposal also calls for two years of expanded playoffs, and for the players to receive a $100 million advance during the second spring training. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clapclapclap

clapclapclap 9000

Posted
Posted

It's the seeds for a solution. 

A individual opt out for this season seems reasonable, but of course at a much lower rate of pay.  Maybe 20% of salary up to a max of $300,000, but no service time credit.  If you truly feel that's required to protect your family's health, so be it.  No reason required, don't waste a bunch of money on lawyers and doctors (and PI's) fighting it out over whether the inevitable high-risk claim is legit or strategy.

I get the worry about getting shut down by a second wave of CCP virus before the real money of the playoffs comes in.  But I think we'll have player outbreaks before then and they'll adjust.  In fact a later post-season might make it more likely to be played out.

Is there anything to what some yapping pundit said about Fox not wanting November playoffs because it could preempt other content?  Are they going to have a full lineup of new shows produced by then?  They won't be competing with the NBA and there may be significantly less/fewer/KMA college football games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted (edited)

New Offer from owners seems pretty good.

-Full Prorated Salaries to Players

-Around 50 games for each team

 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29252811/mlb-intends-propose-shorter-season-full-prorated-salaries

Quote

 

Major League Baseball intends to propose a shorter season in which the league would pay players a full, prorated share of their salaries, sources told ESPN's Jeff Passan. The league believes the late March agreement to delay the start of the season allows MLB it to set the schedule, and that this would fulfill players' pro rata desire.

The potential season that MLB envisions would run somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 regular-season games, sources told ESPN.

The exact number is being considered, but the aim would be to return in July.

The news comes a day after the MLB Players Association delivered a return-to-play proposal that called for a 114-game season.

MLB will continue discussing alternatives to the shorter season with players, but believes that its March agreement with players allows it to mandate a shorter season, and the league is prepared to use that option in the absence of a deal with the MLBPA.

The union has remained steadfast that players should receive their full, prorated salaries. MLB's original proposal called for significant pay cuts that affected the highest-paid players the most but covered all levels.

 

 

I guess players will look at it as if they want to get back into shape to make %31 of their contract even if it means they'll only be playing for a couple months.

Edited by Pasken
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

This negotiation is laughable. A 50 game season is ridiculous. It will not be representative of the best teams. Potential huge screw job for the power teams i.e. Yankees, Dodgers, Astros. Even with expanded playoffs. 

Jesus, Beggars cannot be choosers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TonyTexas said:

Would you be happy with a 5 game NFL season?  How about a 4 game college football season?  
 


Those aren't very good comparisons. A better comparison would be a 25 game regular season NBA or NHL season with a playoff which I would be fine with in the middle of a Pandemic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bartles

Bartles 769

Posted
Posted

The 50 game season won't happen, neither will 114. Both are kind of preposterous under the circumstances. But at least the owners have put prorated salaries back on the table. Just need to find the number of games to work for both and then we can get going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 19070

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Pasken said:


Those aren't very good comparisons. A better comparison would be a 25 game regular season NBA or NHL season with a playoff which I would be fine with in the middle of a Pandemic. 

I look at the NBA standings at 20 or so games almost every year, and most years it’s a pretty good gauge for who the playoff teams are. 50 would suck but it’s better than nothing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxTower

TxTower 652

Posted
Posted
This negotiation is laughable. A 50 game season is ridiculous. It will not be representative of the best teams. Potential huge screw job for the power teams i.e. Yankees, Dodgers, Astros. Even with expanded playoffs. 

An Astros fan complaining about being screwed?

 

Bold strategy Cotton.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TonyTexas

TonyTexas 10513

Posted
Posted (edited)

It’s silly to argue about a 50 game season because it not happening as things stands right now. The players won’t go for a 30% pro rata portion of their salary.  That’s probably a bigger total salary reduction than the 1st offer. 

Edited by TonyTexas
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54230

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

It’s silly to argue about a 50 game season because it not happening as things stands right now. The players won’t go for a 30% pro rata portion of their salary.  That’s probably a bigger total salary reduction than the 1st offer. 

Actually, I think it's exactly the same salary reduction as the first offer, which is how the owners arrived at that number of games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20572

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, TonyTexas said:

This negotiation is laughable. A 50 game season is ridiculous. It will not be representative of the best teams. Potential huge screw job for the power teams i.e. Yankees, Dodgers, Astros. Even with expanded playoffs. 

You think competitive integrity means anything compared to maximizing profits?  That's cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3262

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, WBT said:

You think competitive integrity means anything compared to maximizing profits?  That's cute.

^^^ good edit.  maximizing revenues isn't what the owners want in this proposal.  it's maximizing profit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ss13

ss13 1832

Posted
Posted

The judge’s comments are awesome. 

Quote

You may recall that in April of 2019 former Mets and Phillies outfielder Len Dykstra sued his former teammate and current Mets commentator Ron Darling for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit arose out of claims in Darling’s then recently-published autobiography alleging that Dykstra shouted racial slurs at Red Sox pitcher Dennis “Oil Can” Boyd before Boyd took the mound in a 1986 World Series game. Dykstra lashed out at Darling over it, denying it ever happened and then filed suit. Then everyone went quiet.

Now the suit has been dismissed. And it has been dismissed in entertaining fashion, with the judge agreeing with Darling’s claim that Len Dykstra has such a crappy reputation that it’s virtually impossible to libel him.

Really. From the court’s opinion, which you can read in its entirety here:

Based on the papers submitted on this motion, prior to the publication of the book, Dykstra was infamous for being, among other things, racist, misogynist, and anti-gay, as well as a sexual predator, a drug-abuser, a thief, and an embezzler. Further, Dykstra had a reputation—largely due to his autobiography—of being willing to do anything to benefit himself and his team, including using steroids and blackmailing umpires . . . Considering this information, which was presumably known to the average reader of the book, this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference in the book has not exposed Dykstra to any further “public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace,” or “evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons,” or “deprivation of friendly intercourse in society.”

The judge went on to detail a ton of Dykstra’s past bad acts. It took awhile. And then the judge said this:

The nature and seriousness of Dykstra’s criminal offenses, which include fraud, embezzlement, grand theft, and lewd conduct and assault with a deadly weapon, and notably the degree of publicity they received, have already established his general bad reputation for fairness and decency far worse than the alleged racially charged bench-jockeying in the reference could . . .

. . . Given the aforesaid litany of stories concerning Dykstra’s poor and mean-spirited behavior particularly toward various groups including racial minorities, women, and the LGBTQ community—this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the reference cannot “induce an evil opinion of [Dykstra] in the minds of right-thinking persons” or “deprive him of their friendly intercourse in society,” as that “evil opinion” has long existed.

All of this is in service of the legal doctrine about “libel-proof plaintiffs” which, as the court explains in detail, renders one legally foreclosed from suing over an allegedly damaged reputation when your reputation is already irredeemable.

It’s one thing to have everyone on the planet think you’re a scumbag, but it’s another thing altogether for a court to rule that, as a matter of law, you’re a scumbag. That takes years of work to do, really.

Hat’s off to ya, Nails.

 

His son is still married to Jamie-Lynn Sigler. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...