2019-2020 Offseason Discussion

[Namaste]

MLB owners 2019: “We deserve most of the money for assuming all the risk!”
MLB owners 2020: “Our risks went sideways, so it’s coming out of your paycheck!”

[rmc523]

why should the players have to make the sacrifices and not the owners who dont have an average lifespan in the league of 5 years and whose teams appreciate ten fold no matter how much mismanagement they run the team with. if im the players im not settling for less than the prorated value of their deals. thats fucking ridiculous. they shouldnt even be forced to just play for the prorated amount, pay them slightly more, take the loss for one season and move on. that offer is just more bullshit from the owners. i will never understand people who decide to take managements side over the players.

I personally am not siding with either side, and I don't feel bad for either side. On one hand, the owners shouldn't get the exact deal/cut they want, and the players can't get full salaries with revenues cut so much. Like I've said several times, I can't have much sympathy for either side complaining about how whether they'll get or pay 2M or 10M when I don't have a job at all.

That said, I can understand both sides - I understand the players signed contracts and want to be paid what they agreed to - in that sense, I think deferrals would be the way to go, though that would also impact future player spending, which is something the MLBPA has to consider (if team A has to pay an extra 10M over the next few seasons, that's 10M less they can put on new FAs or extensions in those years). I also understand the owners not wanting to pay full price for a partial "product", and one that has significantly lower revenues.

But again, I don't feel bad for either side, and I unfortunately think this only brings us closer to a strike unless both sides wake up and smell the coffee, and realize how out of touch they are with the real world bickering over who gets more or less millions. It's only going to hurt the game/teams long term if they don't figure out how to work this out.

[rmc523]

Apparently the players have now said they don't want to offer any further salary cuts at all.

Nationals ace Max Scherzer, the team’s union representative and a member of the MLBPA executive council, issued a statement on Twitter, saying: “After discussing the latest developments with the rest of the players there’s no reason to engage with MLB in any further compensation reductions. We have previously negotiated a pay cut in the version of prorated salaries, and there’s no justification to accept a 2nd pay cut based upon the current information the union has received. I’m glad to hear other players voicing the same viewpoint and believe MLB’s economic strategy would completely change if all documentation were to become public information.”

[fauowls44]

Apparently the players have now said they don't want to offer any further salary cuts at all.

Predictable response from the union (and very likely Boras driven). Time is running out and they need to start actually negotiating. I understand the players position and their mistrust of the owners, but they have to take into account that the circumstances have changed since the March agreement. They shouldn't accept the offer the owners just made (which was, as a starting point, obviously one-sided), but they do have to get to the table and make a legitimate effort to compromise.

[fish16]

Predictable response from the union (and very likely Boras driven). Time is running out and they need to start actually negotiating. I understand the players position and their mistrust of the owners, but they have to take into account that the circumstances have changed since the March agreement. They shouldn't accept the offer the owners just made (which was, as a starting point, obviously one-sided), but they do have to get to the table and make a legitimate effort to compromise.

they have already offered to take their prorated salaries. why should they have to foot this bill? They are the one's who have a career that is already on average extremely short and they arent the owners of appreciating assets like the owners are. if the owners want to cry poor they can show their actual books for the first time in history. If not, they can shut the fuck up and swallow whatever losses they will incur this year. also, are we even sure they will have significant losses this year? Obviously they wont have the huge profits but they still have the huge tv money, revenue sharing, and the new multi billion dollar contract they signed either last year or the year before for that BAM thing. the players under no circumstances should be the ones who have to compromise here given their already short life span in the league. the owners are going to use the PR nightmare for the players that is not wanting to play for millions of dollars even if it is tens of millions of dollars less than what they actually agreed to play for and that strategy is complete horseshit bad faith negotiating.

Also, for the people saying its a bad look for someone like mike trout to oppose playing for 70k per game as opposed to the 250k+ that he is contractually owed because others are out of work, enough. Mike trout is infinitely more valuable to his workplace than you are/were to yours. If you were the mike trout of your job you would still have a job. dont make it mike trout's fault that your employer looked at you as non essential in an economic rough time. I dont want anyone to lose their job but comparing anyone of these ball players to a normal employee is a bullshit argument. these guys are paid so heavily because they are the top .1% in the world at what they do and they drive enormous revenues to the league because of that.

[Lee Stone]

The union is there to protect/preserve mostly the little guys that make up the vast majority of membership. Those are the players that should be commenting on terms, not the handful of players with $20M+ salaries

This is fun https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/...ion-draft.html

[fauowls44]

they have already offered to take their prorated salaries. why should they have to foot this bill? They are the one's who have a career that is already on average extremely short and they arent the owners of appreciating assets like the owners are. if the owners want to cry poor they can show their actual books for the first time in history. If not, they can shut the fuck up and swallow whatever losses they will incur this year. also, are we even sure they will have significant losses this year? Obviously they wont have the huge profits but they still have the huge tv money, revenue sharing, and the new multi billion dollar contract they signed either last year or the year before for that BAM thing. the players under no circumstances should be the ones who have to compromise here given their already short life span in the league. the owners are going to use the PR nightmare for the players that is not wanting to play for millions of dollars even if it is tens of millions of dollars less than what they actually agreed to play for and that strategy is complete horseshit bad faith negotiating.

Also, for the people saying its a bad look for someone like mike trout to oppose playing for 70k per game as opposed to the 250k+ that he is contractually owed because others are out of work, enough. Mike trout is infinitely more valuable to his workplace than you are/were to yours. If you were the mike trout of your job you would still have a job. dont make it mike trout's fault that your employer looked at you as non essential in an economic rough time. I dont want anyone to lose their job but comparing anyone of these ball players to a normal employee is a bullshit argument. these guys are paid so heavily because they are the top .1% in the world at what they do and they drive enormous revenues to the league because of that.

In a perfect world, yes, the players would get their prorated salaries and that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, the March agreement that both parties signed is apparently vague enough where it's not clear exactly what was agreed to. That is both sides fault (and very on brand for MLB). Since there is no clear answer in that agreement, I don't see why it is unreasonable for both sides to sit down and have an actual negotiation and to come up with an acceptable alternative. Right now, it seems like the owners are trying to give the players a starting point for negotiating and the players are dug in and not budging from March. It's certainly their right, but they also have to realize that this is a different world now than it was in March. There are only bad solutions now and they have to be willing to make the best of it.

Under normal circumstances the players should absolutely get every penny they are owed, but this is a special circumstance. Both sides need to compromise a bit and get a deal done for the sake of the sport. If every other league is able to return and MLB doesn't because they are fighting over money (while there are 40 million Americans unemployed and 100K dead), that will be extremely hard to come back from...especially with baseball's popularity already on the decline. They all need to realize that this is an opportunity and they are wasting it by arguing over petty differences.

[rmc523]

they have already offered to take their prorated salaries. why should they have to foot this bill? They are the one's who have a career that is already on average extremely short and they arent the owners of appreciating assets like the owners are. if the owners want to cry poor they can show their actual books for the first time in history. If not, they can shut the fuck up and swallow whatever losses they will incur this year. also, are we even sure they will have significant losses this year? Obviously they wont have the huge profits but they still have the huge tv money, revenue sharing, and the new multi billion dollar contract they signed either last year or the year before for that BAM thing. the players under no circumstances should be the ones who have to compromise here given their already short life span in the league. the owners are going to use the PR nightmare for the players that is not wanting to play for millions of dollars even if it is tens of millions of dollars less than what they actually agreed to play for and that strategy is complete horseshit bad faith negotiating.

Also, for the people saying its a bad look for someone like mike trout to oppose playing for 70k per game as opposed to the 250k+ that he is contractually owed because others are out of work, enough. Mike trout is infinitely more valuable to his workplace than you are/were to yours. If you were the mike trout of your job you would still have a job. dont make it mike trout's fault that your employer looked at you as non essential in an economic rough time. I dont want anyone to lose their job but comparing anyone of these ball players to a normal employee is a bullshit argument. these guys are paid so heavily because they are the top .1% in the world at what they do and they drive enormous revenues to the league because of that.

That's an asshole thing to say and you're completely missing the point. I worked at a small company and they cut a bunch of people just to stay in business - things like product development (I WAS the product development) were COMPLETELY eliminated, it wasn't because I didn't do my job/didn't do it well.

So again, you're missing the point - in a time where millions of people have lost jobs, it IS completely out of touch for a player to demand his full salary or he won't play at all, regardless of being top .1% of whatever vs. "normal" people. I do realize that if I were a player, I'd want my contract money too, but I'd also realize that even the people that still have jobs have had to take pay cuts because of this, and I'm being paid a ton of money to play a sport. On the flip side, it's just as it's out of touch to expect a player making 37M to make 6M and that's it, and to just accept that "because". My point has always been there's a middle ground where both sides get something they want, and rich and richer people arguing over who will make or pay a little more or less looks bad for the sport.



-----

Also, I'm pretty sure I've read revenue sharing is not happening this year at all, which hurts teams like us even more (thankfully we've cut salaries prior to this, though).

-----




I say prorate the salaries as agreed, play 100 games, and defer 75% of the remainder over whatever period works.


Prorated to 100 games would be 61.7% of normal salaries, and then deferring 75% of the remainder of that would be giving a player 90.4% of his normal salary.

That way both sides win - owners get to pay less right now while they don't have gate revenue and they'll ultimately pay less overall. They players still get 90.4% of their 2020 salary overall, but a chunk of it deferred.



So if a player makes $10M, you're getting $6.2M of your normal salary for your 100 games of the season. You're forgoing $3.8M this year, and you defer 75% of that amount. That'd be $2.85M deferred. So in total, you'd be getting 9.05M of this year's salary.

2020 Normal - $10M
2020 Prorate (100 games) - $6.2M
2020 given up - $3.8M
Deferred (75% of remainder) - $2.85M

Total - $9.05M


----

Let's look at Trout:

2020 Normal - $37,666,666
2020 Prorate - $23,251,028.40
2020 given up - $14,415,637.60
Deferred - 10,811,728.20

Total - $34,062,756.60

He'd still get $34M of his $37.67M he's owed, just not all in 2020.


-----

Or maybe 75% of that remainder is too high, maybe you do 50% or something (that'd be a player getting 80% of his 2020 salary in total). The point is, there's a middle ground where both sides can be happy. But this absolute dig the heels in, automatic NO, WE CAN'T ACCEPT ANYTHING IN THE OTHER SIDE'S PROPOSAL immediately upon receiving it attitude both sides have is NOT good for the sport in a time where they could easily generate a ton of interest and good will in the game by being the first major sport back. BOTH sides look like spoiled children right now.

[rmc523]

One thought I didn't mention earlier, though I think I've said in in other posts on this thread - should the players/league agree to deferred salaries of any sort, I'd hope the players will realize it'll probably affect signings and signing values in those years owners will pay those deferrals. But I guarantee we'll hear complaining then about owners not spending.

[rmc523]

Here's a line from Boras (surprise, surprise):

“The owners’ current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks,” Boras writes. “…Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout.”

[fish16]

Here's a line from Boras (surprise, surprise):

“The owners’ current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks,” Boras writes. “…Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout.”

boras talking like someone who is about to see a ton of less money this year even in a best case scenario. scherzer's statement screamed boras.

- - - - - - - - - -

That's an asshole thing to say and you're completely missing the point. I worked at a small company and they cut a bunch of people just to stay in business - things like product development (I WAS the product development) were COMPLETELY eliminated, it wasn't because I didn't do my job/didn't do it well.

So again, you're missing the point - in a time where millions of people have lost jobs, it IS completely out of touch for a player to demand his full salary or he won't play at all, regardless of being top .1% of whatever vs. "normal" people. I do realize that if I were a player, I'd want my contract money too, but I'd also realize that even the people that still have jobs have had to take pay cuts because of this, and I'm being paid a ton of money to play a sport. On the flip side, it's just as it's out of touch to expect a player making 37M to make 6M and that's it, and to just accept that "because". My point has always been there's a middle ground where both sides get something they want, and rich and richer people arguing over who will make or pay a little more or less looks bad for the sport.



-----

Also, I'm pretty sure I've read revenue sharing is not happening this year at all, which hurts teams like us even more (thankfully we've cut salaries prior to this, though).

-----




I say prorate the salaries as agreed, play 100 games, and defer 75% of the remainder over whatever period works.


Prorated to 100 games would be 61.7% of normal salaries, and then deferring 75% of the remainder of that would be giving a player 90.4% of his normal salary.

That way both sides win - owners get to pay less right now while they don't have gate revenue and they'll ultimately pay less overall. They players still get 90.4% of their 2020 salary overall, but a chunk of it deferred.



So if a player makes $10M, you're getting $6.2M of your normal salary for your 100 games of the season. You're forgoing $3.8M this year, and you defer 75% of that amount. That'd be $2.85M deferred. So in total, you'd be getting 9.05M of this year's salary.

2020 Normal - $10M
2020 Prorate (100 games) - $6.2M
2020 given up - $3.8M
Deferred (75% of remainder) - $2.85M

Total - $9.05M


----

Let's look at Trout:

2020 Normal - $37,666,666
2020 Prorate - $23,251,028.40
2020 given up - $14,415,637.60
Deferred - 10,811,728.20

Total - $34,062,756.60

He'd still get $34M of his $37.67M he's owed, just not all in 2020.


-----

Or maybe 75% of that remainder is too high, maybe you do 50% or something (that'd be a player getting 80% of his 2020 salary in total). The point is, there's a middle ground where both sides can be happy. But this absolute dig the heels in, automatic NO, WE CAN'T ACCEPT ANYTHING IN THE OTHER SIDE'S PROPOSAL immediately upon receiving it attitude both sides have is NOT good for the sport in a time where they could easily generate a ton of interest and good will in the game by being the first major sport back. BOTH sides look like spoiled children right now.

I was not trying to say or do anything to insinuate or make light of anyone losing their job or saying they werent good at their job. I'm just saying compared to the players role in baseball and how essential they are or how good they are at their job relative to any normal job it is not any kind of comparison. your job can eliminate a department. The players ARE baseball. I dont disagree that its a bad look, in fact i think the owners are negotiating in bad faith knowing how bad of a look it is for players to bitch about making 6 million a year. All im saying is that the owners are putting these players in an impossible PR position because if they give in they fuck themselves over unjustifiably and if they bitch about making just 70k per game (in trouts case) they look out of touch. But i dont think that it is unfair at all for them to be bitching about that.

The owners offer was completely unrealistic and absurd. it was the epitome of making your worst possible offer with your initial offer. I like your idea of prorations and payroll deferrals. My overall point is that i think the players should not be the one to foot the bill for the losses (which we dont even know are occurring because the owners never open their books) because of their short career spans, how many dont make much of anything significant (relatively speaking), and the fact that the owners own an asset without a time limit that is impossible not to appreciate.

If im the players, i do something to turn the narrative and force the narrative about the owners not opening their books. I think the owners crying poor is complete bullshit and you can turn the narrative by saying there are hundreds of players in each organiation and these guys are releasing players rather than paying them $400 a week when they are lying about how much they are losing, if they are losing at all.

- - - - - - - - - -

I completely agree though on their being a middle ground. it will eventually be found, it will just take a few weeks of posturing while people freak out about no baseball and then a deal will be found because neither side wants to have 0 baseball.

[Nick]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mlbs-lat...richest-teams/

Interesting article showing how the Marlins are getting F'ed by the owners latest proposal.

[sports24/7]

Has anyone talked about the possibility that the Marlins may be more inclined to call up guys that are close, but may have been stashed in the minors for another year for seasoning, due to the circumstances? I think you'd have to wonder if the team would rather these guys get real work instead of a wasted year.

[Nick]

Has anyone talked about the possibility that the Marlins may be more inclined to call up guys that are close, but may have been stashed in the minors for another year for seasoning, due to the circumstances? I think you'd have to wonder if the team would rather these guys get real work instead of a wasted year.

Yeah I brought that up a couple of pages ago, will definitely be interesting.

[sports24/7]

Yeah I brought that up a couple of pages ago, will definitely be interesting.

Yeah, I don’t think it would impact a bunch of guys, but it could impact at least a couple.