Jump to content
weams

MLB makes new proposal- Union demands start date and terms by Monday

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Has anyone seen a decent economic analysis of the expected revenue and non-player costs in MLB this year, assuming games in smaller stadiums with no fans present?     It seems logical to me, at first blush, that revenues will be down by more than the proportionate number of games played.    In other words, half a season results in less than half the total revenue.   But I really don’t know, because a lot depends on how the TV revenues are affected.    

Yeah, that's the big question.  Fan/gate/concession revenue per game will be down.   Local TV revenue -- no idea?  Will it be pro rated which means per game revenue will be the same?  I have no jdea.

Now national TV revenue should not be drastically down because the big draw for the networks is the postseason.  ESPN/Fox/TBS do regular season national games but nobody really watches.

So the national revenue is the big x faxtor to me.   If the networks really care just about the postseason and pay a good chunk of the normal fill amount, that could make up for the loss of fan revenue and maybe the players have a case for full pro rated salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners made another proposal today for 76 game season.  Roster size will be 30 for two weeks 28 for next two then 26 to finish up.  You can use up to 60 players on the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpilktree said:

The owners made another proposal today for 76 game season.  Roster size will be 30 for two weeks 28 for next two then 26 to finish up.  You can use up to 60 players on the season.

Sorry now they saying 72 game season and players getting 83%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the owners are atleast trying to make concessions  while the players union stuck on getting 100% of salary.  If the players don’t start making concessions there will not be a season.  I get it the deal in March was full but that was when the owners still expected some fans at the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpilktree said:

Sorry now they saying 72 game season and players getting 83%. 

Under this proposal the players would get this portion of their full salaries: (72 divided by 162) x .83, or about 37 percent. Have I got that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will start a season.  Don’t get caught up in the drama. They just might not finish it because of corona 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weams said:

 

That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

Who would be the arbiter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we will get a 48 game season at full prorated unless owners make up every penny of that 20 percent gap.  The owners do seem comfortable playing as few games as possible. 

I for one thinks it’s kind of a big deal for baseball to get started before hockey and the NBA.  Be the first one to the start line and some of this nonsense will be forgiven. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this dispute is a precursor for the upcoming Labor Negotiations.  I will be so over anything Baseball Related with another strike.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

IMO this dispute is a precursor for the upcoming Labor Negotiations.  I will be so over anything Baseball Related with another strike.

 

It might not be a strike, maybe it will be a lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 7:35 PM, Frobby said:

Has anyone seen a decent economic analysis of the expected revenue and non-player costs in MLB this year, assuming games in smaller stadiums with no fans present?     It seems logical to me, at first blush, that revenues will be down by more than the proportionate number of games played.    In other words, half a season results in less than half the total revenue.   But I really don’t know, because a lot depends on how the TV revenues are affected.    

i posted a while back, but  tickets and concessions amounted to about 35% of the average MLB teams revenue.   I don't think that even included parking fees.  

The MLBPA are asking the owners an awful lot for full pro-rated, if the owners are losing 35% of their revenue stream. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Bundy is a decent comp, but he's been able to log innings at a consistent rate since his Tommy John.  Harvey seemingly can't go 10 innings without having tightness in his arm or something and having to be shut down.  He had to be shut down last year, he had to be shut down this year.  I'm too lazy to look up his entire injury history but I don't have any confidence that he can throw a lot of innings out of the bullpen without having issues.   But Bundy's arm isn't Harvey's arm.  They're two separate entities and should be treated as such.  Comping injury probability is tricky because everyone has different DNA, everyone has different issues.  
    • So you think a platoon of Valaika (-0.1 rWAR this year, -0.6 rWAR last year) and Wilkerson (-1.0 rWAR last year and taken off the 40-man roster this year) would outperform Alberto (0.4 rWAR this year, 2.9 rWAR last year)?     I recognize they might improve their numbers in a platoon situation, but I don’t think it’s very likely they would increase them by enough to outperform Alberto, and of course you’d have to use two roster spots to do it.    As to finding someone better on the waiver wire or a cheap purchase, I asked who you wanted and don’t have an answer.     What this comes down to is you don’t think Alberto is as good as his WAR figures say he is, because he’s had bad splits vs. RHP the last two years.    We simply disagree about that.    I think the numbers have been a fair reflection of Alberto’s value.    I’d peg him as a 1-2 WAR player for next year, and at $3 mm, that’s not bad.    As to Bannon (also mentioned by SG and Philip), I am interested in him long term but he’s had very little AAA experience (20 games), struggled in the AFL last fall and wasn’t given a 60-man roster spot this year so I doubt the team is ready to roll the dice on him     It’s a shame the minor league season wasn’t played, because if it had he’d either be in the majors right now or at least we’d know more about whether we could pencil him in for 2021.
    • He hasn't. That doesn't mean he can't. No point in being doom and gloom about it. Look at Bundy. He was never what he once was but he has gone on to a productive career. There is all the more reason to think that could be the case with Harvey due to the freakish and unrelated nature of several of the injuries. 
    • Agreed. Ruiz isn't good enough though, so I'd move Alberto to 3B and sign Schoop (or someone similar) to play 2B.
    • Sums it up perfectly. As tantalizing as he is, as good as his stuff is, I really don't see the need to keep giving him chances.  And I'm sure that the trade value is low, it's not like we're the only ones who understand what's going on with him but we need guys that can stay healthy.  Unfortunately, he can't.
    • I didn’t see it but I like that he threw 72% of his pitches for strikes and that he had a swingstr% over 20%.
    • I have no idea what he looks like defensively but offensively, his numbers seem to be fine...at least enough to give him a chance while waiting on a guy like Vavra. Alberto isn’t a guy I care if he’s here or not.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...