I don't like the idea of just deciding not to take a pitcher. Maybe it is because they rank some of the underslot guys higher, but if the strategy is just not take a pitcher generally I think it's unwise.
You are oversimplifying and you are under the false assumption that owners can unilaterally shorten the season.
The owners don't get to decide whether it is cheaper to not play than to play. They have to open the books and prove to the players that they would lose more money not playing than by playing without fans. Only then can the owners cancel the season. Presumably, if the owners were to open the books and convince the players that they would lose more money playing without fans than they would in canceling the season, thereby permitting them the option of canceling the season, players might be interested in sacrificing additional money to have a season, but the owners have not yet done that.
The players and owners have a mutual obligation to start the season as soon as possible and to play as many games as possible. That obligation is not discharged by the owners losing money for the season, it is only discharged by the owners proving they would lose more money playing without fans than they would lose if they didn't play at all.
The owners likely WOULD lose less money with a shorter season (say 40 games vs. 82) and an expanded playoffs, but that would also violate the March agreement, just as trying to renegotiate salary without proving playing without fans is more fiscally damaging than not playing violates the March agreement.
it was either that or the rundown bus.
Damn I love watching this movie.
Hey skipper, my contract says I do have to practice, what do you think of that.
Tosses it on the ground and pisses on it.
I wonder how many managers would love to do that in real life, when a crybaby complains. LOL
Well, I would say that the issue is not closed assuming everything you say is absolutely true.
Based upon what you wrote, $170 mil the players get no matter what. That's roughly $5.7 mil per team. If there is no season, that money gets divided up, I guess between the players and that's it. That's not really much per player considering what they make.
The players lose huge money in that scenario. They lose big the fewer games that get played from their prorating agreement. And the owners get to decide when to start play and how many games get played.
So, if the owners decide that it is cheaper to not play than play the games, the players lose big time.
Every game the owners shorten the season the players lose big time.
It seems clear that the possibility of playing the season without fans could be cost prohibitive and that was contemplated.
So, based upon your facts, the players could stick it to the owners and cut their own noses off in the process. Or, negotiate something better for both sides.
I am sorry but the players are being stupid so far. Of course, this is the game within the game, but the owners still hold all the cards in my opinion.