Owners submit new economic plan to union : UPDATED

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm fully prepared for an announcement by the players and owners (separately) that they made historic concessions so that we can have a 2020 season.

Admire your positivity but quite frankly I don't think these guys care about really having a season.  They care more about the ramifications of what these negotiations mean for the future.  

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You said that cheating in the NCAA was not just commonplace, but accepted and expected.  But then that cheating on caps and restrictions in MLB would never happen.  I don't know that there's any justification for that beyond your wish that it will be true.

Because there is no real incentive for the NCAA to enforce the cheating.  MLB and the individual teams have an incentive to enforce salary caps. I am not sure why you are arguing this.  Do you see cheating in caps in NFL or NHL?  I think you are arguing to argue. 

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Admire your positivity but quite frankly I don't think these guys care about really having a season.  They care more about the ramifications of what these negotiations mean for the future.  

The Athletics informed minor leaguers starting June 1st they will no longer get their $400 a week checks.  I think that is pretty low.  

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

Because there is no real incentive for the NCAA to enforce the cheating.  MLB and the individual teams have an incentive to enforce salary caps. I am not sure why you are arguing this.  Do you see cheating in caps in NFL or NHL?  I think you are arguing to argue. 

No incentive in the NCAA to punish or catch cheating?  Besides the implication that the playing field is slanted towards the cheaters and no one cares?  That the sports are essentially illegitimate, not unlike pro wrestling? 

How would I know if teams get around the salary cap in the NFL or NHL?

[Scalious]

7 hours ago, atomic said:

Because there is no real incentive for the NCAA to enforce the cheating.  MLB and the individual teams have an incentive to enforce salary caps. I am not sure why you are arguing this.  Do you see cheating in caps in NFL or NHL?  I think you are arguing to argue. 

No, but the salary cap makes things very wonky in the NBA and NHL. While the NFLs system really screws over the players.

The only way I see the MLBPA giving into a salary cap is if they cut the years of control right in half.  Which would basically change strategy away from developing home grown talent. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Scalious

[Dipper9]

What if EVERY year the MLB holds a pre-season draft, just like Fantasy Baseball?  The players can renegotiate a new contract each year based on their most recent experience, and it evens the playing field for all teams.  

The players (many of them anyway) clearly don't care about the fans, so let's show them we only care about the uniform.  

[CallMeBrooksie]

https://nypost.com/2020/05/28/max-scherzer-blasts-mlb-players-wont-negotiate-second-pay-cut/

Welp...

 

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, Scalious said:

No, but the salary cap makes things very wonky in the NBA and NHL. While the NFLs system really screws over the players.

The only way I see the MLBPA giving into a salary cap is if they cut the years of control right in half.  Which would basically change strategy away from developing home grown talent. 

I think they might consider a cap if it's tied to a percentage of revenues that's significantly higher than today, along with a floor that's a lot higher than today's floor.  A cap is kind of irrelevant if the teams have to pay out 47% of revenues in player salaries and they're paying out 41% today.  The only thing it will really impact are the gargantuan contracts, because the big teams won't be able to add payroll without limits.

[MurphDogg]

1 hour ago, CallMeBrooksie said:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/28/max-scherzer-blasts-mlb-players-wont-negotiate-second-pay-cut/

Welp...

 

Good.

The issue of pay is closed, the owners made an agreement to cut pay to prorating salaries and a $170 million advance on salary that the players could keep if no season was played in exchange for cutting the draft to 5 rounds and having it be up to the owners when to start the season.

If the owners don't want to have a season, then they can cancel the season. The players are willing to have a 100 game season, hopefully ownership greed won't get in the way.

Interest rates are at an all time low and it is in the interest of the federal government for sports to return, perhaps the owners can take out loans and/or negotiate a bailout from the government if they want to protect their long term asset of team ownership. 

It is also in the interest of MLB's media partners, maybe they can reach out to them for financial assistance.

It would be silly to throw away the goose that lays the golden eggs just because he laid a few regular eggs.

[CallMeBrooksie]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

Good.

The issue of pay is closed, the owners made an agreement to cut pay to prorating salaries and a $170 million advance on salary that the players could keep if no season was played in exchange for cutting the draft to 5 rounds and having it be up to the owners when to start the season.

If the owners don't want to have a season, then they can cancel the season. The players are willing to have a 100 game season, hopefully ownership greed won't get in the way.

Interest rates are at an all time low and it is in the interest of the federal government for sports to return, perhaps the owners can take out loans and/or negotiate a bailout from the government if they want to protect their long term asset of team ownership. 

It would be silly to throw away the goose that lays the golden eggs just because he laid a few regular eggs.

That's really not entirely true though. It's widely reported that the agreement states that compensation is subject to renegotiation if the season has to continue without fans (which is a very reasonable clause, imo). And we've seen leaked e-mails that show that the Player's Union was aware of this. To not consider this at all is leaving out important information. The original pro-rated agreement was assuming that fans could attend.

I agree that it's not fair for the owners to push down salaries and warn of big losses without opening up their books, but at the same time fully understand why a business who isn't required to publicly disclose their financial statements would continue to keep them under lock and key. It sucks... this is an area that the owners need to find a creative solution for in the name of transparency. But at the same time, you can't absolve the players of blame in this. For them to be willing to cancel the season because they won't take a penny less than the full pro-rated salary is horse-crap.

Looks to me that the players and the owners are both willing to be villains.. the fans are the real losers. 

[MurphDogg]

22 minutes ago, CallMeBrooksie said:

That's really not entirely true though. It's widely reported that the agreement states that compensation is subject to renegotiation if the season has to continue without fans (which is a very reasonable clause, imo). And we've seen leaked e-mails that show that the Player's Union was aware of this. To not consider this at all is leaving out important information. The original pro-rated agreement was assuming that fans could attend.

I agree that it's not fair for the owners to push down salaries and warn of big losses without opening up their books, but at the same time fully understand why a business who isn't required to publicly disclose their financial statements would continue to keep them under lock and key. It sucks... this is an area that the owners need to find a creative solution for in the name of transparency. But at the same time, you can't absolve the players of blame in this. For them to be willing to cancel the season because they won't take a penny less than the full pro-rated salary is horse-crap.

Looks to me that the players and the owners are both willing to be villains.. the fans are the real losers. 

Read the agreement. The leaked email nonsense doesn't pass muster, literally the second thing you learn in law school Contracts class is the parol evidence rule. Only what is in the agreement matters.

In the agreement, the players agreed to engage in good faith discussions about the economic feasibility of playing games without fans.

That provision relates to the decision of whether to play the games or not if fans can’t be present, not that the presence of or lack of fans might alter how players would get paid.

if the owners open the books and show the players that they would lose more money by playing a season without fans than they would by not playing, then the owners have the right to cancel the season without the players objecting.

The players have contracts and made an agreement and it is up to the owners whether they want to honor them.

The players have no obligation to ensure that the owners don't lose money this season, just as the owners don't have a cap on how much money they make in any other season and aren't required to share unexpected windfalls with the players. 

If the owners wanted to negotiate further pay cuts if the season was played without fans, they should have done so when these issues were being ironed out. It was certainly forseeable that there may not be fans. They could have explicitly written it into the agreement. They failed to do so. They shouldn't get a second bite at the apple.

[Just Regular]

2 hours ago, Dipper9 said:

What if EVERY year the MLB holds a pre-season draft, just like Fantasy Baseball?  The players can renegotiate a new contract each year based on their most recent experience, and it evens the playing field for all teams.  

The players (many of them anyway) clearly don't care about the fans, so let's show them we only care about the uniform.  

https://nypost.com/2013/12/15/finleys-free-agency-idea-was-chaotic-but-captivating/

Make 'em all free agents!

 

[CallMeBrooksie]

9 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Read the agreement. The leaked email nonsense doesn't pass muster, literally the second thing you learn in law school Contracts class is the parol evidence rule. Only what is in the agreement matters

In the agreement, the players agreed to engage in good faith discussions about the economic feasibility of playing games without fans.

That provision relates to the decision of whether to play the games or not if fans can’t be present, not that the presence of or lack of fans might alter how players would get paid.

if the owners open the books and show the players that they would lose more money by playing a season without fans than they would by not playing, then the owners have the right to cancel the season without the players objecting.

The players have contracts and made an agreement and it is up to the owners whether they want to honor them.

The players have no obligation to ensure that the owners don't lose money this season, just as the owners don't have a cap on how much money they make in any other season and aren't required to share unexpected windfalls with the players. 

Well.. we can't read the agreement, unless I'm mistaken. I don't believe it's been made public, and I don't think we have any reason to not believe the leaked e-mail. The union more or less confirmed it's authenticity by telling reporters they were "livid" that the private communication became public.

What we do know, and what your response even agrees with, is that the agreement stipulates that further negotiation may be necessary if the season has to continue without fans. It implies that a full pro-rated salary is assuming that fans can buy tickets and attend, which again makes a lot of sense to me. 

I'm not unsympathetic to the the players disadvantage of not being able to see the team's financials. I keep thinking about that and it really is a huge disadvantage in this particular case for the players. BUT if the players are going to have the attitude that they will not take a penny less to play the rest of this season.. they share a large portion of the blame as well in my opinion.

It just looks really bad on them. So many people are unemployed. So many people (myself included) have had their compensation temporarily reduced and their workload subsequently increased due to layoffs around them. It's just how the world works in times like this and are actually having to take risks with our health that MLB players probably will not have to.

Of course, as you said, they aren't obligated to take less. But if obligation is the only lense through which they choose to look at playing the rest of this season.. shame on them.

[MurphDogg]

Good thread if you are interested in reading from the point of view of a labor lawyer. Labor law is complicated, and we should be aware of the added implications that the NLRA requires.

[backwardsk]

36 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Good thread if you are interested in reading from the point of view of a labor lawyer. Labor law is complicated, and we should be aware of the added implications that the NLRA requires.

Thanks for sharing.  Eugene Freedman is a great lawyer name, btw.