Owners submit new economic plan to union : UPDATED

[scOtt]

On 5/27/2020 at 10:54 AM, Can_of_corn said:

If they don't play in 2020 I don't see how it doesn't negatively color the next round of CBA.

I said I feared this proposal would be a shot across the bow... Hoped it wouldn't but here we all are. Like you said (actually Moose said it), not sure either side cares that much about playing. Manfred seems to pushing his agenda pretty hard.

[scOtt]

23 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So... won't MLB teams have a huge incentive to get around the salary cap?  Teams will get many millions in revenues for winning more, for winning playoff series, for winning the World Series.  We already know they'll cheat with sign stealing, doctoring balls and bats.  Why not going around the cap?

It's what you do in baseball. Since Abner Doubleday. You bend the rules till they break.

[scOtt]

21 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Im  all for this, for the stankees:

Beat me to it!

[Cavspider]

3 hours 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 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.

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.

 

[Redskins Rick]

15 minutes ago, scOtt said:

Beat me to it!

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

[MurphDogg]

34 minutes ago, Cavspider said:

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.

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 almost certain 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.

[Big Mac]

3 hours 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. 

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.

If this is really what that provision says, I don't see how "economic feasibility" does not include the costs of paying the players.  

[MurphDogg]

8 minutes ago, Big Mac said:

If this is really what that provision says, I don't see how "economic feasibility" does not include the costs of paying the players.  

The two options are to (1) pay the players to play what you have agreed to pay them in front of no fans or (2) cancel the season. Logically, the only way that paying the players becomes economically infeasible is if it is cheaper to cancel the season completely.

Economic feasibility isn't based on maximizing profitability or minimizing losses to the owners by modifying the other portions of the agreement. It is based on the difference between those two binary choices.

[Redskins Rick]

15 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

The two options are to (1) pay the players to play what you have agreed to pay them in front of no fans or (2) cancel the season. Logically, the only way that paying the players becomes economically infeasible is if it is cheaper to cancel the season completely.

Economic feasibility isn't based on maximizing profitability or minimizing losses to the owners by modifying the other portions of the agreement. It is based on the difference between those two binary choices.

Usually, the two sides present their side of things, each one tilted towards what they want.

But realistic people understand, that its a give and take and come up with a compromise so that each side can declare they win.

These two sides, dont appear to have that intellectual properties to accomplish this.

 

[MurphDogg]

Scott Boras drops in with his (unsolicited? Unwanted?) opinion.

[MurphDogg]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Usually, the two sides present their side of things, each one tilted towards what they want.

But realistic people understand, that its a give and take and come up with a compromise so that each side can declare they win.

These two sides, dont appear to have that intellectual properties to accomplish this.

They did that in March. What the owners want to do now is get a bailout from the players because they don't like the deal they agreed to in March.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

Scott Boras drops in with his (unsolicited? Unwanted?) opinion.

IMO, Boras is just one of the parts that is wrong with the current MLB.

Yes, he is supposed to fight for his clients and get the most for them.

But, I think there is enough evidence that points him as being self serving for his own agenda and his client advice is not always in their best interest.

 

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

They did that in March. What the owners want to do now is get a bailout from the players because they don't like the deal they agreed to in March.

Before the lockdown and half of the season being gone, right?

Hard to image, not readdressing things.

 

[Cavspider]

4 hours ago, MurphDogg said:

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.

I have not read the agreement and was relying on what you wrote.

If the owners have bargained for and gotten the right to decide when the season starts, that is a huge chip.  Nothing in your post that I relied upon said anything about opening up books or proving losses.  You also said that the players agreed to negotiate in good faith if the games had to be played without fans.

All of this means to me that the players are losers if they do not reconsider their position such that the owners limit the season in a way that renders finances moot.

Again, if there is a written agreement I have not seen it but I have seen the AP report of it which is pretty detailed.  https://foxbaltimore.com/sports/sports-unlimited/details-of-mlb-players-union-agreement-on-2020-21-seasons

The excerpt below seems to support that it is likely that the owners could cancel the season justifiably with good cause unless they decide to bend over backwards to make some truncated season happen.

I still think the owners have almost all the leverage.  And I see nothing that makes me think they'd have to open up the books to justify cancelling the season for health concerns.  There also seems to be plenty to suggest that financial concerns over possibly playing without fans was contemplated.  But deciding to limit or cancel the season for health and logistical reasons seem easy to meet in my opinion. 

"STARTING SEASON

There must be no government restrictions on mass gatherings or travel restrictions throughout the U.S. and Canada, provided the commissioner will consider "appropriate substitute neutral sites where economically feasible." The commissioner must determine, after consulting with the union and medical experts, "that it does not pose an unreasonable health and safety risk to players, staff or spectators to stage games in front of fans in each of the 30 clubs' home ballparks." MLB and the union will discuss the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans. The commissioner has the right to suspend or cancel games after the start of the season if government restrictions or travel conditions change."

[MurphDogg]

9 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Before the lockdown and half of the season being gone, right?

Hard to image, not readdressing things.

Why is it hard to imagine?

It was completely foreseeable in March that they might have to play without fans and it was completely foreseeable that the season may not be able to be started until July. None of the fundamental assumptions underlying the agreement made in March have changed.

The owners have already benefited from the agreement in various ways mostly related to cost certainty (that they will only have to pay the players their pro-rated salary, service time questions have been answered, they know that they will not have to pay the players anything more if the season isn't played, that they were able to screw over amateurs by shortening the draft, etc.).

The only thing thing that is changed is that the owners have looked into their pocketbooks and stock portfolios and decided that they would like the players to take less money please, and hope that the media would carry their water for them and fans would blame the "greedy" players like they always do.