Owners submit new economic plan to union : UPDATED

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, MurphDogg said:

Why is it hard to imagine?

It was completely foreseeable that they might have to play without fans and it was completely foreseeable that the season may not be 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.

Hard to image the owners being so heavy handed, to stick it to the players, would not be determent to the health and longevity of the game. It would take a majority of the owners to be in this mindset.

But, thats my unprofessional perception, and I will freely admit, to not being fully abreast of the entire picture involved.

 

[Big Mac]

37 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.

I mean, there is always option (3) to renegotiate the contract.  If those are really the only two options and the owners say they have to cancel the season because it's not economically feasible to play without fans, then of course there is the option to renegotiate.  Now, if the players ask for proof of this and the owners refuse to offer it, presumably the owners are in breach and negotiating in bad faith.  

Either way,, neither one of us has actually read the contract so who knows.  I generally side with the players but it is very likely the contract is at least slightly ambiguous on this.  Are the owners exploiting that ambiguity? Most likely. 

[rudyrooster]

With each day that passes a 2020 baseball season seems less likely.  So sad.

[MurphDogg]

21 minutes ago, Big Mac said:

I mean, there is always option (3) to renegotiate the contract.  If those are really the only two options and the owners say they have to cancel the season because it's not economically feasible to play without fans, then of course there is the option to renegotiate.  Now, if the players ask for proof of this and the owners refuse to offer it, presumably the owners are in breach and negotiating in bad faith.  

Either way,, neither one of us has actually read the contract so who knows.  I generally side with the players but it is very likely the contract is at least slightly ambiguous on this.  Are the owners exploiting that ambiguity? Most likely. 

I agree, but option 3 is only an option IF the owners are on solid legal ground in threatening option 2. And they haven't yet proven that they are.

If the owners do so, and the players come back and make option 3 a reality, then it should be recognized by both the league and the media, that the players saved the season.

What instead will happen, is that the players will, as always, be portrayed as greedy for looking out for their financial interests when it is accepted as a given that the owner's financial interests are paramount. And every effort is being made to force the players to "compromise" before the owners have overcome their burden of proof.

I do not believe that the owners will lose more money not playing a season than playing in front of no fans while paying the players their pro-rated salaries. And even if I am wrong in that belief, I further believe that the long term prospects (and financial value) of MLB teams will be more damaged by a canceled season than by any additional amount of money the owners will lose by playing in front of no fans vs. canceling the season.

For that reason, I think the owners need to move forward with the season even if, for the first time in 25 years, they take some financial lumps.

And hey, if the players and owners have time to hammer out a whole new CBA starting with the 2022 season to avoid a strike/lockout after 2021 as part of the exchange for renegotiating the March agreement, that is fine too, but they shouldn't renegotiate financial terms for nothing if, as I believe, nothing underlying the March agreement has changed.

I am going to log out now, so no hard feelings if I don't respond to any further posts for a while. I enjoyed reading other peoples thoughts and getting my thoughts down, based on my understanding of the facts, but today is my birthday and I am going to take the rest of the day off from thinking about labor strife!

Will check back in tomorrow!

[Big Mac]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

I agree, but option 3 is only an option IF the owners are on solid legal ground in threatening option 2. And they haven't yet proven that they are.

If the owners do so, and the players come back and make option 3 a reality, then it should be recognized by both the league and the media, that the players saved the season.

What instead will happen, is that the players will, as always, be portrayed as greedy for looking out for their financial interests when it is accepted as a given that the owner's financial interests are paramount. And every effort is being made to force the players to "compromise" before the owners have overcome their burden of proof.

I do not believe that the owners will lose more money not playing a season than playing in front of no fans while paying the players their pro-rated salaries. And even if I am wrong in that belief, I further believe that the long term prospects (and financial value) of MLB teams will be more damaged by a canceled season than by any additional amount of money the owners will lose by playing in front of no fans vs. canceling the season.

For that reason, I think the owners need to move forward with the season.

And hey, if the players and owners have time to hammer out a whole new CBA starting with the 2022 season to avoid a strike/lockout after 2021 as part of the exchange for renegotiating the March agreement, that is fine too, but they shouldn't renegotiate financial terms for nothing if, as I believe, nothing underlying the March agreement has changed.

I am going to log out now, so no hard feelings if I don't respond to any further posts for a while. I enjoyed reading other peoples thoughts and getting my thoughts down, based on my understanding of the facts, but today is my birthday and I am going to take the rest of the day off from thinking about labor strife!

Will check back in tomorrow!

Pretty much agree with all of this.  Happy birthday!

[Moose Milligan]

15 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

 

What instead will happen, is that the players will, as always, be portrayed as greedy for looking out for their financial interests when it is accepted as a given that the owner's financial interests are paramount. And every effort is being made to force the players to "compromise" before the owners have overcome their burden of proof.

I don't totally disagree.  And the trite thing we hear is "billionaires vs. millionaires."

The owners are, largely a faceless entity.   I mean, we know who the Angelos family is but I don't know who owns the Kansas City Royals.  I can't name the Padres owner.  Or the Blue Jays owner.  I can tell you the Lerner family owns the Nats but that's because they're in close proximity.

What I am trying to say is that the owners, from the perspective of the court of public opinion, seem to get by from facing criticism here because they're not seen every day.  They're not easily identifiable to everyone and for the most part they're not on Twitter and not making statements in the media that...well, rub fans the wrong way.  Meanwhile, everyone who follows baseball knows who Blake Snell, Bryce Harper and Max Scherzer are.

The other thing that the owners have going for them, I believe, is that they're probably not relying on their MLB teams as their only income stream.  Many of these people have made money elsewhere which have afforded them the ability to own a sports team.  Meanwhile, MLB players...this is really if for them.  Some of them will find success in other avenues of life after retirement, some won't.  And therefore, they are looking for their best interests and have no shame in saying so.  MLB owners don't NEED to own teams to be financially successful, they already were before purchasing their teams.  A lot of players need to play the game in order to lead a lifestyle they've become accustomed to.  

It's unfortunate that the players don't really seem to care about the court of public opinion, that they're whining about things not being fair when there's record unemployment numbers.  It's a simple concept, one that they don't seem to grasp.  I don't have an issue with players salaries being what they are...I liken it to movie stars and what they make.  Baseball is entertainment, other entertainers make a lot of money and baseball players should be no different.

But when it comes to the billionaires vs. millionaires...in this case, give me the billionaires.  At least they're trying to move the season forward.  Had they not made this proposal I get the feeling that the players would have been perfectly happy to kick up their heels and stay home all summer without saying a word.  And now that the owners want to have some semblance of a season in a manner that restricts their revenue due to not being able to have fans, concessions, etc, the players are acting like taking less money for less games is a slap in the face and an insult.  

Which, to people who are out of a job and are struggling to make rent and pay bills...is insulting.

[weams]

https://apnews.com/103a8516de52f487b57173992a558816?utm_medium=AP_Sports&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

 

[weams]

1 minute ago, weams said:

https://apnews.com/103a8516de52f487b57173992a558816?utm_medium=AP_Sports&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

 

“please share this concept with your teammates and fellow players when MLB request further concessions or deferral of salaries.”

[atomic]

5 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.

 

I don't understand your total lack of logic in your argument.  The teams don't have to honor the CBA due to the pandemic.  They are losing 3/4's or their revenue due to half a season being played with no fans.  I just don't understand why you can't see both sides.   I think this is why we have so many issues in this country.   Both sides need to compromise. If the players are taking a risk by playing why are they suggesting a longer season.  None of your argument makes any sense.  Re-read what you posted and see that lack of logic or fairness. 

[atomic]

49 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

With each day that passes a 2020 baseball season seems less likely.  So sad.

Have you seen the Orioles roster? If you were going to pick a season to skip this surely would be the one. 

[atomic]

Having only the top earning players on the negating committee is a mistake. You should have guys like Alberto and Means on there as well.   Hard to feel sorry for players when they don't care about minor league players.  Scherzer got a big signing bonus so he never had to worry about what he was going to eat that day while playing in the minors.  He has made $186 million in his career.  He doesn't care about the guy maxing the league minimum..  To him he is being ripped off for playing half a season and only making $7.5 million.  

The players should be negotiating for the guys in the minors to get pay raises and to get paid during this whole year.  

Both owners and players should be negotiating in good faith.  Seems neither side cares to.  Hopefully they will have it settled by April.  

 

[atomic]

32 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't totally disagree.  And the trite thing we hear is "billionaires vs. millionaires."

The owners are, largely a faceless entity.   I mean, we know who the Angelos family is but I don't know who owns the Kansas City Royals.  I can't name the Padres owner.  Or the Blue Jays owner.  I can tell you the Lerner family owns the Nats but that's because they're in close proximity.

What I am trying to say is that the owners, from the perspective of the court of public opinion, seem to get by from facing criticism here because they're not seen every day.  They're not easily identifiable to everyone and for the most part they're not on Twitter and not making statements in the media that...well, rub fans the wrong way.  Meanwhile, everyone who follows baseball knows who Blake Snell, Bryce Harper and Max Scherzer are.

The other thing that the owners have going for them, I believe, is that they're probably not relying on their MLB teams as their only income stream.  Many of these people have made money elsewhere which have afforded them the ability to own a sports team.  Meanwhile, MLB players...this is really if for them.  Some of them will find success in other avenues of life after retirement, some won't.  And therefore, they are looking for their best interests and have no shame in saying so.  MLB owners don't NEED to own teams to be financially successful, they already were before purchasing their teams.  A lot of players need to play the game in order to lead a lifestyle they've become accustomed to.  

It's unfortunate that the players don't really seem to care about the court of public opinion, that they're whining about things not being fair when there's record unemployment numbers.  It's a simple concept, one that they don't seem to grasp.  I don't have an issue with players salaries being what they are...I liken it to movie stars and what they make.  Baseball is entertainment, other entertainers make a lot of money and baseball players should be no different.

But when it comes to the billionaires vs. millionaires...in this case, give me the billionaires.  At least they're trying to move the season forward.  Had they not made this proposal I get the feeling that the players would have been perfectly happy to kick up their heels and stay home all summer without saying a word.  And now that the owners want to have some semblance of a season in a manner that restricts their revenue due to not being able to have fans, concessions, etc, the players are acting like taking less money for less games is a slap in the face and an insult.  

Which, to people who are out of a job and are struggling to make rent and pay bills...is insulting.

Really the players are really using the wrong people to talk to the press.  Guys like Scherzer have more money than they could ever spend.  They are also using the wrong words when speaking out.  You would think their agents and their MLBPA would tell them to keep quiet and let this be handled behind closed doors.   Argue about money all you want but I don't need to hear about the constant whining.   People are losing businesses.  People are dying.  Just tell them to shut up already.  

You can argue all you want when you are face to face with the owners.  But please you have enough money. 

[Can_of_corn]

19 minutes ago, weams said:

https://apnews.com/103a8516de52f487b57173992a558816?utm_medium=AP_Sports&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

 

He's not wrong.

I think they allow ownership groups to assume way more debt than I think is appropriate.

[scOtt]

38 minutes ago, weams said:

https://apnews.com/103a8516de52f487b57173992a558816?utm_medium=AP_Sports&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

I don't disagree with a lot of what Boras is saying. But I also agree with this:

 

 

Cincinnati pitcher Trevor Bauer addressed Boras on Wednesday on Twitter.

“Hearing a LOT of rumors about a certain player agent meddling in MLBPA affairs,” Bauer tweeted. “If true — and at this point, these are only rumors — I have one thing to say ... Scott Boras, rep your clients however you want to, but keep your damn personal agenda out of union business.”

[scOtt]

This is an EXTREME analogy but it's a little like the mob controlling Jimmy Hoffa and the AFL-CIO. An outside source influencing Union/Mgmt. negotiations.