NEW 60 GAME Proposal [Baseball is Back!]

[atomic]

29 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Educate me, Ive been away at the beach enjoying the sun and family. I parked my phone and ignored the outside world and now playing catch up.

Why would the players sue the owners for a shortened season?

They want to say that the owners could have played a 100 games season at full prorated salary if they acted in good faith.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Release from future litigation on the same topic is a fairly standard component of any legal settlement, no? So if the MLBPA and owners come to an agreement on how to proceed, wouldn't it stand to reason that both parties would agree not to sue each other for breach of contract re: how the season plays out vs. what's in the CBA going forward for 2020?

[LTO's]

18 hours ago, atomic said:

Why would the owners relent?  If you are going to sue if you get the virus that could be quite a liability to the team.  Seems reasonable for the owners to want this.  Players should know the risk and make a decision best for them individually.  

It's about suing them for not negotiating in good faith and trying to play as many games as possible. The players are under no obligation to waive that right. This was also not a condition the players were expected to adhere to originally. The owners won the stalling match and get their precious 50 game season but they wanted to extract more from the players. It's clear they are at fault here. What does this have to do with the virus? I think you're mistaken.

[atomic]

1 hour ago, LTO's said:

It's about suing them for not negotiating in good faith and trying to play as many games as possible. The players are under no obligation to waive that right. This was also not a condition the players were expected to adhere to originally. The owners won the stalling match and get their precious 50 game season but they wanted to extract more from the players. It's clear they are at fault here. What does this have to do with the virus? I think you're mistaken.

Yeah read my next post.  The players want full pro-rated salary and want to sue because the owners didn't play as many games as they wanted.  Ridiculous.  The players are clearly at fault. I don't agree with the owners very often but in this case players want full per game salary and then want to sue to get even more money.  I mean how could you side with the players?  

[foxfield]

18 hours ago, atomic said:

Yeah read my next post.  The players want full pro-rated salary and want to sue because the owners didn't play as many games as they wanted.  Ridiculous.  The players are clearly at fault. I don't agree with the owners very often but in this case players want full per game salary and then want to sue to get even more money.  I mean how could you side with the players?  

Like a whole lot of things...this is not an issue where one side is right and the other is not.  There is more than enough blame and greed to go around here.  And in fairness, both sides have merit to their arguments.  The issue here is neither side is committed to the game.  They are committed to beating the other side.  Its a very familiar bad tale....

[Frobby]

5 hours ago, atomic said:

Yeah read my next post.  The players want full pro-rated salary and want to sue because the owners didn't play as many games as they wanted.  Ridiculous.  The players are clearly at fault. I don't agree with the owners very often but in this case players want full per game salary and then want to sue to get even more money.  I mean how could you side with the players?  

I think what’s going on here is that MLB figures to lose money during the regular season but make money in the playoffs due to the much larger TV revenue that comes with that part of the season.   So, short regular season with a full set of playoffs (or even extended playoffs) suits them fine.    

I don’t really blame one side more than the other.    The players reached a deal in March and now the owners don’t want to stick with it.     But nobody was expecting at the time that the season would be played without fans.     It’s a mess.
 

[BohKnowsBmore]

5 hours ago, foxfield said:

Like a whole lot of things...this is not an issue where one side is right and the other is not.  There is more than enough blame and greed to go around here.  And if fairness, both sides have merit to their arguments.  The issue here is neither side is committed to the game.  They are committed to beating the other side.  Its a very familiar bad tale....

Agreed, this is why I really roll my eyes when some media members cast all the blame to one side (generally swaying pro-player).

This thread may seem like I'm "pro-owner:," but that's more a reaction to the tweet quoted in the OP.

[backwardsk]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I think what’s going on here is that MLB figures to lose money during the regular season but make money in the playoffs due to the much larger TV revenue that comes with that part of the season.   So, short regular season with a full set of playoffs (or even extended playoffs) suits them fine.    

I don’t really blame one side more than the other.    The players reached a deal in March and now the owners don’t want to stick with it.     But nobody was expecting at the time that the season would be played without fans.     It’s a mess.
 

Shouldn’t the owners have known that it would be a possibility though when the NBA shut down?  Why wouldn’t they have built that scenario into their agreement when they said they would pay the players 100% of the prorated games?  The owners made a bad deal for themselves and they want a do-over.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/dr-anthony-fauci-says-mlb-should-try-to-play-in-the-core-summer-months-and-avoid-october/amp/

The owners don’t want a season.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2896415-report-at-least-6-8-mlb-owners-dont-want-2020-season-to-be-played.amp.html

[atomic]

11 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Agreed, this is why I really roll my eyes when some media members cast all the blame to one side (generally swaying pro-player).

This thread may seem like I'm "pro-owner:," but that's more a reaction to the tweet quoted in the OP.

I think people would be willing to see players side when they aren’t acting like they are going to the poorhouse for accepting less than full prorated salary for playing in games without fans.  And we might see things differently if we had a playoff capable team and were a big market fans.

[LTO's]

18 hours ago, atomic said:

I mean how could you side with the players?  

Very easily. The majority of the players in the league are not millionaires and will have a career of a few years tops. They are in astronomically different financial positions than the average MLB owner and should maximize their earning while in the league. The owners made an awful deal for themselves, they knew 1000% the games were going to be played without fans and now they are trying to get out of it by playing as short a season as possible and trying to skip right to the playoffs. They know they are in trouble which is why the want the players to waive their legal right to file a grievance. As much as people want to live in la la land in this thread, this isn't a "game." It's a job where the labor generates billions of dollars of revenue. The players shouldn't waive their rights because some "fans" think they should for the love of the game. If you do that in any profession, you are a sucker.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, LTO's said:

Very easily. The majority of the players in the league are not millionaires and will have a career of a few years tops. They are in astronomically different financial positions than the average MLB owner and should maximize their earning while in the league. The owners made an awful deal for themselves, they knew 1000% the games were going to be played without fans and now they are trying to get out of it by playing as short a season as possible and trying to skip right to the playoffs. They know they are in trouble which is why the want the players to waive their legal right to file a grievance. As much as people want to live in la la land in this thread, this isn't a "game." It's a job where the labor generates billions of dollars of revenue. The players shouldn't waive their rights because some "fans" think they should for the love of the game. If you do that in any profession, you are a sucker.

Well if they're not millionaires, they should want to play so they can get whatever part of a salary they can get for this year.  The guys that "are not millionaires" that would make, I dunno, 200k this year instead of the league minimum don't get any sympathy for me.  200k isn't a lot for an MLB player but for anyone else in this country, it's a pretty good bit of money.

I'm not sorry that I don't feel bad for professional athletes.  A lot of them, if they invest right, can do really well in life despite not having a long career.  A lot of them can land on their feet and find success in other work and professions simply because at one time they were a pro athlete.  The cachet of once being a pro athlete opens doors for them that don't get opened for an average schmuck like you or me.

It's odd to me that people feel the need to come down on one side or another here, players vs owners.  They both suck.  

[backwardsk]

It’s more like $150k under the owner’s proposal.  So, only a $400K haircut on a $550k deal.  And when they test positive for Covid, do they get paid at all?  I don’t know.  I know that in the NFL proposal, they wouldn’t.  

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, backwardsk said:

It’s more like $150k under the owner’s proposal.  So, only a $400K haircut on a $550k deal.  And when they test positive for Covid, do they get paid at all?  I don’t know.  I know that in the NFL proposal, they wouldn’t.  

I'm sure that NFL/MLB players that test positive for Covid would get access to treatment that you and I wouldn't.  And they can quarantine in their really nice houses.  

 

[backwardsk]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

I'm sure that NFL/MLB players that test positive for Covid would get access to treatment that you and I wouldn't.  And they can quarantine in their really nice houses.  

 

I know if I get it, I’ll still get paid.

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

8 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well if they're not millionaires, they should want to play so they can get whatever part of a salary they can get for this year.  The guys that "are not millionaires" that would make, I dunno, 200k this year instead of the league minimum don't get any sympathy for me.  200k isn't a lot for an MLB player but for anyone else in this country, it's a pretty good bit of money.

I'm not sorry that I don't feel bad for professional athletes.  A lot of them, if they invest right, can do really well in life despite not having a long career.  A lot of them can land on their feet and find success in other work and professions simply because at one time they were a pro athlete.  The cachet of once being a pro athlete opens doors for them that it doesn't for an average schmuck like you or me. 

It's odd to me that people feel the need to come down on one side or another here, players vs owners.  They both suck.  

I think this is how most people feel. Baseball is an entertainment product, when it comes down to it. There's a suspension of disbelief involved with being a fan - just like being entertained by watching a movie. We obviously know that Jurassic Park isn't a real thing, but that doesn't stop us from being thrilled, scared, and emotionally moved when the T Rex breaks out of its cage and tries to eat the kids in the car. With being a baseball fan, there's a similar suspension of disbelief - we buy expensive hats and jerseys to feel part of the team's success even though we contribute absolutely nothing in the field of play, we can vilify other teams like the Yankees and Red Sox even though they are made up of innocent twenty-something kids, we can forget that we're paying large portions of our modest paycheck to watch millionaires throw a ball around.

That suspension of disbelief is a pretty fragile thing and is rather fleeting. Our ability to enjoy a movie can quickly die if an actor is exposed as being a not-so-great person. No one is listening to R Kelly anymore. People boycott restaurants or stores if it is discovered that they are donating to a backward political cause. Our ability to be a diehard fan can be affected in a similar way.

The public bickering and negotiations pulls back the curtain and makes people wake up and realize what professional baseball really is. MLB is built on a foundation of people paying expensive fees for cable subscriptions, overpriced beer and hotdogs, sales of ridiculous clothing that has the logo of a corporation on it, and bullying local governments to fund expensive stadiums. It's all a bit insidious.

There's plenty of articles out there about who is right or wrong - and most of that comes down to larger discussions about unions vs. corporations. At the end of the day, this isn't the local steamfitters union taking on an abusive corporation. It's a bunch of rich people arguing over when they're going to play games in extremely expensive stadiums that were publicly funded....that will be broadcast on cable subscriptions that people have still been paying for all year without any games at all. They're both wrong - and if they can't get their act together, it'll cause severe lasting damage.