Delayed start, 154 game season, expanded playoffs?

[Legend_Of_Joey]

Nothing about the roster or DH. Looks like there would be some “built in” double headers to accommodate the schedule.

[linedrive]

Bummer. Not surprising though. I figured there'd be a delayed start and fewer games. Still, I was hoping for a "normal" season. But I'm okay with everything in the proposal except the one month delay and one week extension. I'd rather have a 3-week delay and no extension. I'd even be happy to permanently play only 154 games per season.

[MurphDogg]

Seems like MLB needs to offer something to the players, beyond what they already owe them (full salary) in exchange for something that MLB wants and would seem to hurt the players (expanded playoffs). 

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not sure how expanded playoffs hurt the players.

I guess for a lot the union leader types the playoff share would be less than regular season pay but it's still extra money.

I would think that, in general, players would prefer to make the playoffs over not making the playoffs.

[accinfo]

7 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Seems like MLB needs to offer something to the players, beyond what they already owe them (full salary) in exchange for something that MLB wants and would seem to hurt the players (expanded playoffs). 

They seem to be offering them full pay for 162 games to play 154.  It isn't nothing.  

[MurphDogg]

2 minutes ago, accinfo said:

They seem to be offering them full pay for 162 games to play 154.  It isn't nothing.  

With doubleheaders, which players don't particularly care for (although they probably have less of an issue if they are 7 inning doubleheaders).

The owners aren't giving up anything. They are giving up 8 games that aren't going to make them money in exchange for games that will make them more money.

Also it establishes a precedent for 154 games, which the owners clearly prefer.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, MurphDogg said:

With doubleheaders, which players don't particularly care for (although they probably have less of an issue if they are 7 inning doubleheaders).

The owners aren't giving up anything. They are giving up 8 games that aren't going to make them money in exchange for games that will make them more money.

Also it establishes a precedent for 154 games, which the owners clearly prefer.

 

I think the players would be more in favor of a shorter regular season.

[NCRaven]

5 minutes ago, accinfo said:

They seem to be offering them full pay for 162 games to play 154.  It isn't nothing.  

This is correct.  MLB TradeRumors also reports it includes universal DH.  The union considers expanded playoffs an item that gives them leverage in the CBA negotiations and they don't want to give it up.  They are getting 162 games of pay for 154 games.  A slightly delayed regular season gives ownership a better chance to have fans in the stands for both the regular and post season games.  Best thing is that the union is actually considering it.  They usually just reject things out of hand.

[MurphDogg]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

I think the players would be more in favor of a shorter regular season.

They would be fine with it, but it has always been paired with a 5 percent salary cut, which players aren't in favor of. For this season, it wouldn't be, but that is the fear long term.

The problem is that the league makes a lot more money in the playoffs whereas the players make a lot more money during the season, so their interests are divergent.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

They would be fine with it, but it has always been paired with a 5 percent salary cut, which players aren't in favor of. For this season, it wouldn't be, but that is the fear long term.

The problem is that the league makes a lot more money in the playoffs whereas the players make a lot more money during the season, so their interests are divergent.

Depends on the player but yea, the union leadership should make more per game in the regular season.  But playoff shares is still extra money.  The number of guys who would rather go home instead of playing in the playoffs has to be pretty small.

I of course agree that players aren't interested in a 5% pay cut.

[MurphDogg]

This would be a decent jumping off point, if the players were to get revenue sharing for expanded playoffs.

[MurphDogg]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Depends on the player but yea, the union leadership should make more per game in the regular season.  But playoff shares is still extra money. 

Players playoff shares only come from gate receipts, not the increasingly enormous tv revenues.

The increase on the players side would be a pittance compared to the increase on the owners side.

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, MurphDogg said:

Players playoff shares only come from gate receipts, not the increasingly enormous tv revenues.

The increase on the players side would be a pittance compared to the increase on the owners side.

I've still never heard of players not wanting to participate in the playoffs.

Even if they benefit owners more.

I've been following Craig since his shysterball days and I don't see how this "probably hurts" players.

[FlipTheBird]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've still never heard of players not wanting to participate in the playoffs.

Even if they benefit owners more.

I've been following Craig since his shysterball days and I don't see how this "probably hurts" players.

Craig needs to find something to be upset with the owners about, for fear of not being “on-brand” with the messaging he’s stuck to the past few years.

This seems like a very fair offer.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, FlipTheBird said:

Craig needs to find something to be upset with the owners about, for fear of not being “on-brand” with the messaging he’s stuck to the past few years.

This seems like a very fair offer.

Particularly for an initial offer.