Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Zulgad: Is MLB really making return about dollars and cents?

  • Please log in to reply
254 replies to this topic

#1 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 18,390 posts

Posted 13 May 2020 - 11:22 PM

https://www.skornort...lars-and-cents/

 

The owners have made their proposal to the players. The players association will now have to vote. 

 

The owners want to introduce a form of revenue sharing and a sort of salary cap. The players won't (and shouldn't) like that. 

 

 

 

You can fall on either side of the fence and many will. Some will call the owners cheap and others will claim players are greedy. Both things are likely true and at this point neither matter.There hasn’t been a work stoppage in baseball since the 1994 season was halted by a strike in mid-August — that led to the World Series being cancelled — and play did not resume until late April 1995.

It took MLB years to recover from that strike and a big part of that recovery was the steroid-filled summer of 1998. If you think fans were mad 25 years ago, just imagine what the reaction would be if MLB commissioner Rob Manfred’s league decides fighting over dollars is more important than providing fans with entertainment in the year of COVID-19?

 

Millionaires fighting against billionaires will be the story for many, but should the players just give in at this point? How might that play out when the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires?

 

There are plenty of reasons for the players to be nervous about getting back on the field that are related to the pandemic... 

  • SQUIRREL, glunn and nclahammer like this

#2 rdehring

rdehring

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Member
  • 1,971 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 07:54 AM

Actually a very good article, Seth.

 

And hopefully, both sides will focus on making it as safe as possible and be reasonable regarding the dollars.All the other changes related to the DH, where they play, etc. are minor.

 

As for the dollars, hopefully, the league will forget about the 50-50 revenue sharing idea and focus on working with the players to get some type of reasonable (to both sides) percentage of each player's per game contractual salary.Fifty percent would be too low for the players and 100% would be too high for the owners.But somewhere in between there is a percentage that both sides can accept and live with.

 

Hopefully, they can get this settled and get to work at all the other things that have to happen to get players on the field. 


#3 Trov

Trov

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 469 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 08:25 AM

As it is correct, if the players go public like Blake Snell, that it is about the money, they will look bad.They will bicker over a little bit of money, as one ESPN article pointed out, they could actually earn more this year under a 50/50 split depending on playoff tv contracts.But the players do not want to cap their earning potential with a 50/50 split and do not want the precedent of agreeing to do so.

 

However, when millions are out of work standing in lines for food shelfs and begging to go back to work, the players are going to complain over money?They owners are offering a job for still large amounts of money and the players will want more money, without even really looking into how it could break down.This would also cost other their jobs.Sure they could try to shift this on the owners, but the owners made first offer and so they look like they are trying and the players look like the greedy people costing thousands in baseball jobs, and costing America baseball to watch.To many 50/50 sounds reasonable, each side gets their share.Really, the owners are taking all the risk because they will still have to pay out of their 50 other salaries, ballpark costs, travel costs ect.It is not a 50/50 split of profit, but of all revenue.The players are only taking a risk they may earn a little less than they would with a pro rata payment, with possible of more.

 

However, if the players make a strong front and say this is about safety of our self and family with having to interact at higher levels with people.Since what has been leaked to press has little to no details on the safety part of the plan, this could help get player support if season does not happen.It is the players hands on how to approach this.

 

Regardless, if a season is not played, many will believe it was money based, and that just does not sit well with anyone that is wishing they would be offered to work again.Now of course in a normal union job if the offer was to return to work at a lower wage many would balk at that idea, but if you were earning 50K a year asking to earn 40K that is harder pill to swallow for a person, than 5 million to 4 million.Sure, the percentage is the same, but with cost of living being nearly the same, sure the 5 million earner could have higher living standards, but it does not change how much food, phone, internet, and other utilities will cost.  

 

No matter what happens this year, I will be watching on TV again when I can, adding to the value the players will get.However, if attendance and ratings drop, the players should think about how that will affect their bottom line, even without a 50/50 split.As much as I am pro labor, if the players want to fight over this tooth and nail and strike for this, I would side with owners.Owners do not run a charity to have baseball, they do it to earn money.If they are losing money they should not run a team, just because they could lose money, this is not a business model to follow. 

  • glunn, Cap'n Piranha, TopGunn#22 and 4 others like this

#4 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 14 May 2020 - 11:14 AM

Why do the players have to give in?
  • Mike Sixel likes this

#5 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,477 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 11:22 AM

Trov is right--Blake Snell's comments published on ESPN this morning, wherein he says making multiple millions of dollars to "risk his life", are not going to play well with the grocery store clerk working far harder, for more hours, with much higher risk, all for $10 an hour.

 

Things like this are part of why the owners generally beat the players in negotiations; the owners understand (or at least employ people who do) optics.

  • Danchat, spanman2, ewen21 and 2 others like this

#6 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,477 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 11:30 AM

 

Why do the players have to give in?

 

Because they foolishly didn't have their own proposal out first, and therefore are stuck trying to explain why an even split of money (which works out to billions of dollars for playing a game) is unfair.They further have to explain that to a country with 36M unemployed people who would need their entire lifetime to equal the earnings of the average MLB player.

  • TopGunn#22, Halsey Hall, Major League Ready and 3 others like this

#7 SQUIRREL

SQUIRREL

    Rally SQUIRREL!!!!

  • Moderator
  • 26,386 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 11:43 AM

They already agreed to a contract. MLB wants to break that now. If it's about the money, the owners made it about the money when they reneged and went public with it without negotiating first and quietly. They set it up in public first ... well maybe, but we can't afford it unless the players ... Yes, as Cap'n Piranha said, it's about the optics, and the owners win that one, thanks to Snell and good PR, however, the money it's about comes from them, and them alone. It's a management tactic ... 'look how much these guys make?' to put the pressure on. I agree that the grocery store clerk should be making much more, and this whole thing emphasized that, big time. They aren't making less because of the players and what the players will or won't agree to. But, MLB and the players already agreed on a contract, and MLB are the ones reneging and doing what they can to make out how bad the players are for not just agreeing to breaking the contract. I don't buy it. I've been on the receiving end of that tactic enough times in my life. I want to see baseball again as much as the next person, but I don't blame the players on this. MLB and the owners handled it poorly, imo. It's not about what the players deserve or don't, should or shouldn't ... there was an agreement made already. Then there's the safety issue ... I'm not sure how you get past that, unless everyone is in quarantine the entire half season.

  • Vanimal46 and Nine of twelve like this
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

#8 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 14 May 2020 - 11:49 AM

Because they foolishly didn't have their own proposal out first, and therefore are stuck trying to explain why an even split of money (which works out to billions of dollars for playing a game) is unfair. They further have to explain that to a country with 36M unemployed people who would need their entire lifetime to equal the earnings of the average MLB player.


Did you not see the owners backing away from their previous agreement of pro-rated salaries? Now they want players to take a further pay cut because of projected losses.

The owners made this about money. The players have every right to also make it about money.

Here’s the difference between players and the 36 million unemployed. The players have highly specialized skills. Millions of average joes want to see them play for their entertainment.

#9 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,477 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 12:38 PM

 

Did you not see the owners backing away from their previous agreement of pro-rated salaries? Now they want players to take a further pay cut because of projected losses.

The owners made this about money. The players have every right to also make it about money.

Here’s the difference between players and the 36 million unemployed. The players have highly specialized skills. Millions of average joes want to see them play for their entertainment.

 

https://www.espn.com...-season-players

 

Did you miss the part in the third to last paragraph where is states "The sides also agreed in March to discuss the economics of a season played without fans in the stands"?Seems like it was acknowledged that further discussion might be needed, and now one side doesn't want to hold up that end of the bargain.The players have every right, of course, to make it about money; my point is that complaining about "only" being paid $2M to $3M to play in maybe 17 games (which is what pitchers, like Snell, would do in an 81 game season) is spectacularly bad optics at any time, and especially so right now.

 

I have no problem with players being paid what they're being paid--if the market is willing to bear the cost, then full speed ahead.I'm saying this battle is largely one of public perception, and the very first move the player's side made was to make it seem like they are laughably out of touch with reality.

 

Furthermore, the owners can always choose to simply weather the next few years without today's players, and rely on a combination of minor leaguers, out of work veterans, and young players with only a year or two of service time who will break from the union.10 years from now, most of today's big names will be gone (for example, of the 30 hitters with the highest WAR from the 2010 season, Brett Gardner is probably the most relevant today--would anyone bemoan a reality where Brett Gardner no longer plays baseball).

 

On the other hand, the players would need to find multiple entities willing to assume hundreds of millions in start-up costs, with no guarantee of sufficient revenue at any point in the future--seems much more difficult to me.

  • TopGunn#22, Major League Ready, sftwinsfan and 1 other like this

#10 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 14 May 2020 - 01:33 PM

 

https://www.espn.com...-season-players

 

Did you miss the part in the third to last paragraph where is states "The sides also agreed in March to discuss the economics of a season played without fans in the stands"?Seems like it was acknowledged that further discussion might be needed, and now one side doesn't want to hold up that end of the bargain.The players have every right, of course, to make it about money; my point is that complaining about "only" being paid $2M to $3M to play in maybe 17 games (which is what pitchers, like Snell, would do in an 81 game season) is spectacularly bad optics at any time, and especially so right now.

 

I have no problem with players being paid what they're being paid--if the market is willing to bear the cost, then full speed ahead.I'm saying this battle is largely one of public perception, and the very first move the player's side made was to make it seem like they are laughably out of touch with reality.

 

Furthermore, the owners can always choose to simply weather the next few years without today's players, and rely on a combination of minor leaguers, out of work veterans, and young players with only a year or two of service time who will break from the union.10 years from now, most of today's big names will be gone (for example, of the 30 hitters with the highest WAR from the 2010 season, Brett Gardner is probably the most relevant today--would anyone bemoan a reality where Brett Gardner no longer plays baseball).

 

On the other hand, the players would need to find multiple entities willing to assume hundreds of millions in start-up costs, with no guarantee of sufficient revenue at any point in the future--seems much more difficult to me.

 

You won't get an argument by me that it's bad optics on both sides. The players aren't going to get any sympathy for battling over millions of dollars from average Joes. The owners may be out of the public right now, but they're just as guilty of making this a fight between money. Their poor optics are not negotiating in good faith one year away from a major CBA negotiation. 

 

We're reading different sources in regards to the pro-rated contracts. I read this quote from Scott Boras in SI

 

“The players I represent are unified in that they reached an agreement and they sacrificed anywhere from 30 to 40% of their salaries so that the games could amicably continue,” said Boras. “The owners represented during that negotiation that they could operate without fans in the ballpark. Based on that, we reached an agreement and there will not be a renegotiation of that agreement.”

 

Which makes me believe they discussed not having fans in the stands, owners agreed to the pro-rated salaries, and now owners want to take that back to see what other concessions they can get out of the players. 

 

By the way, didn't the MLB use replacement players during the strike in 1995 and it was a colossal failure? Would you pay the same amount of money to attend a game at Target Field with a team full of AAAA talent?  

 

 


#11 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 14 May 2020 - 01:56 PM

  • SQUIRREL and Sconnie like this

#12 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,477 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:07 PM

 

You won't get an argument by me that it's bad optics on both sides. The players aren't going to get any sympathy for battling over millions of dollars from average Joes. The owners may be out of the public right now, but they're just as guilty of making this a fight between money. Their poor optics are not negotiating in good faith one year away from a major CBA negotiation. 

 

We're reading different sources in regards to the pro-rated contracts. I read this quote from Scott Boras in SI

 

“The players I represent are unified in that they reached an agreement and they sacrificed anywhere from 30 to 40% of their salaries so that the games could amicably continue,” said Boras. “The owners represented during that negotiation that they could operate without fans in the ballpark. Based on that, we reached an agreement and there will not be a renegotiation of that agreement.”

 

Which makes me believe they discussed not having fans in the stands, owners agreed to the pro-rated salaries, and now owners want to take that back to see what other concessions they can get out of the players. 

 

By the way, didn't the MLB use replacement players during the strike in 1995 and it was a colossal failure? Would you pay the same amount of money to attend a game at Target Field with a team full of AAAA talent?  

 

Would I pay the same amount?No.But I would pay to watch the team below;

 

C: Jeffers

1B: Rooker

2B: Arraez if they can get him to cross ( I would think a 3 year, $15M contract would do it, since he's made only about $500k as a big leaguer)

SS: Lewis

3B: Maggi

LF: Larnach

CF: Wade (same as Arraez--offer him 3 and 9, and he probably crosses)

RF Kiriloff

 

Pitchers: Sands, Ober, Balazovic, Duran, Alcala, Jax, etc (Dobnak, Smeltzer and Thorpe could probably all be induced to cross too)

 

The Twins could put together a pretty decent roster for about $40M, and that's if they give those minor league guys $1M each, which means they could cover all salary costs with just the money from FSN.If we're assuming fans are back involved, the Twins could cut prices by 50 to 60%, and slowly raise those over the next few years as their player costs go back up.

  • TopGunn#22 likes this

#13 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:15 PM

That team against other MLB teams would challenge the Cleveland Spiders win percentage. We really really underestimate just how good these players are that make the MLB. 

  • SQUIRREL, ashbury, Platoon and 1 other like this

#14 ashbury

ashbury

    Twins fan for life!

  • Member
  • 25,643 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 14 May 2020 - 03:03 PM

That team against other MLB teams would challenge the Cleveland Spiders win percentage. We really really underestimate just how good these players are that make the MLB. 

"Like" clicked, if only for the reference to the legendary 1899 Spiders. Their most accomplished batter, a part-time 38-year old backup catcher, achieved 0.9 WAR - their least painful pitcher, 0.1 in an awesome 3 innings. Maybe we'd be better than them.

 

In addition to your point, would the high-end prospects risk their future stature in the eyes of other major leaguers by playing under such circumstances? Signing on for a career filled with more than the average number of brushback pitches, etc., could be too much to ask. Only someone who calculates they will come out ahead, versus the likely cup-of-coffee scenario, will accept the call-up. Said differently, once they are called up, aren't they automatically offered union membership, at which time maybe they reach the same decision as their brethren?
 

  • SQUIRREL and Vanimal46 like this

It's so simple to be wise: think of something stupid and say the opposite. -- Sam Levenson


#15 SomeGuy

SomeGuy

    Ft Myers Miracle

  • Member
  • 473 posts

Posted 14 May 2020 - 03:46 PM

If owners take a big loss this year, payrolls will decline for 2021 and beyond.One way or the other the players will split this revenue loss.

  • Cap'n Piranha, TopGunn#22 and ewen21 like this

#16 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Bad puns. That's how eye roll.

  • Moderator
  • 25,983 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 14 May 2020 - 05:43 PM

Offer MLB jobs to whatever minor leaguers will take them.

After making it clear any player currently under contract who refuses to play under the 50/50 proposal will be banned for life from MLB.

Let's see how Blake Snell feels about earning his living like most Americans do.
  • dcswede, ewen21 and Battle ur tail off like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#17 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Wooo!

  • Moderator
  • 6,136 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 14 May 2020 - 07:56 PM

Offer MLB jobs to whatever minor leaguers will take them.

After making it clear any player currently under contract who refuses to play under the 50/50 proposal will be banned for life from MLB.

Let's see how Blake Snell feels about earning his living like most Americans do.

watch the work stoppage, strike and picket line

Good luck getting a new CBA after that maneuver...
  • SQUIRREL likes this

#18 Trevor0333

Trevor0333

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 420 posts

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:12 AM

I would love to see the league move towards a NBA type model where a salary cap is based on a percentage of league revenue. 

  • dcswede likes this

#19 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Pitch(er) Mix: Tequila, Orange Liqueur, Lime Juice

  • Member
  • 13,577 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 15 May 2020 - 09:52 AM

Offer MLB jobs to whatever minor leaguers will take them.

After making it clear any player currently under contract who refuses to play under the 50/50 proposal will be banned for life from MLB.

Let's see how Blake Snell feels about earning his living like most Americans do.


I enjoy the irony of a guy who, like me, would trade prospects for proven MLB talent almost every time, now says give the job to any willing minor leaguer. Don’t get lost in the tone of the message. The players have a right to push back after previously accepting a pro-rated rate on their contract.


#20 glunn

glunn

    Head Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 9,677 posts
  • LocationBeverly Hills, CA

Posted 16 May 2020 - 02:21 PM

I have read above and elsewhere that the deal regarding proration of salaries based on the number of games played included language about further reductions if games have to be played in empty stadiums. So I don't blame the owners for asking for this.

 

If I represented the players, I would insist that the owners fully open their books on a confidential basis, with the objective of conducting a negotiation where both sides have adequate knowledge to make a fair deal.

 

If I represented the owners, I would advise them to open their books, and to seek a long-term revenue sharing deal that is similar to those in other sports.

 

This can be an ugly boondoggle, or it can be an opportunity to make a long term deal where the players share some of the losses from COVID, but get a larger and guaranteed share once COVID is over. In my view, the focus should be on a deal where both sides win.