Honest pay for honest work, be it owner, player, or beer vendor is fine by me. I have no problem with the negotiation. I just think that the players have a contract and a contract is a contract.
I agree completely that MilB players should be paid more or at least paid more consistently instead of unproven players getting multi-million dollar signing bonuses. However, I don't agree that poor pay during their development has any merit here. I went to college and grad school for 7 years and paid for that education. MiLB players are not paid enough but its a lot better than paying for developing the skills necessary at the next level.
Once again you are still completely missing the decision scenario present here. The owners decision is to cancel the remainder of the season or play. At full scale they no doubt increase already enormous losses. They can just cancel the season or they can ask the players if they are interested in playing at less than full-scale. The net result is still likely a loss but apparently they are willing to accept the more palatable losses under this scenario.
The players option is to accept less than full scale or opt to not play and get nothing. In other words, the net result of the season is the average team losing in excess of $100M regardless of if they play or not. Under the proposed split, assuming $3B in revenue, the average player receives $1.5M. (1.66 / 900 players). Those poor bastards having to work for an entire half season for a wage equivalent of 33 years income for the average American worker. How could they be accept this inequity?
I struggle with the macro economic theory being thrown around, when we’re really talking about a market. The scale is off, especially when mixing in market definition of loss...
My points of opportunity cost is just my way of putting the players perspective out there, and it seems like none of us want to tread on the little guy, but I digress, we’ve had a bit of a misdirected analogy.
If I think of my own manufacturing organization, it is currently trying to reduce overhead cost, improve cash flow and reduce cost of goods sold. Parts of the business cater to industrial firms that are reeling, parts of the business cater to pharma and business is booming. Much like the MLB, Pharma (the Yankees) doesn’t cover all of the gap of industrial (the marlins) so, shrink and grow, yay!
Overhead in our scenario would be the same in my factory, management furloughs. Twins have said they are paying the FO through June, so overhead isn’t a concern here. With the “factory” a publicly funded stadium still not a big cost when the lights are turned off.
As you are keenly aware in a factory, improving cash flow and reducing COGS at the same time is a difficult proposition as lot sizes and RM costs are the main drivers. Cancelling purchase orders can improve cash flow, but resulting inventory shortages makes it difficult to deliver on time to collect on invoices and makes for smaller lots, driving up COGs.
Players are the inventory. Vendors (MLBPA) don’t like to deliver when you cancel POs and the PO does include price and quantity (contract value and years).
Vendors frequently cut off their nose to spite their face, if only to maintain price over time.