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

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Hello?

 

How long do the players think they could have ridden the gravy train? The minimum salary has increased by %500 since 1995. HOw far was this supposed to go? There is no such thing as a boom industry that goes on in perpituity. All things level out and deal with corrections. Companies Apple and Amazon are the only thing close and they don't pass the benefits along to the employees like baseball has.

 

Show some goodwill if you are a player. You make enough damn money and there are literally millions of fans who have no idea where their next paycheck is coming from. Baseball doesn't help us sustain life. If isn't service necessary to live daily life. As much as I love watching baseball, I could turn it off as fast as you can snap your finger.

And that is what people are going to do if the players pursue this and make it into a spectacle. I have about 10 friends who I have talked to or texted on this matter. I don't know anyone who is saying …"yeah but the owners"

 

Not a good look by the players. Not a good look at all.

This is a prime example of "jumping the shark"

But MLB revenue grew at the same rate per quora. 1.4 billion to 8.0 billion from 1994 to 2013. Why should the players feel bad about that or not fight to get what they earned?

 

If owners assume the risk and keep the reward, then they shouldn’t be surprised when players don’t accept the risk on behalf of the owners.

 

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ea10a3cad4d018af45cc77dbfd61bc1f-c

 

https://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-Major-League-Baseball-generate

[Halsey Hall]

I'm on the side of the fence of greedy players.  Go play the game and get paid something. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

No players are saying otherwise. They agreed to a pro-rated salary. During those discussions, Scott Boras said the owners agreed to these conditions with the possibility of no fans in the stands. The owners backed out of the agreement. That’s what this is about.

 

I'm not quite sure this is fair take... that agreement was based on no fans in stands and a relatively full season. That has changed... It also provided a loss cap if baseball was never played in 2020 as I understand it... 

 

Now that said, I'm really not a fan of how either side is handling this at the moment. I think baseball being played is good for the game and good for a distraction that we all so desperately need.

 

Greed is getting in the way of that though, and from my view it looks like it's on both sides. I can understand owners not wanting to lose money.. I'm not quite as thrilled about squeezing players so as to make money.. if there was a time to open the books, do a temporary revenue share for the sake of the sport, and simply break even in 2020 for the owners... now is the time to do that. Instead, everyone's playing hardball.

 

Baseball is dying sport. Any kind of work stoppage is a bad thing, and it's looking more and more like we'll see another one in a couple years too.

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm not quite sure this is fair take... that agreement was based on no fans in stands and a relatively full season. That has changed... It also provided a loss cap if baseball was never played in 2020 as I understand it... 

 

Now that said, I'm really not a fan of how either side is handling this at the moment. I think baseball being played is good for the game and good for a distraction that we all so desperately need.

 

Greed is getting in the way of that though, and from my view it looks like it's on both sides. I can understand owners not wanting to lose money.. I'm not quite as thrilled about squeezing players so as to make money.. if there was a time to open the books, do a temporary revenue share for the sake of the sport, and simply break even in 2020 for the owners... now is the time to do that. Instead, everyone's playing hardball.

 

Baseball is dying sport. Any kind of work stoppage is a bad thing, and it's looking more and more like we'll see another one in a couple years too.

 

In order to tell if “it’s own both sides”… would it not make sense to look at how both sides would stand to profit. I see very little or any such logic being applied here or within the media. Any intelligent discussion on who is being greedy here starts with calculating the economic realities of playing without fans in the stands. It don’t have all the league numbers but we can’t estimate pretty accurately what it would mean to the Minnesota Twins franchise to play 82 games without Fans.

 

They would receive approximately 19M from their TV contract plus whatever they get from the national contract. My understanding is that would be roughly $5M for a half season. Most of their revenue is tied to attendance. (Gate receipts & Concessions) What other significant revenue do they have? Merchandise sales would likely by far less without fans in attendance. Would they top $40-45M in revenue without fans in attendance?

 

Players salaries for a half season $70M + taxes & Benefits = $78M  / Organizational salaries + Operating costs based on previous seasons would roughly $40M for a half season. I would assume they have found ways to trim operating costs and they must be assuming fans will be present at some point.

Perhaps there is revenue I am not aware of but it would need to be substantial if the Twins are going to have a chance to break-even.

 

Bottom line is I don’t see anyway playing games does not increase the losses teams have already incurred. Therefore, it would appear to me the owners are being anything but greedy. It sure looks like they are willing to take a substantial short-term hit in order to have baseball this season.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

In order to tell if “it’s own both sides”… would it not make sense to look at how both sides would stand to profit. I see very little or any such logic being applied here or within the media. Any intelligent discussion on who is being greedy here starts with calculating the economic realities of playing without fans in the stands. It don’t have all the league numbers but we can’t estimate pretty accurately what it would mean to the Minnesota Twins franchise to play 82 games without Fans.

 

They would receive approximately 19M from their TV contract plus whatever they get from the national contract. My understanding is that would be roughly $5M for a half season. Most of their revenue is tied to attendance. (Gate receipts & Concessions) What other significant revenue do they have? Merchandise sales would likely by far less without fans in attendance. Would they top $40-45M in revenue without fans in attendance?

 

Players salaries for a half season $70M + taxes & Benefits = $78M / Organizational salaries + Operating costs based on previous seasons would roughly $40M for a half season. I would assume they have found ways to trim operating costs and they must be assuming fans will be present at some point.

Perhaps there is revenue I am not aware of but it would need to be substantial if the Twins are going to have a chance to break-even.

 

Bottom line is I don’t see anyway playing games does not increase the losses teams have already incurred. Therefore, it would appear to me the owners are being anything but greedy. It sure looks like they are willing to take a substantial short-term hit in order to have baseball this season.

revenue sharing from the league last year was approx 37M, so $18.5M less fan attendance across the league, so $9M as a guess.

 

Plus post season National TV contract and pride for winning the World Series again. Priceless

[lukeduke1980]

 

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.

I had a similar thought, each team puts together essentially a minor league roster to form one team.  These players need to be developed, money should be less complicated.  

 

I'd still watch it.  

[Nine of twelve]

I know this is a complicated matter, but it really comes down to this: Will there be a net profit if a shortened season is played and can safety issues be satisfactorily addressed?

If yes, everyone gets something. If the owners have a net profit and the players have a net loss that's not right, and vice-versa. If that requires renegotiation then so be it. If it requires the owners to open their books then so be it.

If no, then wait till 2021.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I keep seeing safety as an issue, so a bunch of 20 - 40 year old men are worrying about getting sick? In that age group dying of Covid is still less likely than if the you get the regular flu. So congrats to Snell and the rest on the fear mongering, that always helps.

the risk is a bit higher with the umpires and coaches... Tend to agree on the average player.. they really aren't taking on much in terms of risks, but they aren't the only ones on the field.

[Tomj14]

 

the risk is a bit higher with the umpires and coaches... Tend to agree on the average player.. they really aren't taking on much in terms of risks, but they aren't the only ones on the field.

Coaches could wear N95, and the umps where those crazy mask with oxygen and what not.

[Major League Ready]

 

https://www.skornorth.com/2020/05/zulgad-you-cant-be-serious-is-mlb-really-going-to-make-return-about-dollars-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. 

 

 

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... 

 

A salary cap would have very little impact on what teams spend in total. A VERY small percentage of players would be impacted. Of course, those are the players that are making $30+ million/year. Why are fans worried about those players? Are teams going to adjust their budgets because their highest paid player cost them a little less. I seriously doubt it. Most likely that money would be spent on players currently making more modest salaries. Why as fans would should we be upset if this happened.

 

Covid-19 related deaths for the population under 30 represent less than 1/2 of one percent of all deaths. This is not to say it's not a legit concern but this is about money. The players want to be paid for the remainder of the season as if things are normal. This is not a surprise. When players sign a contract they get every dime even if they play at replacement level (Chris Davis). They have come to expect every dime no matter what. 

 

The problem is when they want every dime and that will end up costing the owners 10s of millions, we are not going to have baseball this year. I find it very difficult to blame the owners for canceling the season if having a season is going to cost them 10s of millions beyond what they have already lost. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Coaches could wear N95, and the umps where those crazy mask with oxygen and what not.

I was going to suggest automating strikes and balls and making out/safe calls from a booth... Then again, I might be a little biased about those things (particularly the first one).

[Doctor Gast]

 

I'm not quite sure this is fair take... that agreement was based on no fans in stands and a relatively full season. That has changed... It also provided a loss cap if baseball was never played in 2020 as I understand it... 

 

Now that said, I'm really not a fan of how either side is handling this at the moment. I think baseball being played is good for the game and good for a distraction that we all so desperately need.

 

Greed is getting in the way of that though, and from my view it looks like it's on both sides. I can understand owners not wanting to lose money.. I'm not quite as thrilled about squeezing players so as to make money.. if there was a time to open the books, do a temporary revenue share for the sake of the sport, and simply break even in 2020 for the owners... now is the time to do that. Instead, everyone's playing hardball.

 

Baseball is dying sport. Any kind of work stoppage is a bad thing, and it's looking more and more like we'll see another one in a couple years too.

Baseball is a great all american family & community sport. Baseball has rallied our spirits in time of crises greater than this virus. Twins Daily has kept Twins baseball alive even during the off season w/ FA , prospects & trade prospects & during spring training. Baseball has taken some knocks through the years & to most it isn`t the top American sport. This year after the shut down, the Minnesota Zone Coverage there was no Twins talk no trade rumors, no FA, no talk about up coming draft it was all Vikings w/ once in a while Timberwolves or Wilds, it was like the Twins were dead (we watched past videos to try to keep the memory alive like at a wake). Many Twin fans were very unconcerned, their attitude was if the "Twinkies " don`t play it`s no big deal.We need to come together & try to resuscitate our sport, there had been a lot of excitement about the Twins this year but if they don`t play or shortened because of lack of enthusiasm it will take even a bigger blow. IMO the biggest problem isn`t the disease but the narrative.

Another thought, IMO the owners are taking a loss, these successful people could invest their money else where & make more money but they chose to invest it in our community so we can have a MLB team & I appreciate it. If there is no owners there is no team & w/o a team, the players can`t play & make big $. Not saying that the players don`t have a gripe but this isn`t the time

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Baseball is a great all american family & community sport. Baseball has rallied our spirits in time of crises greater than this virus. Twins Daily has kept Twins baseball alive even during the off season w/ FA , prospects & trade prospects & during spring training. Baseball has taken some knocks through the years & to most it isn`t the top American sport. This year after the shut down, the Minnesota Zone Coverage there was no Twins talk no trade rumors, no FA, no talk about up coming draft it was all Vikings w/ once in a while Timberwolves or Wilds, it was like the Twins were dead (we watched past videos to try to keep the memory alive like at a wake). Many Twin fans were very unconcerned, their attitude was if the "Twinkies " don`t play it`s no big deal.We need to come together & try to resuscitate our sport, there had been a lot of excitement about the Twins this year but if they don`t play or shortened because of lack of enthusiasm it will take even a bigger blow. IMO the biggest problem isn`t the disease but the narrative.

Another thought, IMO the owners are taking a loss, these successful people could invest their money else where & make more money but they chose to invest it in our community so we can have a MLB team & I appreciate it. If there is no owners there is no team & w/o a team, the players can`t play & make big $. Not saying that the players don`t have a gripe but this isn`t the time

 

I still tend to think both sides are in the wrong here. I can definitely see the owners not wanting to lose money, but I also to think to some extent that making sure that the players are getting as much of their salaries as possible is the way to go... There's a thread on this in the other baseball forum... much like our society, there's a pretty big divide between the owners and players that will likely lead to a work stoppage in 2022... I don't think baseball can afford that, and this is not the time for either side to be having that fight.

[spanman2]

 

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.

Well said Cap...He was not thinking when he said 'risking his life'...we can all list occupations that are truly putting it on the line.  Blake...you would be playing baseball.  Think about that!!!   It is amazing some players still don't get the fact that they are playing a game...they are entertaining people.  Owners are not innocent angels don't get me wrong.  Both sides need to realize how blessed they are that so many of us are baseball fans and also realize how much we miss the game...if they screw this up they will do serious damage to the game that is already trying to attract new fans.  They have a golden opportunity here.  

[yarnivek1972]

As has been mentioned, one would think that someone would be telling the players that what they get paid for 2020 isn’t very important. But, if they think that the losses teams are racking up this year won’t impact future salaries they are being advised poorly.

[yarnivek1972]

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.

A proposal like that would certainly result in a greivance or lawsuit which owners would certainly lose. MLBPA is one of the most powerful unions in the world. Owners lack the authority to make ultimatum overtures like that.

[TheBoofIsLoose]

 

A proposal like that would certainly result in a greivance or lawsuit which owners would certainly lose. MLBPA is one of the most powerful unions in the world. Owners lack the authority to make ultimatum overtures like that.

Let's not forget that the MLBPA is not going to allow scab players into its membership so any player that has a reasonable chance at making the majors would be a fool to scab.

[old nurse]

 

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.

The owners are likely not stupid enough to eliminate players that are the lifeblood of attendance everywhere else but Florida

[Platoon]

The players are rich. The owners are wealthy, has been noted already. This is the core of this discussion. I do think there is too much emphasis on the high level well to do players. But much of MLB is not players of this status. There are an awful lot of the Arrez’s of the sport involved. And, while there income seems lofty to most of us we tend to forget that earning capacity is measured in a few years, not decades. 

 

Owners on the other hand have another core source of income and wealth. It’s not MLB that supports them. MLB is a side job, not their main source of income like a player. Owners opted into this gig for numerous reasons, and financial success wasn’t the only one. Status and visibility amongst their peers being a couple others.

 

The players should get their pay based on 1/162 for games played. The owners should take their losses like big boys, just like they should have to in any other investment. Don’t get me wrong, they likely don’t do that in those cases either, they are always looking for someone to share their pain. It’s just that this is a much more public example of their desire to do so. 
 

The loss of income for some players will affect their lives for years. The loss of income to owners will be a line on a spreadsheet in their accountants office. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

As has been mentioned, one would think that someone would be telling the players that what they get paid for 2020 isn’t very important. But, if they think that the losses teams are racking up this year won’t impact future salaries they are being advised poorly.

 

I think the players miss this aspect of it--owners are under no obligation to continue to hand out free agent deals at the level they did this past offseason.  Owners can also simply refuse to meet the players' demands after the current CBA expires, and move forward with minor leaguers and line-crossers whi agree to a salary cap.  I imagine that 5 years from now, something like 60% of the current membership of the MLBPA would be out of baseball anyways, and 10 years from now that's probably more like 90%, so while it will impact the game for a bit, there is a hard expiration date to that.  Much of the bad will could also be mitigated by the owners if they slashed prices and concessions, something which they could certainly do if they realized hundreds of millions in labor costs.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Let's not forget that the MLBPA is not going to allow scab players into its membership so any player that has a reasonable chance at making the majors would be a fool to scab.

 

If the MLBPA loses it's power because the owners impose new conditions the MLBPA doesn't agree to, and therefore brings in replacement players, that won't matter.  There will be a brand new MLBPA made up of players who agreed to anything the owners wanted, because that was the price of their inclusion on a big league roster.  Put in real terms--do you think Royce Lewis is going to turn down an opportunity to be in the bigs now, all in support of an organization he's not a part of?  Especially if the Twins tell him if he agrees to play, they'l give him a 6 year, $30M contract right now?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

The owners are likely not stupid enough to eliminate players that are the lifeblood of attendance everywhere else but Florida

 

I disagree that specific players are the lifeblood of attendance--I'm sure they are for some people, and probably factor in for most, but I'm guessing the majority of people care more for the name on the front of the jersey than the back (except, possibly, when buying jerseys).

 

I believe this because I didn't stop following the Twins when injuries ended Kirby's career, I didn't pack away my homer hankies when Joe retired, and I didn't transform into a Mets fan when Johan was traded.  If you want more proof, look at the name of this site--TWINS Daily, not Cruz, or Sano, or Buxton, or Berrios Daily.  This site existed before any of those players had ever donned a Twins uniform, and it will exist after they're gone.

 

If the Angels traded Mike Trout, they would undoubtedly see a dip in attendance and merch sales.  But if they proceeded to start winning 97 games a year, and making World Series, they'd get it all back and more.

 

That's what players are fighting against--their eminent replaceability.  And the only weapon they have is the owner's unwillingness to incur losses and devaluation of their franchises.  If that's going to happen no matter what, the players would be unwise to push the owners further into the corner--they might not like what the owners do to get out of it.

[Major League Ready]

 

The players are rich. The owners are wealthy, has been noted already. This is the core of this discussion. I do think there is too much emphasis on the high level well to do players. But much of MLB is not players of this status. There are an awful lot of the Arrez’s of the sport involved. And, while there income seems lofty to most of us we tend to forget that earning capacity is measured in a few years, not decades. 

 

Owners on the other hand have another core source of income and wealth. It’s not MLB that supports them. MLB is a side job, not their main source of income like a player. Owners opted into this gig for numerous reasons, and financial success wasn’t the only one. Status and visibility amongst their peers being a couple others.

 

The players should get their pay based on 1/162 for games played. The owners should take their losses like big boys, just like they should have to in any other investment. Don’t get me wrong, they likely don’t do that in those cases either, they are always looking for someone to share their pain. It’s just that this is a much more public example of their desire to do so. 
 

The loss of income for some players will affect their lives for years. The loss of income to owners will be a line on a spreadsheet in their accountants office. 

 

Let's imagine for a moment this is any other business impacted by Covid-19 and reopening a business meant incurring even greater losses than staying closed. Would you suggest a business owner should reopen because you would want access to their product. Would you determine which businesses should open based on the relative wealth of the business owner?

 

Some of you live in a fantasy world. The owners are not going to begin the season under a scenario which assures massive losses. I don't believe they can break-even based on a 50/50 revenue split. It appears to me they are willing to accept substantial loss. They are just trying to mitigate the losses. Sounds to me like they are being quite reasonable. 

[old nurse]

 

I disagree that specific players are the lifeblood of attendance--I'm sure they are for some people, and probably factor in for most, but I'm guessing the majority of people care more for the name on the front of the jersey than the back (except, possibly, when buying jerseys).

 

I believe this because I didn't stop following the Twins when injuries ended Kirby's career, I didn't pack away my homer hankies when Joe retired, and I didn't transform into a Mets fan when Johan was traded.  If you want more proof, look at the name of this site--TWINS Daily, not Cruz, or Sano, or Buxton, or Berrios Daily.  This site existed before any of those players had ever donned a Twins uniform, and it will exist after they're gone.

 

If the Angels traded Mike Trout, they would undoubtedly see a dip in attendance and merch sales.  But if they proceeded to start winning 97 games a year, and making World Series, they'd get it all back and more.

 

That's what players are fighting against--their eminent replaceability.  And the only weapon they have is the owner's unwillingness to incur losses and devaluation of their franchises.  If that's going to happen no matter what, the players would be unwise to push the owners further into the corner--they might not like what the owners do to get out of it.

If you throw out the good players permanently and are left with an inferior product then attendance will dip almost everywhere but Tampa and Oakland where attendance can't get much lower.  Aw orse performing team will almost always have an attendance drop.

If the Angels tradr Trout they get a return for the future. If he is permanently banned, they get nothing. Another reason why owners would not be as frivolous with their assets

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Let's imagine for a moment this is any other business impacted by Covid-19 and reopening a business meant incurring even greater losses than staying closed. Would you suggest a business owner should reopen because you would want access to their product. Would you determine which businesses should open based on the relative wealth of the business owner?

 

Some of you live in a fantasy world. The owners are not going to begin the season under a scenario which assures massive losses. I don't believe they can break-even based on a 50/50 revenue split. It appears to me they are willing to accept substantial loss. They are just trying to mitigate the losses. Sounds to me like they are being quite reasonable.

 

We are all living in a much different world — no need for the attacks. I have no idea what the business side of baseball looks like at this moment, or what the models show, but let’s say that the owners will lose more money playing this year than not playing. Meaning, not playing at all will be less harmful financially.

 

So let me ask you. At what point does the curve bend the other direction, and the owners need the players to get back on the field? This year’s postseason? Next year? The year after?

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

If you throw out the good players permanently and are left with an inferior product then attendance will dip almost everywhere but Tampa and Oakland where attendance can't get much lower.  Aw orse performing team will almost always have an attendance drop.

If the Angels tradr Trout they get a return for the future. If he is permanently banned, they get nothing. Another reason why owners would not be as frivolous with their assets

 

But you're missing the point--the product is only inferior for 2-5 years, unless you're assuming that all the top prospects, college players, and HS players refuse to play for the owners in some kind of solidarity play with a union that doesn't represent them OR their interests.

 

Individual teams also aren't guaranteed to perform worse--it's not like the Twins have to scrap all their current MLB players, but no other team does.  True, implementation of a permanent lockout of current players will result in a greatly reduced bar for overall quality compared to current, but everyone is operating with that new lower bar, so the comparative quality across the league won't shift all that much.  And, as I've discussed before, that bar will rise every year, as the new players get better.  Essentially, the owners would simply be frontloading 6-10 years of roster churn into one year.

 

Finally, while Mike Trout is an asset, he quite possibly could be an underwater one--Albert Pujols certainly is.  That is the crux of what I'm saying here--if the owners can't make money this year, or perhaps next due to current situation, and if there's going to be a work stoppage in 2022 anyways, why not get out from under your underwater assets (the players as a whole), and reset the economics in your favor now?

 

If the owners decide to do that, there's not a whole lot the players can do, other than figure out a way to start their own league, and that's a much tougher proposition than the owners simply accelerating future roster churn.  It would also require the players to in all likelihood make salary concessions at least on par with, if not greater than, they would be doing with the owners now and their proposed 50/50 revenue split.  Essentially, the players would be taking an enormous risk for no reward, if not a negative reward.

[Tomj14]

 

We are all living in a much different world — no need for the attacks. I have no idea what the business side of baseball looks like at this moment, or what the models show, but let’s say that the owners will lose more money playing this year than not playing. Meaning, not playing at all will be less harmful financially.

So let me ask you. At what point does the curve bend the other direction, and the owners need the players to get back on the field? This year’s postseason? Next year? The year after?

first if what Major League Ready wrote is considered an attack, it might be time to close this site down, there has been much, much worse written on here.

You asked at what point does that curve bend, I believe it bends when cities and states decide to give the power back to the people and let them decide if they want to go to games. Then the owners and players can decide on how the salaries will be determined, because at this pace of re-opening it looks like MN, the Chicago teams and a few other won't have fans in the stands until there is a vaccine or Trump loses in November. And my bet is if the players are not willing to concede some salary if there are not fans, the owners will be hesitant to start a season.

[Doctor Gast]

I feel sorry for FAs next year there won`t be the $ thrown around that was this year. If players like Snell refuse to play, IMO some people are more apt not  to go & watch him. I know if I had a choice to see a TB game, I`d choose a game where Snell wouldn`t be pitching

[Platoon]

 

Let's imagine for a moment this is any other business impacted by Covid-19 and reopening a business meant incurring even greater losses than staying closed. Would you suggest a business owner should reopen because you would want access to their product. Would you determine which businesses should open based on the relative wealth of the business owner?

 

Some of you live in a fantasy world. The owners are not going to begin the season under a scenario which assures massive losses. I don't believe they can break-even based on a 50/50 revenue split. It appears to me they are willing to accept substantial loss. They are just trying to mitigate the losses. Sounds to me like they are being quite reasonable. 

IIRC I didn’t say I thought baseball should reopen. I said the players should get their prorata and the owners should take their losses. I desperately need a haircut, but it never dawned on me to tell some barber to open his shop and lose his butt so I could look my normal, and might I add very handsome self! That’s his decision. But if I knew for a fact said barber was going to do it on the backs of his employees, I would get my locks trimmed elsewhere. 
 

MLB owners are going to have to make the decision what they want to do. The question at hand was should the players take a cut, so owners with 9 digit net worths take less of a bath this year. My opinion is NOT. 
 

As for whether I actually want the game to resume? That’s not even that easy. The game will be somewhat weird, it will almost seem like scrimmages I would think. The idea of watching a game on tv, played in an empty stadium is somewhat unappealing. I have saw things like this on tv, and have attended two high school games in the Dome which were virtually empty. The esthetics just aren’t there. It will still be baseball, but the adrenaline won’t be present. 
 

The good news is the Astros won’t need a camera to steal signs, they can simply listen to the pitcher and catcher discuss them between innings. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

We are all living in a much different world — no need for the attacks. I have no idea what the business side of baseball looks like at this moment, or what the models show, but let’s say that the owners will lose more money playing this year than not playing. Meaning, not playing at all will be less harmful financially.

So let me ask you. At what point does the curve bend the other direction, and the owners need the players to get back on the field? This year’s postseason? Next year? The year after?

well, if we're talking about something for the good of baseball, it's going to need to be the large market owners who will still be profitable subsidizing the rest to either minimize losses or allow everyone to make a small profit... I really don't think this is nearly as much as owners vs. players but a few owners who control way too much the baseball pie making this very difficult for everyone (whether or not they realize it)... baseball's economic model is broken

 

I suspect baseball as a whole will be profitable. Teams like Minnesota likely won't be. I think that dynamic is getting lost in this discussion as a lot of the smaller market teams will get killed with no fans to go with their very little media revenue while teams like NY and LA will be fine. 

 

You're right that we don't know the model... we can only really guess, but unlike the NFL, profits are not shared in baseball which means losses will not happen equally. You're asking Pohlad to take a loss while Steinbrenner just rakes in less. You might get Jim to accept a reasonable loss... I don't know as I don't know the guy... but I think finding 20+ owners to do that will be tough. I really think the answer is in a short term revenue share where the owners try and break even and give the players as much as they can... 

 

that will build some good will and give baseball exposure at a time when literally nothing is going on... and baseball badly needs that.