Major League Ready

Who here thinks the owners would accept a counter of 81 games at 80% or prorated salaries? It should be crystal clear to the players the owners will opt for a 50 game season (roughly) if players won't move off full prorated salaries if the players in unwilling to accept a reduced rate. That option would pay the average player $725,000 for 50 games. If you believe, as I do, that the owners would accept an 81 game season at 80%, that option would increase player pay by 30% to $940,000 on average. I would bet that if there was no union and the owners made it optional to return at 75% of normal compensation, 90 percent of the players would return.So, no, I am not going to blame owners if we have a 50 game season.

I might be missing the point. What does this have to do with the labor angst Doc was addressing?

Interesting question Doc. Both the NBA and the NFL have salary caps. The NBA has a max of 4 year contracts for free agents. However, the incumbent team is allowed to make a 5 year offer. In most cases, players have to accept less to leave their current team. NFL contracts generally have far less guaranteed money. It seems to me MLB players have more favorable contract and free agency terms. So why is the relationship between the players union and MLB more contentious than other leagues? I really don't know.

50 games at 100% is still 14% less in terms of gross pay vs 76 games at 75%. My guess is the players don’t care how many games they play. They are trying to maximize gross pay. If I am the player’s representation, I recommend a counter of 82 games at 80%. Getting more aggressive than this runs the risk of the owners calling it a day and implementing the 50 game season at pro-rated salaries. 82 games at 80% nets the players 31% more gross pay than a 50 game season at full prorated salaries.

Are you thinking the players would strike if the league utilizes their option to play a 50 game season? If so, I would have to agree that's entirely possible. I am hoping they counter with 82 games at 80%. I think that counter would have a chance. I get the sense that any counter beyond 82 games at 80% salary is met with the league implementing a 50 game (roughly) season at prorated salaries.

The season is not going to be lost. It has been reported the league has the option to reinstate play at a given number of games at prorated salaries. The number of games is just going to be far less than what we fans would like to see if the players insist on something near 100% of prorated salary. That’s the league’s fallback position. It’s a pretty safe assumption the league is proceeding with a plan that includes rolling to this fallback position. That’s likely part of the reason they asked for a response by Wednesday. If I were them, I would have a drop-dead date set where we roll to plan B. The premise that players will leave for other leagues has been floated here in other discussions. I can’t find any form of logic that substantiates this scenario. Where are they going to go? The next highest paid league is the Nippon Professional Baseball League. The average compensation for players in NPB is roughly ONE-EIGHT of MLB. I spelled it out so I could capitalize this point. Players would play for half in a heartbeat if that’s what revenue dictated.

You are correct. The players would lose most of their normal compensation if the season is lost. However, you are only considering one side of the equation. Owners will not only lose 100% of their normal income, they will PAYOUT the equivalent of 3 years income. The equivalent from a players perspective would NOT be to MAKE 6% of normal. The equivalent would be the players contributed 3 years of wages toward covering operating losses.

Obviously, the players are not literally saying these things. Their actions/position on the other hand are quite clear. They don't care if there is a pandemic, they are not willing to accept less than normal rate. Again, the expectation is players get paid as if things are normal. Millions of American's could not work and did not get paid. Players did not work and therefore did not get paid for the 1st half of the season just like the rest of Americans who were not able to work because of Covid-19. Obviously, the teams did not take in their normal earnings either. Both parties came out the same where this is concerned. The owner also shelled out $60M on average according to various reports. In other words, the paid out 1 ½ years of earnings out of their savings. (not literally but you get the point. Who would you rather be? The guy who paid out a year and half worth of earnings or the guy who made nothing.

Nick, you disproved one of Chief’s data points. However, you did not even consider the possibility he is still right. At least your post does not illustrate any consideration. Many sources have reported that in-stadium revenue are 40%. Let’s actually consider Chief’s point instead of taking one side or the other without any actual assessment of what a 40% drop in revenue means. If we look at various sources, player salaries (with taxes and benefits) are around 52%. Forbes and Statistica report that net income is around 13%. If these are correct, operating expense is 35% of revenue. If anyone does not want to believe operating expense is 35, that OK, we can still pursue Chief’s position that we don’t need a deep dive to understand full player salaries in the face of a 40% decrease in revenue is not viable. The one data point that is relatively easy to derive is player salaries. We know exactly how much they are paid and it’s not that tough to estimate payroll taxes paid by employers. It’s public record and it is generally reported to be 11.5%. If we assume full pay for players, based on a 40% decrease in revenue Player Salaries = 86.66% of revenue. This does not include MiLB players, coaches, or meals. In other words, Chief already understood the numbers well enough to know this model was not feasible without needing a financial audit. We really don’t need any additional information to understand full compensation is not viable. If you accept reported Operating Expense estimates, calculated at 60% of normal revenue, Operating Expense = 58% of Revenue. Therefore, even if you believe Statistica is getting paid to produce numbers that are of by a factor of 1/3 (which obviously is not the case because they are still in business) Operating Expense would still be 40% of revenue when revenue is 60% of normal. Of course, this little exercise is quite telling in terms of the viability of providing normal compensation with a 40% decline in revenue. If you are still not convinced, look at the proposals. Owners wanted less games. Why would this be the case if they were not losing money? The bottom line estimate based on projected revenue and stated percentages is as follows. Revenue 3,000,000,000 Operating expense $1,820,000 Players 2,240,000 Net loss = 1,060,000 It would appear the league made an offer where teams came close to breaking even in the 2nd half. In other words, the owners have made an offer where they will not recoup any of the losses from the 1st half. They are not asking for a third of what they normally make and asking the players to take a cut that supports them in getting back the massive first half losses. They are saying they will play for no financial gain, even take a loss. The players are saying sorry, we don’t care if there is a pandemic, we want 100% of normal compensation. I am with Chief. They have made an offer to play that is very reasonable. The players on the other hand are saying we don’t care how extreme the circumstance, we want every dime we would have got under normal conditions. The owners have taken care of their employees and MiLB players. Which side is demonstrating they don’t care about the game, the fans or the people who will be unemployed if the season is not resumed? Which side is showing no love for the fans.

Can anyone post a link that confirms the incident was racially motivated. If all this is based on unconfirmed assumption, any suggestion of a superior understanding or superior intellect is rather ironic. Taking such a hard position without full confirmation of fact and validation of assumptions is simply not consistent with advanced critical thinking skills or even an good understanding of problem solving practices. Sorry, it's just another example of people without any credentials thinking the problem is what other people don't understand.

Maybe Max’s parents encouraged him to pursue various forms of critical thinking, scientific method or business decision making. Perhaps he wanted to validate the assumption this was racially motivated before opening his mouth. Was there any evidence in the first couple days that this was racially motivated other than Chauvin was white? Intelligent or even reasonable people validate their assumptions and conclusions before taking a strong position. Reasonable people don't burn down innocent peoples homes no matter what. One could argue Max demonstrated better judgment than Sharpton, Jackson, and others who fanned the flames which resulted in massive violence. I am not hearing any criticism of their inability to rally peaceful demonstration. Perhaps Max was so wise as to understand the situation was already dangerous and he did not want to add fuel to the fire. I sure would not blame him if he decided to wait for reliable information and also wait to see if appropriate charges were levied against Chauvin and the other officers that were present. Running off in this type of emotionally fueled rampage and indictment of everyone that is not willing to universally condemn all police officers is much more harmful than Max Kepler refusing to take a political position. The masses don’t understand the problem nearly as well as they think they do. There are people that possess a long list of credentials on this and related issues. That’s who I want to hear from. I really don’t give a **** what Max Kepler has to say. Maybe that’s another problem we should address. That is people listening to people because they have name recognition instead of listening to people with expertise.

If I were to make a list of people who reacted poorly to this tragedy, Max Kepler’s actions are too far down that list to be given a second thought. My first disappointment is that the MPD did not review the video and make an arrest within a few hours. That just might have defused this, at least a little. I recognize that it takes time for the proper review. However, I just can’t imagine it too long to verify this was a criminal act. The explosiveness of this situation should have been recognized. Every hour that went by without an announcement to arrest / prosecute fueled the rage. In the grand scheme of things, Max Kepler’s unwillingness to take a stand is not even on the radar for me. I find it far more disconcerting that anyone could assess the actions of various people in this tragedy and conclude Max’s failure to take a stand worthy of concern. The actions of thousands of people were nothing short of criminal and barbaric. People were literally burning down the city and some of you want to defend singling out Max Kepler for not taking a stronger position. God help us! I have not spoken to a single person who did not find the actions of office Chauvin reprehensible. Of course, there are still plenty of people who hate based on some form of ethnocentrism. That’s a problem. The thinking that leads to singling out Max Kepler while ignoring thousands of people performing criminal acts is also a problem. I suggest we call out those who advocated violence and those who reacted with violence. Where is the outrage for not dealing with this tragedy in a civil manner? We should be much more concerned with a society that reacts this way than Max Kepler’s unwillingness to take a stance. We should also be concerned that there are those who find moral superiority in attacking Max Kepler while somehow ignoring the thousands of people whose actions were not consistent with a civil society.

This is my last comment on this subject. You keep throwing out a bunch of losely related concepts which have little relevance IMO as to if we have a season or not.. Once again, the choice is play or don't play. You seem to have a basic understanding of business drivers. Based on paying players full scale which increases loses over not playing at all it's likely the owners just cancel the season. What would your employer do? There is no question, they chose the scenario with a better financial outcome that is obviously better. This is not exactly complicated business theory. It's quite a different scenario for players. They have no exposure to loss. There choice is to make less or make nothing. Some of you just can't get off the premise the owners should just accept whatever loss is necessary to pay the players in full. This is a incredibly bias as well as a naive position. The average fan will not side with the players if they are unwilling to play 3 months of baseball for the equivalent to 33 years of wages for the average American, especially given the massive losses the owners are willing to accept under the scenario that pays the average player $1.66M for 3 months work. I actually doubt the majority of players have a Blake Snell attitude. At least I would hope their union would provide them with a report or video detailing the estimated financial income for both sides under the proposed scenario. I just find it difficult to believe most players are going to expect the owners to play this season under a scenario where playing means they lose substantially more than not playing. At that point I would hope they say a million seven on average is better than nothing. I would really by pleased if they thought about the fans that are responsible for their massive income potential.

Hopefully, it was obvious I meant MLB team. Player makes absolutely no sense. The context was loses associated with a team so it should be obvious I meant to say team. I should proof read and often I don't.

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 disagree. Getting paid less and taking a loss are two very different things. When the players have to pay out of their pocket to play that would be sharing in the losses. There is no doubt owners are going to pay well over $100M on average for the privilige of owning a MLB player. Players are not going to pay a dime which is very different from not profiting. Players also have guaranteed contracts. If they were willing to accept the risk associated with giving the owners the right to terminate that contract, I am quite sure teams would be willing to pay considerably more if the risk of non-performance was nullified.

Keep banging that drum but you cant see the forest for the trees. None of this is all that relevant to if we have baseball this year. It's real simple, if the owners losses are magnified by playing, we probably don't have baseball. I say probably because they might decide the best long-term solution is to cave right now and then hold out for terms that recapture those losses over the next several years when they renegotiate the CBA. In other words, we will likely miss another season. We might even have replacement players. So go ahead cheer for the players to cling to they want every dime in their contract but don't be surprised if we don't have baseball this year. To Chief's point ... take a look at an inflation calculator. Then, tell me how MLB players have done in terms of compensation increase. I can't think of another group in this country that has fared anywhere near as well as MLB players over the past 30 years. Compensation has increased by roughly 750%. To say they have not participated in profits requires an exceptionally blind view of the facts. What actually happened is player received steady huge increases in pay as revenue increased. Now that the revenue is not there you and some of the players are saying just pay us anyway, the players deserve to get paid as if revenue is as it has been.

That's fine but you are still missing the point. Socializing the losses is a designed to be a sound bite. The whole privatize the gain and socialize the losses makes no sense and it's misguided propaganda.

That's a Boris quote and he knew that he could get this past fans that would blindly follow a cute quote. A loss suggests a net result of less than zero. Making $5M instead of $10M is not a loss, it's less profit. Socializing losses is not an actual thing in a free market economy, it's a soundbite so Boris attempted to define something that does not actually exist. Players participating in actual losses would suggest the owners pay the players nothing and ask that they take money out of their pockets and contribute to mitigating their losses. Of course, his compensation is directly tied to player compensation so he just might be looking out for his own bottom line.

Let’s break this down based on the fact we know the 1st half of the season is cancelled. Players loss = 0 unless you don’t know the difference between a loss and break-even. Teams are going to lose $63M+ on average. Players break-even (don't get paid) Under the proposal for the 2nd half. Teams would lose another $63M best case scenario. Players would make less than their contract. Teams lose $126M on average. Players have a net gain smaller than normal. Please explain to me how the owners don’t absorb all the risk? BTW … I doubt I ever said owners make big money because they take on risk. My position has been that players have contracts that assure them 100% of their compensation regardless of their performance. That does not happen in the rest of the working world. Perhaps that precedent is why they feel they should receive full comp even if it's not economically feasible.

Right Ted. They have been the most successful business people in the country in spite of your assumed complete ineptitude. If only they had your exceptional financial acumen and business aptitude. So, as someone with business skills superior to that of ignorant MLB owners, tell us how you would resolve the present dillema. That dillema being cancelling the season costs on average $127M per team according to reports. Therefore, cancelling the second half costs roughly $63M. Playing at full wage for players costs $80+ billion. I would love to hear why they are the idiots you portray in your comment.

According to the CDC, there have been 459 deaths in the US of people 35 or less. While this is obviously not insignificant, it is most certainly not "of historic proportions, at least not for the age demographic of 99% of the players. The coaches and some of the training staff are actually the most at risk. https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku

I agree with the general sentiment that the players need the game more than the owners. However, I don’t believe fans are accurately assessing what each side will give up to play this season. Players will give up part of their salaries but they will be better off financially by playing. Obviously, they won’t get what they normally would have but $100K or $1M is better than $0. I don’t see a scenario where fans will be allowed to return soon enough or at levels that will allow the teams to break even. In other words, they have already agreed to a scenario where it costs them to have a season. That cost for the Twins is probably $20M+ over what they have already lost if the players we paid at full rate. The point at which I would blame this on the owners would be if they demanded a profit to resume the season. For example, if they wanted to recoup the losses they have already incurred. I would go so far as to say I even expect them to resume as long as the losses are modest. They have met that expectation. Some players are stomping their feet. Basically, they want every dime they would have got without a pandemic. However, I don’t think Blake Snell’s perspective is shared by all players. What I would like to see is the players given the option to play based on the 50 percent of revenue that has been offered. They should be given the option to sit out if they are so inclined. It should be noted that less than one half of one percent of Covid-19 deaths are people less than 35 years of age.

I have already said participation should be optional. However, to suggest the owners should just accept whatever additional loses result from playing the season while players receive full comp is not only extremely bias it's the kind of thinking that will assure we don't have a season. There are quite a few players who have already made far more than they can spend in their lifetime or their kids lifetime. I could see many of them opting to take no risk. However, anyone does not think this mostly about money, they are incredibly naive. If the owners would agree to pay full compensation, 90+ percent would play. I find prejudice in any form repugnant. The hatred some people demonstrate solely on the basis of someone being wealthy is no less distasteful than prejudice based in and other form. Judge the person by their actions not the size of their bank account. I bet their are plenty of owners who have no prejudice and treat people exceptionally well. We should all strive to do the same.

I guess I should not be surprised to see a fanatical response. Who is asking them to go back for "1% of what they earn". We get it ... your point of view is that players should not suffer at all as a result of a pandemic. Owner should just accept losses no matter how massive. The owners offer is perfectly reasonable. I don't expect the owners to incur even larger loses than they would by just cancelling the season. So, If rejected, I hope the league offers any player who wants to play the chance to play at the rate offered and then use replacement players to fill the roster. If you don't want to play, their are plenty of MiLB players who would love the shot.