On New MLB Proposal, How it Relates to the Twins and a Potential Solution

[Tom Froemming]

Jeff Passan of ESPN provided the most comprehensive breakdown of the MLB owners' latest proposal on Twitter. I discussed that offer, how it relates to the Twins and an option on how to attempt to bridge the gap between the owners and players.

 

 

Passan did such a great job at relaying how it all relates to the league, but that's not how we usually talk about salaries in baseball. The actual details of this offer only guarantees players 50% of their prorated salaries, but through postseason shares and other bonuses it ends up equating to 75% of the prorated amount. Included in this video is a breakdown of how all this would relate to the Twins' payroll, just using that more straight-forward 75% amount of prorated salaries. Here that is:

 

 

One thing I didn't do in the video was trickle that down to an individual player. Let's take a look at Nelson Cruz. He was set to make $12 million. Prorate that to 76 games and you get $5.6 million, take 75% of that and you get $4.2 million.

 

How about someone who hasn't been around as long? Mitch Garver was set to make $620,000 this season. That'd drop to $290,864 prorated to 76 games, then down to $218,148 at the 75% rate.

 

I'm confident we'll see some kind of a 2020 MLB season, but don't expect either side to compromise. My solution? Look for another way to inject (even more) money into the game. You'd have to expect TV ratings to boom, there has to be some way to benefit from that ... 

 

[yarnivek1972]

I read the espn articles on the latest proposal. I gotta say, I’m less optimistic about baseball in 2020 than I was in late March.

 

In terms of real dollars, the two sides are about $500,000,000 apart. That’s a pretty big gap to close with a very small window in which to do so. I agree with the opinions given that if MLB unilaterally implements the 50 game schedule, players won’t report and will technically be on strike. I also see that as the most likely scenario if an agreement isn’t reached in the next ten days. I personally think the chances of an agreement being reached that quickly are no better than 20%.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I read the espn articles on the latest proposal. I gotta say, I’m less optimistic about baseball in 2020 than I was in late March.

In terms of real dollars, the two sides are about $500,000,000 apart. That’s a pretty big gap to close with a very small window in which to do so. I agree with the opinions given that if MLB unilaterally implements the 50 game schedule, players won’t report and will technically be on strike. I also see that as the most likely scenario if an agreement isn’t reached in the next ten days. I personally think the chances of an agreement being reached that quickly are no better than 20%.

 

Yeah... I tend to agree even though I really really really hope you're wrong. I am not holding out much hope that we see baseball this summer.

[rdehring]

We are going to have baseball, guys.  If the owners and players can't come to agreement in the next week or so, Manfred will dictate an opening day of say July 20 and a 60+/- game season. ST2 will open about June 25.

 

Lots of established players will look at that and say not only no, but hell no to playing this year. The owners will have openings on their rosters and someone will fill them. Baseball will play with lots of AA, AAA and AAAA players filling out the rosters, earning the league minimum for 60 games...or about $200,000. With many of the more expensive players staying home, teams will break-even with many having payrolls of less than $20mm, not including the losses incurred earlier in the year.  

 

If I were an owner I just might see this as the best alternative available during a trying time. If I were a player, I would be upset by the likelihood that my career is loosing one full year of compensation with another hit likely coming in 2022. 

 

Those of us waiting to see players like Kirilloff and Larnach may get our wish a lot sooner than we think.

[yarnivek1972]

We are going to have baseball, guys. If the owners and players can't come to agreement in the next week or so, Manfred will dictate an opening day of say July 20 and a 60+/- game season. ST2 will open about June 25.

 

Lots of established players will look at that and say not only no, but hell no to playing this year. The owners will have openings on their rosters and someone will fill them. Baseball will play with lots of AA, AAA and AAAA players filling out the rosters, earning the league minimum for 60 games...or about $200,000. With many of the more expensive players staying home, teams will break-even with many having payrolls of less than $20mm, not including the losses incurred earlier in the year.

 

If I were an owner I just might see this as the best alternative available during a trying time. If I were a player, I would be upset by the likelihood that my career is loosing one full year of compensation with another hit likely coming in 2022.

 

Those of us waiting to see players like Kirilloff and Larnach may get our wish a lot sooner than we think.

I don’t think there is any way the union accepts a unilaterally imposed agreement and I think it is highly unlikely MLB uses “replacement” players. No one who ever thinks they belong will cross.

[rdehring]

 

I don’t think there is any way the union accepts a unilaterally imposed agreement and I think it is highly unlikely MLB uses “replacement” players. No one who ever thinks they belong will cross.

That's an interesting question.  What I have read the union has put themselves into a bit of a corner.  The March deal they are basing their demand for full pro rata comp per game played, gives the owner's the right to cut the season's length, which is what Manfred is threatening.  Yes, they can individually opt out or opt out en mass. So they have already accepted a shortened season at full per game pay.

 

The other part of your comment is what will be interesting.  How many top prospects would report and play?  Unknown, although if the union isn't striking it is different than crossing a picket line.

[yarnivek1972]

That's an interesting question. What I have read the union has put themselves into a bit of a corner. The March deal they are basing their demand for full pro rata comp per game played, gives the owner's the right to cut the season's length, which is what Manfred is threatening. Yes, they can individually opt out or opt out en mass. So they have already accepted a shortened season at full per game pay.

 

The other part of your comment is what will be interesting. How many top prospects would report and play? Unknown, although if the union isn't striking it is different than crossing a picket line.

I kinda worded that badly. What I meant was that I don’t believe that anyone who thinks they will ever make it through the “normal” process would cross. That was the case last time replacements were nearly used. It was a bunch of never weres and never will bes. The exception being Rick Reed who used the opportunity to make a bunch of money.

 

But yes, I don’t think MLB players will report with the proposal of 50 games at fully prorated. Mainly because they don’t believe that the playoff dates are set in stone. Alternatively, they might report and then strike at the end of the regular season, when the impact for the owners will be highest.

[howeda7]

 

Jeff Passan of ESPN provided the most comprehensive breakdown of the MLB owners' latest proposal on Twitter. I discussed that offer, how it relates to the Twins and an option on how to attempt to bridge the gap between the owners and players.

 

 

Passan did such a great job at relaying how it all relates to the league, but that's not how we usually talk about salaries in baseball. The actual details of this offer only guarantees players 50% of their prorated salaries, but through postseason shares and other bonuses it ends up equating to 75% of the prorated amount. Included in this video is a breakdown of how all this would relate to the Twins' payroll, just using that more straight-forward 75% amount of prorated salaries. Here that is:

 

 

 

One thing I didn't do in the video was trickle that down to an individual player. Let's take a look at Nelson Cruz. He was set to make $12 million. Prorate that to 76 games and you get $5.6 million, take 75% of that and you get $4.2 million.

 

How about someone who hasn't been around as long? Mitch Garver was set to make $620,000 this season. That'd drop to $290,864 prorated to 76 games, then down to $218,148 at the 75% rate.

 

I'm confident we'll see some kind of a 2020 MLB season, but don't expect either side to compromise. My solution? Look for another way to inject (even more) money into the game. You'd have to expect TV ratings to boom, there has to be some way to benefit from that ... 

On the TV ratings, not really. The deal with FSN is already in place. I suppose you could go to them and say "help us out if you want 80 games vs. 50" but they're probably not just going fork over several million to make it happen.

[howeda7]

80 games prorated at 87.5% and call it a day.

[yarnivek1972]

80 games prorated at 87.5% and call it a day.

Players could report tomorrow and not have time to get in 80 games. Minimum 3 weeks for ST2. That takes us to about July 4. That still pushes the regular season into October. If they extend playoffs to 16 teams, that likely extends playoffs into the second week of November. And that’s if players report tomorrow. Once the deal is ratified, it will take a minimum of one week to get everyone into camp. 80 games if a deal were reached tomorrow still extends postseason until late November. Add a day to that for every day beyond today that it takes to get a deal done (or take a game away).

 

If there isn’t a deal by June 20, I think it’s over.

[mlhouse]

 

80 games prorated at 87.5% and call it a day.

 

If you ran a business and received half your revenues, would you pay your employees 87.5% and call it a day?  

[howeda7]

 

Players could report tomorrow and not have time to get in 80 games. Minimum 3 weeks for ST2. That takes us to about July 4. That still pushes the regular season into October. If they extend playoffs to 16 teams, that likely extends playoffs into the second week of November. And that’s if players report tomorrow. Once the deal is ratified, it will take a minimum of one week to get everyone into camp. 80 games if a deal were reached tomorrow still extends postseason until late November. Add a day to that for every day beyond today that it takes to get a deal done (or take a game away).

If there isn’t a deal by June 20, I think it’s over.

This deal should have been reached 3 weeks ago. But it is what it is. Play into October and move the play-offs to a neutral warm weather location in November. Miami is a safe bet to be neutral and they have a roof.

[howeda7]

 

 

If you ran a business and received half your revenues, would you pay your employees 87.5% and call it a day?  

Not under normal circumstances, but in a one-off extraordinary circumstance like this, yes. Plenty of businesses have made similar tough decisions in the last 3 months. If there is no MLB season, the long-term damage to the sport will be a lot greater than the 12.5% salary they're fighting about.

[yarnivek1972]

This deal should have been reached 3 weeks ago. But it is what it is. Play into October and move the play-offs to a neutral warm weather location in November. Miami is a safe bet to be neutral and they have a roof.

If they hold all the playoff games in one stadium it will take even longer.

[yarnivek1972]

Not under normal circumstances, but in a one-off extraordinary circumstance like this, yes. Plenty of businesses have made similar tough decisions in the last 3 months. If there is no MLB season, the long-term damage to the sport will be a lot greater than the 12.5% salary they're fighting about.

The “one off” is likely to extend to 2021. I don’t see fans being allowed at most stadiums until a vaccine is ready. That is not likely before April 2021. It’s not even probable by October 2021. I could MAYBE see states allowing 50% capacity next year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The “one off” is likely to extend to 2021. I don’t see fans being allowed at most stadiums until a vaccine is ready. That is not likely before April 2021. It’s not even probable by October 2021. I could MAYBE see states allowing 50% capacity next year.

 

This is quite true, imo. We could be looking at 2022 before things are close to normal for big events like this. 

[Trov]

 

80 games prorated at 87.5% and call it a day.

Players will not accept that.  They have drawn a line at full prorate.  So 87.5% will not get it done.  The players have made no counter to a reduce in pay.  The owners have countered with several different ways to pay about 33% of full season pay.  Except for full revenue split, which was also a non-starter for players. 

[Trov]

 

Not under normal circumstances, but in a one-off extraordinary circumstance like this, yes. Plenty of businesses have made similar tough decisions in the last 3 months. If there is no MLB season, the long-term damage to the sport will be a lot greater than the 12.5% salary they're fighting about.

Maybe you should counsel the players.  I think if the players came out and countered with exactly that, and the owners balked at it, then the owners would look terrible.  Right now, I think the players look terrible.  They want full pay for play, which make sense, but they are not willing to accept fact that this is not a normal situation.  Neither side has moved an inch for weeks, the owners have just dressed up the pay in different packages but the overall pay has been the same.  However, players have not budged either, making claims they want to give the fans more games, but really they just want more money.  If they were willing to do the over 100 games at a less than prorate, then their claim of giving fans more games hold water.  

[amjgt]

Here's what I've been saying from the get go... Keep the first $500k completely whole (like it was a 162 game season). Fully prorated for $500k-$3M. Then 50% prorated above that.

 

Assuming an 81 game season (for easy math)...

 

Garver who was due to make $620k, would get all of the first $500k, then a prorated amount (half in this example) for the remaining $120k - So he would make $560k

 

Berrios who was due to make $4M would get all of the first $500k, fully prorated for the next $2.5M, then a 50% prorated share for the final $1M

$500k + $1.25M + $0.25M

So he makes $2M, which actually happens to be the same full prorated amount (happy accident by me)

 

Where the owners really start saving money is for the $10M+ guys.

 

Jake Odorizzi - $17.8

$500k + (2.5M/2) + ($14.8/4) = ~$5.5M

 

I don't know how this idea compares to the ideas being thrown around by the owner or players, but it seems overall more owner friendly financially, while still remaining player friendly for those making less that $4M annually.

 

If that went to a vote from the full union, you'd have to think it would pass.

[In My La Z boy]

 

We are going to have baseball, guys.  If the owners and players can't come to agreement in the next week or so, Manfred will dictate an opening day of say July 20 and a 60+/- game season. ST2 will open about June 25.

 

Lots of established players will look at that and say not only no, but hell no to playing this year. The owners will have openings on their rosters and someone will fill them. Baseball will play with lots of AA, AAA and AAAA players filling out the rosters, earning the league minimum for 60 games...or about $200,000. With many of the more expensive players staying home, teams will break-even with many having payrolls of less than $20mm, not including the losses incurred earlier in the year.  

 

If I were an owner I just might see this as the best alternative available during a trying time. If I were a player, I would be upset by the likelihood that my career is loosing one full year of compensation with another hit likely coming in 2022. 

 

Those of us waiting to see players like Kirilloff and Larnach may get our wish a lot sooner than we think.

Manfred is talking big, but his eyes are bigger than his stomach. If this comes down to Manfred unilaterally imposing a deal, the game blows up. I wish he would stop saying this. I would think each teams leaders would "encourage" their respective 40 man teammates to stay home. Then what? 
I don't want to watch a shortened season with everyone's A ball players - which would lead to nothing but trouble for next year and the year after. Sad, but no season this year is better than no season for the next 2 years. This needs to get hammered out between the 2 parties. Manfred is not trusted by the players.

[rdehring]

 

Manfred is talking big, but his eyes are bigger than his stomach. If this comes down to Manfred unilaterally imposing a deal, the game blows up. I wish he would stop saying this. I would think each teams leaders would "encourage" their respective 40 man teammates to stay home. Then what? 
I don't want to watch a shortened season with everyone's A ball players - which would lead to nothing but trouble for next year and the year after. Sad, but no season this year is better than no season for the next 2 years. This needs to get hammered out between the 2 parties. Manfred is not trusted by the players.

You could be right.  Just stating what Manfred says will happen, don't know if it is a bluff or if he will follow through.  As for players showing up, expect there are lots of guys wondering how they are going to pay next months credit card bill, especially guys like Arraez and the crew from Venezuela living in Florida.  Expect we will see in the next week or so.  Personally, would love to get back watching baseball, even if it is mostly young players with some prospects sprinkled in.

[Trov]

 

Here's what I've been saying from the get go... Keep the first $500k completely whole (like it was a 162 game season). Fully prorated for $500k-$3M. Then 50% prorated above that.

Assuming an 81 game season (for easy math)...

Garver who was due to make $620k, would get all of the first $500k, then a prorated amount (half in this example) for the remaining $120k - So he would make $560k

Berrios who was due to make $4M would get all of the first $500k, fully prorated for the next $2.5M, then a 50% prorated share for the final $1M
$500k + $1.25M + $0.25M
So he makes $2M, which actually happens to be the same full prorated amount (happy accident by me)

Where the owners really start saving money is for the $10M+ guys.

Jake Odorizzi - $17.8
$500k + (2.5M/2) + ($14.8/4) = ~$5.5M

I don't know how this idea compares to the ideas being thrown around by the owner or players, but it seems overall more owner friendly financially, while still remaining player friendly for those making less that $4M annually.

If that went to a vote from the full union, you'd have to think it would pass.

Sounds very similar to the sliding scale the players had a fit about.  The higher paid players take the biggest cuts.  So many of us seem to have a willingness to meet in the middle that sounds reasonable.  However, neither side has been willing to budge.  

[In My La Z boy]

 

You could be right.  Just stating what Manfred says will happen, don't know if it is a bluff or if he will follow through.  As for players showing up, expect there are lots of guys wondering how they are going to pay next months credit card bill, especially guys like Arraez and the crew from Venezuela living in Florida.  Expect we will see in the next week or so.  Personally, would love to get back watching baseball, even if it is mostly young players with some prospects sprinkled in.

I too miss baseball. Neither side seems willing to take it in the shorts for the fans. It is a shame they both can't agree the game itself is bigger than this years dollars, and get back on the field for the sake of the game. 

[Trov]

Recent reports owners may finally be budging some on their price.  Not sure the exact math of it, but recent reports are they will propose a 70 to 75 game season at around 80 to 85 percent prorate.  This moves them off their previous stance of about a third of player pay, just different ways to offer it.  Not sure how much more, of course it depends if it is 75 games at 85% or 70 games at 80%.  

 

For basic math if a player gets paid 100K per game, at full prorate, then difference between 70 and 75 games is 500K for that player.  So if the proposal is 80% on 70 games that would mean that player would make 5.6 mil instead of 7 mil.  At 85% it would be 5.95 mil.  At 75 games full prorate would be 7.5 mil.  80% would be 6 mil, and at 85% it would be 6.375 mil.  So the gap of reported proposal for a player in a full 162 season who is getting paid about 16 mil a year, would be between 5.6 mil and 6.375.  A big chunk of money, and even bigger for larger deals.  The difference for same player on full prorated on top end of deal is 7.5 mil to 6.375.  Just over a million dollars, again a large chunk of money.

 

If the proposal is true and is the 75 games at 85% it is a significant step away from where they were, but still far away from what the players are seeking.  I bet the true proposal will be closer to the 70 games at 80%, in hopes the players will counter and take a step off their line, and settle near the 75 at 85%.  They could expect the players to fully say no and not budge, but again try to look like they are trying to the fans and the players are the unreasonable ones. 

 

While both sides are trying to gain support of the fans, what both sides seem to not realize, no one cares who seems to be trying to get a season started, we just want a season and really do not care who is in the right.  This is not one where we will boycott the games because the owners are bad people, if we did it would hurt the players.  We will not petition the owners to pay the players more because the players are in the right.  This not where we have other options to get our baseball elsewhere.  Both sides need to get their heads out of a particular area and get it done.  

[rdehring]

 

Recent reports owners may finally be budging some on their price.  Not sure the exact math of it, but recent reports are they will propose a 70 to 75 game season at around 80 to 85 percent prorate.  This moves them off their previous stance of about a third of player pay, just different ways to offer it.  Not sure how much more, of course it depends if it is 75 games at 85% or 70 games at 80%.  

 

For basic math if a player gets paid 100K per game, at full prorate, then difference between 70 and 75 games is 500K for that player.  So if the proposal is 80% on 70 games that would mean that player would make 5.6 mil instead of 7 mil.  At 85% it would be 5.95 mil.  At 75 games full prorate would be 7.5 mil.  80% would be 6 mil, and at 85% it would be 6.375 mil.  So the gap of reported proposal for a player in a full 162 season who is getting paid about 16 mil a year, would be between 5.6 mil and 6.375.  A big chunk of money, and even bigger for larger deals.  The difference for same player on full prorated on top end of deal is 7.5 mil to 6.375.  Just over a million dollars, again a large chunk of money.

 

If the proposal is true and is the 75 games at 85% it is a significant step away from where they were, but still far away from what the players are seeking.  I bet the true proposal will be closer to the 70 games at 80%, in hopes the players will counter and take a step off their line, and settle near the 75 at 85%.  They could expect the players to fully say no and not budge, but again try to look like they are trying to the fans and the players are the unreasonable ones. 

 

While both sides are trying to gain support of the fans, what both sides seem to not realize, no one cares who seems to be trying to get a season started, we just want a season and really do not care who is in the right.  This is not one where we will boycott the games because the owners are bad people, if we did it would hurt the players.  We will not petition the owners to pay the players more because the players are in the right.  This not where we have other options to get our baseball elsewhere.  Both sides need to get their heads out of a particular area and get it done.  

So far the players haven't budged, not once.  Will be interesting to see if the union has a number that they have been trying to get the owners to.  If not, if they truly want 100% of their per game and the owners get as close as you suggest, then they shouldn't be surprised if the owners say no and there is no baseball.

 

And if the owners really offer 80-85% of a 75+ game season and the players still say no, I don't know about most fans but this fan will put the blame for no baseball clearly on the players.  

[Tom Froemming]

This is similar to the last offer, in that the amount being reported is basically if the players max out. That number of more than 80% of the prorated salaries only happens *if* there's a postseason. The amount they're guaranteed on a per-game basis is somewhere even below that 80%, which isn't likely anything the players would consider in the first place.

 

We're going to end up with around a 50-game season. That's how this has been trending for months, the MLB really hasn't advanced anything or made any real changes to their multiple offers over the past couple months. Every single one equates to the players ending up earning somewhere around 30% of their original salaries.

[Vanimal46]

5 offers with the same end result for the players. Making between 33-36% of the salaries they would make in a normal year. Just presented in different ways. The owners really don’t want to have a season and it shows. I concur with Tom, all we’re going to get is a mandated 48-50 game schedule. What a shame.

[yarnivek1972]

The owners’ proposal isn’t likely to get bigger in terms of percentage of original contracts. Every day that passes is one fewer game that can be played. From the day an agreement is reached, it will be at least a full month before regular season games are played. One week to report. 3 days of workouts. 18 days of ST2 games. Today is June 12. So, the earliest regular games would start is July 15 if a deal is reached by Monday. That only leaves 77 days until the end of September. That is going to be the end of regular season games. Any later as far as MLB is concerned (based on what I have read) is non-negotiable. Especially if the playoffs get expanded to 16 or 22 teams. So, 75 games would require basically no off days and/or doubleheaders. And again, every day an agreement isn’t reached is a day closer to October 1.

 

My opinion hasn’t changed. I think the owners declare an impasse and attempt to implement the 50 game fully prorated schedule they say the players agreed to in March if there is no agreement by June 20. One week from tomorrow. The players will tell the owners where to go and there will be a strike.

 

Frankly, I think the impasse is less about this season and more of a power play going into the CBA renegotiation. There are now basically two types of players. The superstars making 8 figures per year and guys making 6 figures. Players in the middle are becoming an endangered species. The ones who are at that mid level are the arbitration level players. The “better than average veteran” class are being squeezed out of the league by minimum salary players.

 

This has been brewing for awhile IMO.

[howeda7]

 

If they hold all the playoff games in one stadium it will take even longer.

One per league then.

[howeda7]

 

The “one off” is likely to extend to 2021. I don’t see fans being allowed at most stadiums until a vaccine is ready. That is not likely before April 2021. It’s not even probable by October 2021. I could MAYBE see states allowing 50% capacity next year.

Agreed. It will probably be 2022 before there is normalcy. But I expect the NFL/College football to have some fans in the stands this fall. I'd be surprised if MLB doesn't have at least 50% capacity by opening day next year. That's still a revenue hit, but they will know or have an idea about it going into the off-season and can adjust their payroll accordingly.