Baseball is Better Than This, Right?

[drivlikejehu]

I think the owners are primarily at fault but I also think the players are sore about how they've lost the last couple CBA negotiations, and basically have adopted a hard-line attitude in an attempt to prevent further 'setbacks' in their eyes. That's happening in the context of the upcoming CBA negotiations, widely expected to extremely contentious, if not practically doomed (and that was even before covid-19). It's bad.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 10:37 PM, Twodogs said:

But if the money shifted from 1 player to 3 wouldn't the same agents make their money? I think the big thing is trusting the owners to actually spend that money on those other players and not just pocket it. That is probably the biggest thing is trust between the players and the owners.

 

I don't think the MLB players worry too much if the MiLB players are getting their fair share. The union seems to pretty heavily favor the stars so their objections might be the high profile prospects not getting a giant pay day before ever playing a MLB game or MiLB game for that matter. Regardless, the salaries would be stipulated as part of the new structure or CBA. Therefore, there would be no question the MiLB players would get the money.

[DocBauer]

  On 6/17/2020 at 10:59 PM, drivlikejehu said:

I think the owners are primarily at fault but I also think the players are sore about how they've lost the last couple CBA negotiations, and basically have adopted a hard-line attitude in an attempt to prevent further 'setbacks' in their eyes. That's happening in the context of the upcoming CBA negotiations, widely expected to extremely contentious, if not practically doomed (and that was even before covid-19). It's bad.

 

Let me be clear, I think BOTH sides are at fault here. And I see the arguments of both sides. There is so much to lose for both sides here, not just in 2020, but for the next 3-5yrs as BOTH sides are going to see and feel repricusions financially, possible work stoppages, growing animosity, and public apathy that could easily rival and surpass what we saw the last time there was a similar work stop.

 

From a purely logically, practical viewpoint, taking out the love of baseball from a fan perspective, I do tend to lean towards the owners and MLB in general by a very small percentage. Again, just from a logical viewpoint of a business trapped in an awkward situation for a season that never began, unlike the NBA and NHL and fall football that hasn't even started yet but could potentially have full seasons with anywhere to no, partial or full fan attendance/participation.

 

Where I greatly dislike ownership and side with the players is how the initial offer, and subsequent offers, seem to penalize the real power players of the league. And I 100% agree with you that has galvanized the union in a poor and misguided calculation on the owners behalf.

 

I only caught the last portion of a great interview with Buster Olney where he stated...as of now...the only way baseball is played in 2020 is because one of 2 things happen:

 

1] The owners cave in to the union for at least a roughly half season of full proration, and then huddle together and bar the doors after 2021 and try to get their way.

 

2] The union gives in to play in 2020, get what they can, and then they bunker themselves after 2021 and try to win the next bargaining session as they now appear to be galvanized, as you stated, and as Olney also states.

 

Either way, both sides are at combative odds against the other. And FA is going to be very different next season, and I would bet arbitration players will take it on the chin as well.

 

And the ridiculous part of all of this is it doesn't have to be this way. And this where I do give ownership credit for offering up revenue sharing options including the playoffs, which the union quickly rejected. (Again, the sliding scale percentage salary offer ownership first presented was taken as an insult, and I would say rightly so).

 

I would like to think the owners are intelligent people. I would like to think the players and their union reps are smart people. (Personally, I think agents have their own agenda and are in the ears of players and the union too much, but it's just an opinion). You would think, hope, that both sides would look at the NBA and NFL, and their model of success in regard to revenue sharing and salary caps with ceilings, but also floors and adapt their negotiations to formulas that have proven to work.

 

I'm not impressed by Manfred but maybe he's just a mouthpiece. My understanding is he was brought on board due to his experience as a negotiator. I feel he is either a puppet or out of element. Ownership needs someone forward thinking and given some level of autonomy to present reality to owners for the good of baseball. Players and their union need to recognize just what is going on in the world and what is good for the growth of the sport that they play, and for their future.

 

For instance, and I'm just tossing out fake numbers for arguement sake, do players want FA numbers to take a 40% dip the next few seasons due to financial loss or 20%? Is it better to be part of a solution now, or be drug along for an extended adjustment? If the union truly represents ALL players and not just the top 10-15%, then wouldn't they be better served to examine financial floors such as minimum contracts, minimum team payrolls, perhaps earlier FA status?

 

Sorry I'm rambling. But both sides are understandable here, but both sides are wrong. And both sides need one another or there is no league.

[Darius]

The MLB offices seriously have to upgrade their PR staff. Regardless of who is at fault, Manfred looks like the dunce as usual.

 

Although, it would be impossible to side with Manfred on anything. He could say the sky was blue, and I’d argue it’s actually more of a cyan. He’s just too awful.

[rdehring]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 10:37 PM, Twodogs said:

But if the money shifted from 1 player to 3 wouldn't the same agents make their money? I think the big thing is trusting the owners to actually spend that money on those other players and not just pocket it. That is probably the biggest thing is trust between the players and the owners.

That could be true, but I am not certain what cut the agent gets of the tiny minor league contracts versus what his percentage is on the big first round signing bonuses. Plus, gotta believe the number of agents representing the 30 first round picks is small...probably 4 or 5 agent/firms. I expect the large number of players who aren't top prospects are represented by hundreds of other agents with less influence.

[Major League Ready]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 5:31 PM, Twodogs said:

In 1981 after a strike shortened season MLB had a world series rating of a 30.0. Last year Washington's world series win had a rating of 8.1. The owners should really be looking at that when they consider these crazy bargaining conflicts. I mean this type of bull headedness is going to, in the end, decrease their profitability over the next 10 to 15 years. I mean most of their profits come at the hands of TV contracts and deals of that nature. I mean billions. With those ratings headed for the toilet, why would anyone pay MLB so much money for losing viewers? They won't and all of their greed will beging to bankrupt them as they will have to charge more for the games and stuff like that which in turn will decrease the number of overall fans. I mean I get it that this year will be a tough year, they might have to take it in the shorts a little so as to profit at a higher level in the future. I mean when I see the offers of a 50/50 split because of the decreased revenues this year, I kind of get it. But are those same owners willing to do a 50/50 split for all of the good seasons too? If they aren't then they should just get it going now, if they are willing to split profits with the players 50/50 forever then let them know that. But they won't, because they are only willing to split 50/50 when stuff is bad, not when it's good. So at your local grocery store, are they asking the employees to make 50% of a pro-rated salary? No, they are paying the employees what they normally make, and in these crazy times with the virus and all these stores may not make any profits, but they know that if they can keep operations going that on the other side they will. Could you imagine the outrage if someone came up to you at your place of employment and offered you the ability to make 50% of your normal pay. Imagine if you make minimum wage and now you get to make half of that? So yeah I know MLB players make a lot more than that, but still, the owners are making billions off of their backs, and if they screw it up, they might not be in the very soon future.

 

It would appear that you confuse revenue and profit using them interchangeably. Teams earned a collective profit last year of a little over $1B, depending on the source. Players earned $4.4B or roughly 4 times more than owners. Do you understand that the owners pay all of the expenses, hundreds of non-player employees, advertising, payroll taxes, pensions, medical, etc? 

 

BTW ... It is absolutely common for top earners to take a pay cut when a company or industry falls on hard times. A pandemic is about as extreme as it gets. Had we been able to get a half season in revenue would have been roughly 1/3 of normal and expenses about 2/3 of normal.

[BD57]

 

  On 6/17/2020 at 12:23 PM, JDubs said:

The players already agreed to a pay cut to get back on the field only two months ago and the owners tore up that agreement because they're greedy. Framing this as a both sides thing is absolute peak bootlicker.

 

First, it wasn't an "agreement"; if it was an "agreement," the Players would be in Court (or before an arbitrator) demanding that it be enforced.  And they aren't.

 

They discussed terms and concepts for re-opening, at a time when neither side knew for sure what that would look like.  The assumption was "there would be fans in the stands" and owners would have that source of revenue available to them.

 

That was before it became apparent that some levels of our national leadership were in love with the Lockdown & would do what they could to prolong & extend it.

 

Now, we're "here" and one of the presumptions of their discussion - "fans in the stands" - has been shown to be inoperative.  

 

The Owners are saying "This Changes things," and the Players response is "The HeckYou Say - we want the same money, even though you won't have that source of revenue you were assuming you'd have."

 

Hard to believe the Owners didn't fall all over themselves to say Yes to that 'swell deal' ....

 

You've taken a "side" and that's fine.

 

Your "side" is "The Owners loss of the revenue source they thought they'd have is no reason for them to refuse to agree to the Players'  terms."

 

That's fine.  Make the argument.

 

But spare us the "There was an AGREEMENT" business, because, again, these sides would be in court or arbitration, not spitting at each other in the press, if there was an enforceable agreement.

 

Baseball is the most dysfunctional Labor / Management sport there is, in large part because both sides persist in selfish, oppositional behavior at every opportunity.   

 

This year is the quintessential Cluster because of the Shutdowns.   If BOTH sides eventually come to believe it's important to have a season in 2020, they'll come to an agreement.

 

If BOTH sides don't - if one or both decide their parochial interests are more important than salvaging something out of 2020, which is going to be a "one off," then there won't be a season.