Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[Sour Masher]

According to ESPN's Buster Olney, some MLB owners are "perfectly willing" to go with the nuclear option and cancel the 2020 season should players not agree to additional pay cuts. From Olney:

"Sources say there is a group of owners perfectly willing to shut down the season, to slash payroll costs and reduce losses, and the disparate views among the 30 teams have been reflected in the decisions to fire and furlough. The Pirates' Bob Nutting used the shutdown as an avenue to suspend team contributions to employee 401K plans -- savings best measured monthly in the tens of thousands of dollars rather than the millions that would actually be difference-making for a franchise probably worth at least $1 billion. The Oakland Athletics' John Fisher decided to eliminate the $400 weekly salaries of minor leaguers, which might save the franchise about the amount of the team's unpaid stadium rental bill. On the other hand, clubs such as the Tigers, Padres and Royals demonstrated greater humanity, with the Royals' John Sherman deciding to pay his minor leaguers."


This would absolutely kill the sport. F--k 'em, if they think this is the way to go, I hope everyone abandons them and their team values plummet.

All this is doing is identifying the owners that need to be replaced if the sport wants to grow and thrive. Some small market teams are making the right calls and thinking big picture. Some, like the Pirates and A's are showing they absolutely do not have the sports best interest in mind. They are taking relative pennies away from players, and seem almost eager for no baseball, because in the short term, it may benefit them slightly more. What a myopic and misguided view for the growth of health of the game. I suspect/hope they make up too small a minority to matter.

[cavebird]

All this is doing is identifying the owners that need to be replaced if the sport wants to grow and thrive. Some small market teams are making the right calls and thinking big picture. Some, like the Pirates and A's are showing they absolutely do not have the sports best interest in mind. They are taking relative pennies away from players, and seem almost eager for no baseball, because in the short term, it may benefit them slightly more. What a myopic and misguided view for the growth of health of the game. I suspect/hope they make up too small a minority to matter.

The positive side is that other owners aren't that stupid. The owners tried to get the players amongst themselves. Apparently, it was because they knew what it was like.

[madducks]

All this is doing is identifying the owners that need to be replaced if the sport wants to grow and thrive. Some small market teams are making the right calls and thinking big picture. Some, like the Pirates and A's are showing they absolutely do not have the sports best interest in mind. They are taking relative pennies away from players, and seem almost eager for no baseball, because in the short term, it may benefit them slightly more. What a myopic and misguided view for the growth of health of the game. I suspect/hope they make up too small a minority to matter.

Please let Pirates owner Bob Nutting get replaced.

[chancellor]

The positive side is that other owners aren't that stupid. The owners tried to get the players amongst themselves. Apparently, it was because they knew what it was like.

Perhaps true about the stupidity, but it only takes a handful, minus a couple fingers, to screw up the season. I truly wonder what would happen in a Force Majeure environment like this if the A's decided any deal that was cut just wasn't worth it and closed up shop for the year, just as a for example. I suspect they'd have no difficulty in finding plenty of experts to testify how bringing this group of people together is hazardous for the individuals and for the area; how it could trigger a second wave of virus infections, and a host of other dread-inducing scenarios.

[cavebird]

Perhaps true about the stupidity, but it only takes a handful, minus a couple fingers, to screw up the season. I truly wonder what would happen in a Force Majeure environment like this if the A's decided any deal that was cut just wasn't worth it and closed up shop for the year, just as a for example. I suspect they'd have no difficulty in finding plenty of experts to testify how bringing this group of people together is hazardous for the individuals and for the area; how it could trigger a second wave of virus infections, and a host of other dread-inducing scenarios.

I don't think that a single team could defy the league like that if a deal were made that they didn't like. I am pretty sure that MLB could force ownership to sell in that situation (like when MLB took over the Dodgers because of debt issues), although that would almost certainly involve ugly litigation.

[chancellor]

I don't think that a single team could defy the league like that if a deal were made that they didn't like. I am pretty sure that MLB could force ownership to sell in that situation (like when MLB took over the Dodgers because of debt issues), although that would almost certainly involve ugly litigation.

I agree MLB would certainly try something like that. I'm just not sure they'd be successful in today's environment of coronafear; especially if the owners would accept the players request that players who decline to play would not be penalized, other than possibly forfeiting pay.

And like you said, at best, it'd be ugly and drawn out.

[TranaGreg]

I don't think that a single team could defy the league like that if a deal were made that they didn't like. I am pretty sure that MLB could force ownership to sell in that situation (like when MLB took over the Dodgers because of debt issues), although that would almost certainly involve ugly litigation.

I gotta think tho that it wouldn't be one team, that there likely would be 2 or 3 more waiting in the wings ... or joining in ... would get very sticky very fast ...

[fuhrdog]

So now the owners want a 50 game season...wow. Is this because the players want pro-rated salaries or are they serious?

[cavebird]

So now the owners want a 50 game season...wow

I haven't seen that anywhere. Where are you getting this from?

[revo]

I haven't seen that anywhere. Where are you getting this from?

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/01/report-mlb-to-propose-shorter-season-pay-players-full-share-of-prorated-salaries/

[cavebird]

Interesting. And they find that good news? This sound more to me like a fantasy trade offer than insults the recipient so the teams trade offers more and more favorable to themselves.

[revo]

Interesting. And they find that good news? This sound more to me like a fantasy trade offer than insults the recipient so the teams trade offers more and more favorable to themselves.

It's ridiculous. Of course, the middle ground between 50 games (proposed by MLB) and 114 (proposed by the MLBPA) is.....82 games.

[chancellor]

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/01...ated-salaries/

Well, that proposal is actually real progress. If I were a young player, pre-arb or in arb years, or a lower-paid marginal veteran, I'd be all over that deal. Yeah, the reduced pay will sting, but you still get credit for the service year, and as you noted earlier, they also get credit for a full year toward their pension. For example, if I'm a player making $486,000/year ($3,000/game), the reduction in games from the original 82 costs me about $90k in additional lost salary, but I get the year for arb and pension. Moreover, unless my memory fails me, players are partially vested to about $35k/year in the pension after 40-50 games, so a 50 game season could get a lot of guys a giant security blanket.

And the rich guys don't get preferentially taxed, so that argument goes away.

While I don't believe the owners loss figures, I do believe they're losing money every game that's played in no-fan conditions. So fewer games, with an extended playoff run, makes sense for them.

That doesn't mean that 50 games is the right figure. But add in some amount - say, 15 games or so - and there might be some middle ground to be found.

[heyelander]

It's ridiculous. Of course, the middle ground between 50 games (proposed by MLB) and 114 (proposed by the MLBPA) is.....82 games.

Can't we make it 81 games to make it easy to math?

[cavebird]

Well, that proposal is actually real progress. If I were a young player, pre-arb or in arb years, or a lower-paid marginal veteran, I'd be all over that deal. Yeah, the reduced pay will sting, but you still get credit for the service year, and as you noted earlier, they also get credit for a full year toward their pension. For example, if I'm a player making $486,000/year ($3,000/game), the reduction in games from the original 82 costs me about $90k in additional lost salary, but I get the year for arb and pension. Moreover, unless my memory fails me, players are partially vested to about $35k/year in the pension after 40-50 games, so a 50 game season could get a lot of guys a giant security blanket.

And the rich guys don't get preferentially taxed, so that argument goes away.

While I don't believe the owners loss figures, I do believe they're losing money every game that's played in no-fan conditions. So fewer games, with an extended playoff run, makes sense for them.

That doesn't mean that 50 games is the right figure. But add in some amount - say, 15 games or so - and there might be some middle ground to be found.

I think it depends on what you count as losing money for each game played in an empty stadium. If they did 82 games at a pro-rated salary and there was a post-season, they would or at least should break even. However, since the big TV money is all in the playoffs, yes, adding additional games with additional salary does bring down the profit margin with each game played. They'd make out like bandits if they only did the playoffs--the majority of players wouldn't get paid at all (since they aren't on playoff teams) and the others would get very little, while the owners get most of their money. Of course, the fewer the games in the season, the more of a joke the season is.