*** VD 13 Commentary Thread ***

[cavebird]

Give in to the dark side....feel the power of your anger

I'd rather keep the power of my pay check, thank you.

[The Feral Slasher]

I'd rather keep the power of my pay check, thank you.

Probably much more powerful

[Ken]

Contractually mandated does not equal willingly offered.

But that's the point right, there's no precedent or contract covering a pandemic, so they are negoiating it. A player stubbornly saying I'm not playing unless I get mine is just as bad as an owner asking to decrease pay so they can avoid teams going bankrupt.

If you were one of the best (whatevers) in the entire world, you would deserve the high pay you received and would have strong grounds for making demands for such. Those figures, while slightly bettering the rate of inflation, were collectively bargained for. They aren't evidence of benevolence or a gift given by the owners.

Let's be realistic. Benevolent gifts aren't part of the conversation. This is a business, and there are rarely ever benevolent gifts.

The owners are trying to put together a scenario where they can realistically have a season. They aren't asking for a gift, they are asking for a reasonable way to make it happen.

They clearly want their employees to share in their losses but not their gains.

That's the thing though, they have been sharing in their gains. That's why we have players paid 100s of millions of dollars now, when 30 years ago $1 million was a huge contract. That's well over inflation. That's the increase in revenue being shared between the players and the teams.

I mean, these guys are making a ton of money to have other people who are the best in the world do their jobs. Why are they trying to fuck them over constantly? The guys who write the checks are the gazillionaires, not the ones who cash them.

Both sides have far more money than they need. That's half of the point really.

Owners want the employees to share in the losses, not the gains.

Again, they are already sharing in the gains. If they weren't then salaries would not be going up. Saying that they negotiated it doesn't matter, they are sharing the gains.

Honestly, it's just crazy to me that anyone would ever, ever side with the owners.

Really? We have billionaires fighting 100 millionaires and the whiny 100 millionaires don't want to play a game for only $2 million. It's crazy to you that someone would think that's petulant? Hmmm ok.

And we're not even addressing the billionaire owners of organizations who are famously stingy, never sign free agents, etc.

Why aren't sports owners allowed to be frugal? Others are. It's their business why do you think we should tell them how they have to run it financially?

I have to chalk it up to anti-union propaganda, I guess. It makes no sense to me at all to side with the owners ever, particularly now. It's the crab in the bucket scenario.

Nope, not anti-union at all.

[Ken]

I always root for the servants and not the masters.

If you think the guys getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars are "servants", I guess that's where we disagree. The fact that it's not uncommon for former players to purchase teams should give you a hint that we are talking about masters fighting with masters.

[cavebird]

A couple of points:

1. A whiny as he is, Snell will play if the MLBPA makes a deal.

2. Yes, there is sharing, but both sides want as big a piece of the pie as possible. Of course, the owners' first offer put the risk on the players, not the owners, and of course, it will land in the middle. It's not quite like the owners' couldn't have a season and stick to the pro-rata part from the March deal. They would just be the ones taking the risk. They are trying to shift it. MLBPA is not inclined to take both the health and financial risk. Both sides have financial risk if nothing is played. That will keep the negotiations going. Nothing will be agreed until it is all agreed at the last possible minute. That's how these things work.

3. Snell, however, is not a 100 millionaire. He did sign a five year deal before 2019, but 2020 was his first arb-eligible season, so his salary last year per Cot's was only $1 million. He's made about $2.7 million in his career when you count his $684,000 signing bonus when he was drafted.

[heyelander]

Probably much more powerful

that's what she said!

[Bene Futuis]

Some points for clarification: The two parties already did negotiate pay vis a vis the pandemic. The owners are trying to further change and reduce pay to players, despite the agreement and, up until extremely recently, without any concessions or framework for safety. I suppose I'm not 100% sure what the legal relationship of players vis a vis owners is, but normal employer-employee relationships are referred to as master-servant relationships, for better or worse. There is no "sharing of the gains" on the part of the players - as a matter of fact, that's exactly what they steadfastly refuse to agree to, since it's in effect a salary cap and the exact thing that caused the 1994 strike and cancellation of the World Series. The owners have desperately wanted sharing of the gains for decades. And while this pandemic is certainly unprecedented in modern history, I would stake heyelander's left nut that there is already "acts of god" language in the CBA that apply in this situation. To the extent that minimum salary increases have exceeded the rate of inflation, it has generally been modest and essentially due to the new CBA in 2012 and not to the benefit of the vast majority of professional baseball players. The vast, vast majority of player employees (i.e. all minor leaguers) get paid less than a high school janitor, despite their organizations being worth billions of dollars. I just can't agree that it's a "both sides" issue at all.

Again, I'm sort of just parroting what was said in the Fangraphs article I think we have now all read, but three things are very clear to me: 1) after many years of awesome profits the owners are now trying to make players subsidize this year's losses, 2) player salaries are not tied to profit or revenue in any real way, and 3) the owners are right now employing classic union busting techniques and propaganda that appear to be working, at least with some folks.

[cavebird]

If you think the guys getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars are "servants", I guess that's where we disagree. The fact that it's not uncommon for former players to purchase teams should give you a hint that we are talking about masters fighting with masters.

I am trying to think of former players who actually own teams (rather than being figureheads of an ownership group where they have a usually very small stake), and I can only think of two--one is the Hornets, owned by Michael Jordan, almost certainly the professional athlete who made more from salary and endorsements than any other player of any sport ever did, and the other is the Penguins, and that is only because they didn't cost much--they were bought out of bankruptcy by Lemieux on the cheap, mostly with debt (i.e. the Penguins were in bankruptcy because they couldn't pay him tons of deferred salary, so he just took the team instead). I can't think of any other former professional athletes that own major sports teams, at least in the US. Maybe I am forgetting some. Does anyone remember anyone else?

[cavebird]

the owners are right now employing classic union busting techniques and propaganda that appear to be working, at least with some folks.

They aren't and won't work with the only group of people who matter, the MLBPA. It is sad, but to be expected, negotiating tactics. Think of it as a preview for the negotiations that will happen after the CBA expires following the 2021 season.

[Ken]

I am trying to think of former players who actually own teams (rather than being figureheads of an ownership group where they have a usually very small stake), and I can only think of two--one is the Hornets, owned by Michael Jordan, almost certainly the professional athlete who made more from salary and endorsements than any other player of any sport ever did, and the other is the Penguins, and that is only because they didn't cost much--they were bought out of bankruptcy by Lemieux on the cheap, mostly with debt (i.e. the Penguins were in bankruptcy because they couldn't pay him tons of deferred salary, so he just took the team instead). I can't think of any other former professional athletes that own major sports teams, at least in the US. Maybe I am forgetting some. Does anyone remember anyone else?

Jeter, Ryan, Magic, Ripkens have all had parts of US sports franchises. I'm not sure controlling ownership is relevant. They are on the other side of the table from the players now.

Piazza took an italy soccer franchise and ran into the ground and he's hated there.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

[Ken]

The two parties already did negotiate pay vis a vis the pandemic. The owners are trying to further change and reduce pay to players, despite the agreement

There's disagreement there but I've seen articles stating that it was understood that it would change if there's no fans in the stadiums to provide revenue. That change altered the agreement significantly (obviously)

and, up until extremely recently, without any concessions or framework for safety.

Huh? This is the first time they are discussing going back to work. Why would they talk about the safety precautions before they start talking about it? Makes no sense.

[revo]

Just FYI, Steam has a big sale today. I bought Total War: Rome II last night (not on sale) for $60, and today (on sale) Hearts of Iron IV for $10, Europa Universalis IV for $10, and Cities: Skyline for $7.

[johnnya24]

Just FYI, Steam has a big sale today. I bought Total War: Rome II last night (not on sale) for $60, and today (on sale) Hearts of Iron IV for $10, Europa Universalis IV for $10, and Cities: Skyline for $7.

Be careful with HOI4 and EU4 ... even on sale EU4 with all DLC's is well over $100 and probably approaching $300 off-sale

I was debating getting all the DLC's in last summer's steam sale. I balked.

[cavebird]

Jeter, Ryan, Magic, Ripkens have all had parts of US sports franchises. I'm not sure controlling ownership is relevant. They are on the other side of the table from the players now.

Piazza took an italy soccer franchise and ran into the ground and he's hated there.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Huge difference. If you pay for a small franchise in a random irrelevant league, that's just a bit of fun. Jeter's 4% of the Marlins and Magic's 5% of the Dodgers are just investments and public faces---the real people on the other side of the table are the people who actually own the franchises (Bruce Sherman and Mark Walter). Piazza took a very low level Italian soccer team and ran it into the ground. Not exactly Seria A. I have no knowledge of the Ripkens owning anything other than minor league franchises which have almost no value and don't bargain with anyone. None of this shows that the players make so much that they become the owners, outside of cheap franchises (Penguins in bankruptcy) or the absolutely richest (Jordan, who also has a share of the Marlins). That was your point. I was just wondering if I was missing anyone. I still may be, but nobody you mentioned would fall in my list of those who became so rich they were actually rich enough to own/control the type of franchise they played for.

[Ken]

Huge difference. If you pay for a small franchise in a random irrelevant league, that's just a bit of fun. Jeter's 4% of the Marlins and Magic's 5% of the Dodgers are just investments and public faces---the real people on the other side of the table are the people who actually own the franchises (Bruce Sherman and Mark Walter). Piazza took a very low level Italian soccer team and ran it into the ground. Not exactly Seria A. I have no knowledge of the Ripkens owning anything other than minor league franchises which have almost no value and don't bargain with anyone. None of this shows that the players make so much that they become the owners, outside of cheap franchises (Penguins in bankruptcy) or the absolutely richest (Jordan, who also has a share of the Marlins). That was your point. I was just wondering if I was missing anyone. I still may be, but nobody you mentioned would fall in my list of those who became so rich they were actually rich enough to own/control the type of franchise they played for.

You are getting caught up in the semantics and completely whiffing on the point.

Modern athletes, i.e. baseball players who make on average $4 million a year are about as far from "servants" as it gets. They are the masters. They are a business of their own. They own mansions and have maids and nannies and many of them likely can't tell you the price of milk.

This isn't protecting the little guy, that's a joke.

This is whiny privileged rich guys arguing with whiny privileged rich guys.

Not sure why you are getting so bogged down in what percentage of a team they own. Do you own 5% of a major US sports franchise? Does anyone you know or associate with? I don't think so.