2:48pm: Jeff Passan of ESPN has more info on roster size: Teams would be able to carry 30 players for the first two weeks, 28 for the next two and 26 for the rest of the season. They’d be able to use a total of 60 players during the season.
2:45pm: The deadline for the union to accept this 72-game offer is Sunday night, per Nightengale, who adds that players who fear contracting the coronavirus can choose not to play. However, only high-risk players would still get paid and accrue service time. If the union approves, which seems unlikely, the league will announce a season timeline and a resumption of a 21-day spring training within 48 hours, Rosenthal reports. This plan would also suspend draft-pick compensation for the 2020-21 offseason and expand the playoffs to as many as eight teams per league. If the playoffs are completed, players would receive 83 percent of prorated salaries.
2:33pm: MLB’s proposal promises players $1.5 billion if there’s a postseason, Bob Nightengale of USA Today tweets. It’s $1.27 billion for the regular season, which would begin July 14 and conclude Sept. 27. Teams would be able to carry 29 players on their roster during the first month. Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic adds that players receive 70 percent of prorated salaries for a 72-game regular season and 80 percent if the playoffs take place.
10:39am: In its latest offer to Major League Baseball, the MLBPA proposed an 89-game regular season with fully prorated salaries and playoff expansion. The league is expected to make a counter-proposal today, though it doesn’t seem like one that will move the needle enough for the union. MLB plans to offer the players a season of 70-plus games with 80 to 85 percent pro rata salaries and a playoff pool bonus, Karl Ravech of ESPN reports.
It’s expected to be a 72-game offer, per MLB Network’s Jon Heyman, who adds the league will “significantly raise” the players’ share if the COVID-19 pandemic forces the cancellation of the postseason. However, “there’s no confidence” that the players will say yes to the league’s newest attempt, according to Heyman.
Prorated salaries continue to serve as the main roadblock between the parties, considering the union has insisted on receiving 100 percent of that pay for the season. With that in mind, the players obviously want as many games as possible to occur. The league, on the other hand, seems more willing to play a shorter schedule because of financial losses that will come as a result of a lack of fans in the stands. MLB could reportedly lose in the billions if the coronavirus prevents spectators at games. Furthermore, owners such as the Cardinals’ Bill DeWitt Jr. and the Cubs’ Tom Ricketts have publicly raised concerns over profits in recent weeks.
To the bewilderment of many, DeWitt claimed earlier this week that the baseball industry “isn’t very profitable.” Last month, Ricketts said that “about 70 percent of the revenue that comes into our organization comes in on day of game.”
Despite the ongoing disagreements between owners and players, commissioner Rob Manfred insisted this week, “We’re going to play baseball in 2020 — 100 percent.”
Under the agreement the owners and players made in March, Manfred has the ability to choose the length of a season (perhaps one as few as 40-plus games). While neither side wants it to come to that, the 11th hour is approaching, and if the owners and players don’t see eye to eye in talks soon, Manfred could take matters into his own hands in the coming days. Such a move likely would not bode well with the current collective bargaining agreement set to expire after 2021, but Manfred may decide to risk it if leads to any kind of a 2020 season.
cmon guys. 81 games at 80% that is the perfect solution.
needs to be 100% pro rated
the union saying 100% is a negotiating tactic. they know they cant get about a half season at 100%. again, i will hold that if the owners proved x% of their profits came from stadiums then players would take x% as long as owners would put some of money potentially earned if stadiums open back up back into their saleries. i think its fair to say owners make probably at least a tad more than 20% on the stadiums and related profits, so its something the union will probably be willing to stomach in the end.
Dark…So when the owners have excellent profits the players don’t get an increase in their contract salary, but if the owners have a bad year the players are suppose to share that loss?
Those “excellent” profits, whatever they are, are already factored into player salaries.
Don’t players salaries generally increase every year? Most contracts are set up for higher salary year over year? Doesn’t the average player salary go up just about every year? You could argue that players salaries do go up with profit.
Here’s the thing. If they don’t come off that demand, the profits are going to go way down, and owners won’t spend on FA in the upcoming offseasons. So in reality the players seem to be shooting themselves in the foot.
If that were the case, then why has the net profitability of clubs increased substantially while player salaries have remained stagnant?
Not since the players gave the owners a soft salary cap they aren’t. All the most profitable teams are “avoiding the luxury tax” and pocketing the cash.
Halo… That is flat incorrect. The first three years in the majors players salary remains flat. Only when they reach arbitration do the owners have to pay them according to performance. So to be fair when ownership loses money three years in a row then the players should adjust for a lower salary.
alt2tab
It’s a reasonable question. I would suggest because owning a baseball time is not based on profitability.
The revenue of a baseball card is zero, yet they still goes up in value. Why? The value is not based on revenue?
This is clearly not normal, get real 1010
@att2tab–Where have you seen the net profitability of the clubs published anywhere? How can you make that statement if the profitability is not disclosed?
As a business owner I can say small profits are ok as long as pay my and others salaries but must important look the tremendous gain a values for sports franchises over the last two decades. I mean seriously what they want to pace tech companies. Really greedy owners I say!
Yes, the owners make a ton on players in their first three years, but more often than not, they take those profits and overspend on free agents.
Because you say it is so.
@balloonknots — If you are truly a business owner, you would know that you can not equate the gains of value to profitability and the ability to spend more on player salaries. Exactly how much extra cash is available to a franchise when the value of the club rises from $1 Billion to $1.2 Billion in a given year? How is that impacting cash flow?
@gozurman1: Per statista, team revenue has doubled from $5.82B in 2008 to $9.9B in 2018. Its difficult to determine teams’ operating costs since only the Braves release financial statements. But if you look at Liberty Media’s financial statements from 2018 and compare it to TWC’s filings in 2008, the operating cost has remained largely the same when factoring in inflation. And that’s even with the Braves’ costs for the new ballpark and surrounding venues. Thus, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conclude that the operating costs have remained largely the same for most teams and that teams have seen a general increase in profits given the large increase in revenue.
Interestingly, the Braves still operated at a loss in 2018, but that was largely due to its development of the area surrounding the ballpark, a project the owners chose to pursue and that the players receive no compensation from. So the losses Liberty Media faced in 2018 can largely be credited to its decision to take on the risk and expand, a risk that should not fall on the players.
@halo11: it’s funny how when we argued about Arte Moreno furloughing employees you said his net worth didn’t matter, but the profitability of the team did. Now you’re saying the net worth of a team is a better measure of the team’s value than its revenue or profitability. Those goal posts are really putting on some miles.
Also, your argument somehow glosses over the fact that team values have increased even more than team revenue!
Stagnant? How has it been stagnant? The top 2-3 free agents to come out every year now is getting a $300 million guaranteed contract. There will be a half billion dollar man very soon I expect. Yes, the guys lower down haven’t been keeping up but that is because the MLBPA doesn’t care about them anywhere near as much as the guys on top.
Baseball1010: when the likes of Chris Davis are a massive detriment to their teams do they still not get paid tens of millions of dollars?
Sounds like that’s a pretty good middle ground. If there could be some language that if fans can attend at some point that maybe they could get full pro rated salaries be it the regular season or post season.
That’s a faulty argument. Players sign a contact and get paid no matter if attendance is up or down.
However, this isn’t a “bad year” with attendance down 20%. It’s, there will be no fans in the stands due to a pandemic. That’s a negotiation game changer.
The asset value of something is derived from the stream of future benefits it provides. These benefits can be monetary or non monetary. If the primary element of the stream of future benefits is an expectation of exogenous asset appreciation, then you have a bubble situation.
These are big numbers, and while there is a psychic benefit to being a member of a very exclusive club, which provides value, the bulk of a billion dollar investment has to be real dollars. Good finance guys and accountants can hide that in many ways, but rest assured prospective franchise buyers are keenly aware of the totality of pecuniary benefits.
alt2tab
“Now you’re saying the net worth of a team is a better measure of the team’s value than its revenue or profitability.”
Huh?
I never said any such thing. I’m saying the net worth of a team is a minor factor in how much employees should be paid.
Unless I’m working for a start-up, it doesn’t matter the selling price of the company I work for, what matters is if the company making a yearly profit. If the company is losing money, I might not have a job. And if it’s sold and losing money, I probably wont have a job.
alt2tab, that “doubling” from $5.82b to $9.9b is only annualized growth rate of 5.5%. That’s awfully low compared to many other businesses, considering EOY 2008 was in the middle of a recession.
And when you adjust for inflation, that annualized revenue increase ends up being more like 3.5%-4.5%.
If MLB franchises were really as profitable as many here think, they private equity outfits would be all over buying MLB teams. But none of them seem to have any interest whatsoever. That should tell us how profitable they really are compared to most other businesses.
DarkSide830:
They don’t want 100% of their contract, they want 100% of the Prorated Contract, if they play 80% of the total 162 games (would be 130 games) they would get 80% of their contract. If they play 80 games they want 49% of their contracts (80/162=.49 ). They only want what they have already been promised by the owners. If the season was not played, the owners would still have to pay the players 100% of their contracts anyway because those contracts are guaranteed.
If the owners had said lets play all 162 games at full contract & the players refused because they were afraid of catching the virus, then the owners could suit & not pay. Since the players have said they want to play, and are willing to accept a prorated pay cut based on games played, if the owners refuse, then the players can suit for full payment of their signed contracts..
@ lazorko Do hedge funds and investor groups not count as investors in search of returns? In what way do they differ from private equity groups? My answer is they do, and they do not.
Without checking your math, a 5.5% annualized return over ten years is not at all bad, and that figure is based only on what can be determined about income from outside analysis. Also, the returns on all investments are figured net of inflation, which will be exactly the same number for a baseball franchise as for any other investment.
Boom, you stole the words outta my mouth Javia-
People really really need to look into the MLBPA a bit further in how they conduct themselves and really WHO they conduct themselves for- I think the acronym throws many off from jump street
@doublee919 The players average salaries should probably be going up each year but 2019 was down from 2018 which was down from 2017. I believe the 2019 average salary was even lower than the average from 2016. The highest paid players continue to get their massive contracts but the rest of the players not so much
statista.com/statistics/236213/mean-salaray-of-pla…
And yet owners continue to get richer. To all the numpties swallowing the bull crap that the owners are spouting about being poor, I’ve got a royal friend in Nigeria with a great deal for you!
Alt2, your math sucks if you think that’s double
So if a player sucks like Robinson Cano do the fans get some of his money considering he stole it from them as he gets paid to hit .310 30HR and 120RBI with gold glove D.What about Astros ownership and players return all the money they have made the last half decade? Is Jeter and Ortiz giving back all the money they earned considering they earned it under false pretenses?Will MLBPA and owners refund the fans for lying to them about Astros scandal and steroid scandal. Will MLBPA apologize for telling the fans their lives are worthless and kick Blake Snell out of their social club? It amazes me any moron taking either the owner or the player side when they all deserve to be bankrupt.
Then why should they go down
An increase in the value of a club would not give a club more money to spend. Nor would it give a club 10s of millions to weather next to zero profit. Costs increase every year, insurance, healthcare, maintenance, salaries, taxes, it never ends. Zero profit, will destroy some organizations.
Umm… isn’t that kinda how business works baseball1010? When the guy in the kitchen makes your McDouble does he get a share of the profits? No, he gets his hourly wage. If the place stops making money he gets his hours cut or he gets fired. If the players don’t lay out $2 billion dollars or so to buy the team, they don’t get any of the profits. Why would anyone on Earth lay out $2 billion to buy a business and then give their employees half of their profits? It doesn’t make sense. The poor players will just have to try to live off the measly $200-$500 million they can make over their career.
stewty2, you only showed the last 3 years on that graph to make your point. In that time the average salary went down just over 2%. Maybe you should have used the 5 previous years when salaries went up over 41%. That means salaries are still up 39% from 8 years ago.
Let’s look at those previous 5 years. The AVERAGE PLAYERS salary went up by 41%. Now can you name really any company on Earth whose average wage goes up that fast? A job where 5 years ago the average guy was making $60,000 per year and is now making $85,000? I don’t know any.
Javia wasn’t trying to make any points… other guy was just saying salaries were going up each year when they weren’t. calm down, no need to be so angry
Or it could be that a private equity firm has no chance of being approved by the existing ownership. This isn’t a situation where you can have a hostile takeover, or float junk bonds to finance the purchase.
Pinstripes… why? A major source of revenue has been removed, therefore why should they be paid as if that revenue still exists?
because they agreed to it in March
100% pro rated would be 50% of salaries if they play 81 games
I agree with Darkside. 80% for 81 games is a great deal for the players. 1/2 the work for 80% of their salary. And the owners can afford it because they will have TV revenue
I can’t speak for Pinstripes, but I would say that the players will believe the owners are lying about financial losses unless and until the teams open their books, including side income from stakes in regional cable stations and other revenue that goes to the team owners as a result of the teams but it not officially team income. Until then, given the level of distrust, a deal for less that 100 percent of prorated salaries will be impossible.
just a fan…
“…the agreement says that games won’t resume until there are no bans on mass gatherings that would limit the ability to play in front of fans,”
OK, so we’ll not have a season, because that’s not happening.
We have two teams open their books. The Disney Angels and the Atlanta Braves.
Disney sold the team because they couldn’t justify the yearly loses. Atlanta doesn’t make much of a profit.
There is not a lot of evidence to support owners yearly take is not that high, but there is even less to support it is.
It’s 80% of the already prorated salaries.
Ducey……No.
They did not, false post just a fan
@ just-a-fan Depending upon who you talk to, what was agreed to in March was based upon having fans in the stands. If no fans then compensation was up for negotiation again.
Oh, Angels fans. You are so brain washed. When Arte Moreno was able to buy the Angels for 184 million and could now flip the franchise 17 years later for an estimated 1.9 billion, it’s perfectly okay to say that Disney made a rare, bad economic decision to sell the Angels when they did.
Owners who do open up are going to hide the fact their franchises are worth multiple times more than they bought them for and simply tell you about their year to year revenue status. Don’t fall for this!
Stay pro-player! They’re the little guy in this battle.
The value of franchises is linked to the revenue they generate. When the Dodgers sold a few years ago for three times more than some were expecting a lot of people were dumbstruck. Were they planning on tearing down the stadium and building condos? Then the new owners signed a new media contract worth over $300M a year and suddenly the valuation made sense.
“BlueSkies_LA”
The value of franchises is linked to the revenue they generate
Revenue or profits. They may be linked to revenue, but I don’t think yearly profits are all that tangible. They may be, but I doubt it.
For years I’ve heard owners are making money hand over fist, but it hasn’t been true before, so is it true now?
Bob Hope couldn’t afford owning the Indians. Danny Kaye couldn’t afford owning the Mariners. Gene Autry couldn’t afford owning the Angels. Disney lost millions on the Angels. And it appears the Atlanta Braves are not all that profitable.
Earnings would be the better financial term. Increased earnings means increased enterprise value. You can’t make much of an argument out of the team owners in the past who didn’t have the wherewithal to run a baseball team, especially when those teams were subsequently sold to owners who did. Fox didn’t have a clue about how to run the Dodgers, so maybe they lost money on that investment. They sold to McCourt who was badly undercapitalized, but we know he made out because the old media deal was about to expire, and the value new media deals throughout sports were skyrocketing. The hedge fund that bought the team is all about return on investment and that’s how they came up with the $2.1B price tag. In any case the days of sports franchises being owned by celebrities and other glorified hobbyists is pretty much over. It’s all big business now and business is all about return on investment, because they can always invest their money elsewhere.
Ducey you are confused they’d be getting 80% of their HALF season salary which is 40% or their total salary
Magic!
72/ 162 = 44.44% x 80% = 35.55%
not all guaranteed
How do we know they are making a lot of money now? I’ve been told one thing for years that I know is not true, so I’m slow to believe it now.
For the most part, I don’t think baseball teams make a lot of money, you do. I have some evidence to support my point of view.
The best way to estimate how much money teams are making is based on how much investors are willing to pay to own the franchises. This is the only number not based on their own smoke-and-mirrors reporting, which is really all about making it look like the players are richly compensated and the owners are not.
How much they are making right now, only the owners know, and they are not telling.
Ducey…
It would be 80% of a half years salary. That works out to 40% of their full 162 game salary. That is why is is called ‘prorated’.
Well it would be 80% of half their salary not 80% of the full years wage.
just a fan: That is basically a meaningless fact. The players were foolish enough to agree to a contract that was unenforceable because it gave the option of season length to the owners. The players’ no-agreement outcome to the new bargaining situation is way worse than it is for the owners’, so the players have very little real leverage other than playoff format and vague threats about further CBA negotiations.
Players can threaten that things will be worse for the owners if they get screwed in this season, but exactly what would they have given away to owners in the next CBA that they now won’t? Would they have bargained less hard had they been more satisfied with the 2020 season conditions? I doubt it. It’s about cold hard money, and cold hard bargaining leverage, period.
Ducey:
The Owners want to pay 80% of the already Prorated Pay Cut, not 80% of their Full Contracts.
Halo – apparently the Blue Jays still took a loss during the title years. They went through a couple ownership changes over the course of 6 or 7 years.
You guys got a great debate going Halo 11 vs the crowd- I see good points on both sides-
The only thing Id add is how do we know that selling these teams in the future will produce such great profits? We can say the last 20 years YES they have BUT……….
Now we have Covid, a recession , a lost season, Manfred, and a new Cba…..all the while NBA is booming and will now stretch into baseballs untouched summer months moving forward, NFL is the NFL, Video game sports on the ups, less young interest/old fans die, etc etc that was NOT present the last 20 years….. I dont think assuming huge dividends especially the “new price paid to get club” are a guarantees for owners going forward.
You are asking someone to risk their own money earned coming in, a baseball player can sign a 10 yr contract, get hurt the next day and get the whole sum. Risk has to be factored
I’m not pro owner, I’m not pro player. Since I was born in Detroit and saw how the Unions killed our auto industry, I’m typically anti union.
If the owners are making money hand over fist, then I hope the players win. If the owners really don’t make a lot, then I hope the owners win.
Since my positions are based on evidence, even though there is not a lot of evidence, I support the owners.
Since Autry and Disney had a hard time with running in the black. I believe Moreno when he says he runs slightly in the red.
I hear ya on not “pro” either side. Just like everything else nowadays society wants/needs you to gravitate towards a polar side.
I think they both have faults-
Im not a pro union guy, but I will say, a well run union from the players side has the ability to be a great blessing for the sport. They don’t have it now, but if they did and it was run great they could really get the things players deserve
Better Minor league pay, less service time manipulation, less early control years, better pensions etc etc ………. Instead they get Manny Machado 300 mill and the illusion from the outside is “Well everything must be going well” – Get the mic out of the Tony Clarks Manfreds, Bora’s of the world this decade. We need New leadership everywhere
What the MLBPA needs to do is add the minor league players to the union. The very idea of that scares the owners and it should.
I would love it! But the players surely believe that doing so would dilute the interests of their current membership, by taking focus away from them.
How quickly they threw amateurs and minor leaguers under the bus in the March agreement was utterly disgusting. Hundreds of amateur players, ready to turn pro, are cut off from receiving signing bonuses that are the only decent money they will ever get for playing baseball.
Minor leaguers and amateur players deserve to have some representation at the bargaining table.
@Halo11: You are pro owner though. You are supporting the proposal that ownership be financed by staff. You might not feel like that’s supporting them but it is. The only industry where ownership thinks they can do this IS the MLB.
With fans, I’d agree. But there needs to be some give in a give and take
Each player signs a contract with the team. He is obligated to play; they are obligated to pay him the agreed upon salary. Unless there is a clause in the contract stipulating different levels of pay depending on attendance, parking revenue, or concession sales, etc., then the player is entitled to be paid the agreed upon sum for playing the games.
Don’t quote me, but I remember reading there is a provision that says the owners can cancel the year and not pay anything if there is a pandemic. That is why the players don’t have all the leverage in this negotiation.
Meet in the middle at 90% and call it a day.
What a joke! This is sickening. Fighting over scraps. I’ve been a MLB fan over 30 years. It might be time to boycott as I’ve done with the NFL since Colin.
you are exactly correct…BOYCOTT BASEBALL. overpaid crybabies that make millions. get out and play the game because you love it not for a paycheck !
YEAH! Just for that, I’m not going to any games this season!
Wow, so you’re on the wrong side in two sports.
The NFL: is now doing right by Colin. Better late than never.
BOYCOTT BASEBALL…..!!!!!!
See you in 2021 guys unless you go on strike. Nobody really cares. People suffering don’t care about billionare owners and millionaire players.
Someday, as God made green apples, baseball will return (and the Cubs just might win the World Series).
in what world lol
In a sad one
salty much? Cubs have plenty of talent to win again
but it don’t rain in Indianopolis in the summertime….
Cubs won just a few years ago. Now better to say the Indians or a team that’s never won.
I’d settle for a Padres title!
The Cubs are a shoo in about every 108 years.
How is that even a thing to say? None of us were there in 1908. Over 95% of all our grandparents weren’t born yet in 1908. Non of us or our children will be in 108 years. Same thing can be said about the Indians 72+ years and counting. Mariners have never won a pennant.
There are no fans in the stands and they are still offering 80 to 85% of prorated salaries? How is that not fair.
Players should not have to play if they don’t want to play, but it’s insane to expect the same salary when a major source of revenue has been removed.
Halo… So when did the owners give bonuses after an excellent financial year? You want a one way street. If times are good great for ownership. When times are bad the players should share in the loss. The same owners who collided against free agent players. Really!
They are still baked into the salaries. It’s a competitive market.
The fact is, fans in the stands is a revenue source that will be greatly impacted in 2020. It’s revenue that will never be regenerated.
It’s the opposite of a competitive market! Baseball is a cartel.
Spoken like a true union communist
The owners have to put up the hundreds of millions of dollars to get in the game.. Some do very well, others (like the A’s and Ray’s) don’t.
If the players really wanted to share, they would be pushing for a salary cap like in all other sports. But they want a few players to make a zillion dollars instread.
the players really dont have the leverage to hold that much of a grudge and still get a season done. if it’s a one-off it really shouldn’t be an issue.
Lots of player contracts have performance based bonuses written in them……
Salaries go up every year. Properly set salary caps would increase it further but not wanted by the PA.
Total player salaries have decreased the past two seasons.
Shh! How dare you come in here with your ‘facts’! Now go away, you’re scaring the children!
I just don’t see why the difference in money cannot simply be deferred for up to 3 years.
because its not about losses this year, its about overall losses. as much as i find it absurd to be so affraid of losing any money in such a climate, theyre still losing the same ammount in that situation.
DarkSide830:
Attendance is not as much about Revenues as it is about Cash Flow. They get paid by the Televised Stations, evidence is Detroit Tigers are Broadcasting past Tiger Games on Fox Sports Detroit in the time slots of this years scheduled Tiger Games, the Tigers past games are Trademarked as Tigers Owned, so the Illich’s are being paid even if they do not play games by the Broadcasting Stations. Those too are guaranteed Contracts that are paid in instalments. Attendance & cash sales from games, that is Greatly Needed Cash Flow Received On A Daily Basis.
It’s revenue that will never be regenerated. Attendance is a factor that goes into a players salaries. If that revenue stream is gone, I don’t understand why the players refuse to compromise.
I’m not seeing it.
They will have future revenue, but it will be less if they don’t agree to the player’s demands. So the players would simply be taking a down payment on that future revenue that they are enabling by playing baseball this year. Full pro-rated salaries, perhaps deferred for the highest-paid players, is the only remotely fair solution. Owners don’t get to socialize losses this year and then continue to privatize the gains in future years. That’s nonsense and the players should accept nothing less than full prorated salaries. Even that is already a concession, albeit one that makes sense.
They will have future revenue, but it will be less if they don’t agree to the player’s demands.
So the battle cry is the owners will lose less?
As far as sharing the losses, the owners did not share profits when they were raking them in every year for decades, with revenues soaring to $10.7 billion while salaries have gone down the past two years, and the minimum salary inches along and the luxury tax threshold barely moves. Now the owners want to tie salaries to revenue.
Secondly, the owners are crying poverty but they refuse to provide documentation to back up their claims.
Third, the owners have made three proposals now without moving the total amount of salaries up from one proposal to the next. Their last offer was $241 million LESS than the previous offer in guaranteed money. The players’ last offer was $630 million less than their previous offer. Plus, they’ve offered two years of extra playoffs without getting any extra money for them.
The owners are just going through the motions, not negotiating in good faith.
completely agree Halo, it seems so cut and dry
It’s pretty simple – it’s not on the players to absorb the owners losses. They certainly don’t get to share in their profits at a commensurate level.
I’m sure whatever happens the owners will find a way to squeeze the players in free agency over the next few years while blaming COVID losses and making ever increasing products at the same time.
*profits
This is goddamn ridiculous
This sounds like it could be a very reasonable offer for once. Players, it’s time to make a deal
Isn’t anyone else at the point of, “ a pox on both your houses!” ?
No. This is the case of the boss picking the workers’ pockets. If they can do it to millionaires with a strong union imagine what they can do to you.
I’d rather there be no season than the players give an inch on this.
Totally agree. Someone who sees it for what it really is.
The media in our country is just awful. Every article that I read the media appears shocked that owners are worried about this season’s profits. But what is so surprising about profits being nil if there are no fans in attendance? Where do people think the profits come from? Some teams in large media markets generate money from television contracts, but most teams don’t have that luxury. It’s pretty easy to understand that if there are no fans in attendance, revenues will be down astronomically. Players should take a small discount from their prorated salaries.
JTM I agree 100%
So “the media” should not report that ownership hasn’t provided any real evidence to support their claims?
BlueSkies_LA
Not true. The Atlanta Braves and the Disney owned Angels.
Disney’s loses and the Atlanta Braves situation seems to be glossed over by everyone.
Linkage required. And what about the other 28 teams, what have they disclosed?
Disney sank $100 million into renovating Anaheim stadium.
This article from Forbes showed a net operating profit for the team in 2002.
forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2002/0415/092tab2_2.ht…
And of course, franchise values continued to soar, so owning the team was a solid investment.
FWIW- the athletic reported that the owners produced a bunch of documents and the players said that they were so heavily redacted that they couldn’t make sense of them.
Teams are owned by billionaires and billionaires are no good very bad things. Owners should open their books, but the media needs to stop editorializing everything owners say. There will be differences from team to team, I doubt the Yankees will have a problem, but you cant have only the Yankees making full salaries. The owners need to negotiate as a single entity so it doesn’t matter if team A is fine and team B is not. Its net losses
I agree it’s time for players to agree to this proposal. They can’t want Manford to come forward with a 50 game schedule.
It’s time to play ball.
I agree it’s time for players to agree to this proposal. They can’t want Manford to come forward with a 50 game schedule.
It’s time to play ball.
I’m not sure Manfred could legally get away with a 50 game schedule now that they’ve offered much more. I think (but may be wrong) that the March agreement says they must negotiate in good faith and try to play as many games as is possible. By offering 72 they’ve shown that 72 is possible, so offering 50 would go against the agreement.
Why don’t they sit in a damn room together and hammer things out?
Take the 80%. Like come on guys, if you run a business that has had a drastically reduced level of revenue do you think you’re going to be able to keep all your employees on their current level of pay rate? No. This is why we see businesses close, layoffs, the bobs coming in etc.
If the owners don’t have cash on hand to cover player salaries, that’s one thing. But we know they do because they won’t show us their books. They’ve cynically assumed that the public will bite the “greedy millionaire players” hook they dangled 25 years ago and you’re proving them right. Why can’t your anger be directed at the greedy billionaire owners who do literally nothing but collect a cut of the value that is generated 100% by the players?
I see you already bent over to revive your daily dose of the owners propaganda…
*receive
I’m starting to think even if there is a season it won’t finish. Authorities are beginning to freak out about the new spike in cases NOW not even accounting for an increase when the weather gets colder and everyone’s inside.
AZ hospitals, supposedly, are 83% occupied. And Houston is seeing a large spike where there is talk of another shutdown. I can see local officials in AZ not even allowing spring training 2.0.
Almost like people weren’t following social distancing guidelines over the last couple of weeks eh?
You certainly have a point. While I’m not a fan of complete shutdowns and feel the more effective strategy is targeting those who are most at risk, I’m nit sure elected officials will think this way. So, I think there will be more shutdowns.
As a side note, you know if the season starts and owners feel they are hemorrhaging money they will cancel the season if one player tests positive.
Very astute side note DH
Thats a huge concern, especially if its looking bad on the books like you say
While yes the past couple of weeks will cause a spike, I believe the current increase dates back to Memorial Day
i think another true spike is possible, but things arent shutting down again this time. so many people have had enough with it already that they’d probably overthrow thesw governors if they shut things down again.
And then there’ll be another counter-proposal, and another counter-proposal, and then another counter-proposal. Greedy idiots.
They say 3 days is a minor disruption in your life: three weeks causes changes in habits; and 3 months is a full-fledged lifestyle change.
3 months in I’m realizing I don’t need to shell out big bucks ever again to support these greedy owners or players.
Let their league fail and they can make money some other way. “The world needs ditch diggers”.
The world does not need ditch diggers. We have too many already.
Can’t disagree less about ditch diggers. Personally, I’ve never indulged in ditch digging, but following your comment I’m going to embark tomorrow. Not a new career, you understand, but like Anna Kournikova, a pleasurable diversion….
Regardless, and I’ve kept my ditch digging location utterly tip top secret, what should I do if I encounter a fellow hobbyist two spade lengths to my left?
Please call me 0044 207 617 2564 – GMT 0800 onwards – so that according to your mantra I have authority to cull the fellow hobbyist to my left.
Alternatively, we could both shrug, sheepishly, and indeed agree that there are “too many ditch diggers already.” Your call. Literally.
because you or even many people leaving will destroy the league. yeah, dont buy it. within a few years you’ll have at least 99% of people who said they were leaving coming back, and that’s just on top of normal trends in sports growing in popularity. good luck with that grave – i dont think it will be deep enough to burry anything in.
81 games and 90% just get it done
The Chargers can work with no fans in the stands, MLB can figure it out
Rim shot! (and true)
It seems the fallback position for ownership is that a ridiculously short season with loony toon playoffs unilaterally imposed by the commissioner is better than no season at all. I wonder if they’re interested in how the paying customers feel about that.
Snore zzzzzzzx
70 games at 85% prorated pay would be 34.57 percent of full salary.
76 games at 75%, the owners’ last offer, is 35.1%.
This is about equal to 58 games at 100% prorated salaries, and it’s not even guaranteed.
Different shade of lipstick on the same pig.
The players’ last offer was $630 million less than their previous offer.
This doesn’t move closer at all.
There seems to be two types of fans. Those that believe the owners are making money hand over fist and those that believe most owners don’t make a great deal of profit until they sell their team.
The former wants the owners to pony up more money. The later wants the players to take the 85% of their prorated salaries.
Where you side is not going to change.
I don’t believe the owners are making a huge profit this year, but they are trying to shift most of their losses onto the players when they have not shared profits with the players all those years that they were raking it in.
The value of these franchises don’t just magically increase, and nobody is spending billions on a baseball team to run it as a hobby. They are run and bought and sold as businesses by big-dollar investors who know how to calculate their return on investment. If they increase in value it is because they are generating more earnings.
There is a fantastic article on Fangraphs which calls the owners bull out for what it is. It shows exactly how they can say they ‘won’t make a profit’ and how they take the substantial profits they do actually make, invest them smartly in the business so that the balance sheet says ‘no profit’ but then it hugely increases the end value of the business for when they sell it. Very much worth reading. They won’t lose money on their investment and they simply want players to cover this year’s ‘losses’ so that they can keep a bigger piece of the pie. It’s a disgrace.
blogs.fangraphs.com/how-to-make-750-million-cash-f…
This will explain why the owners claims of being poor are absolute bull and they’re simply trying to fob losses onto players so they can take home more for themselves.
Also, for those in the ‘players wages increase’ camp – they’re are still some players getting big contracts, but they’re fooling you, as average player salaries have gone down 2 years in a row while owners have made increased profits.
While fangraphs still has its extreme value as a website be careful going into this without knowing that fangraphs viewpoints ( use to be non existent) have done a complete 180 Woke makeover from previous years
The piece is never getting past the editors desk if its not making the owners look like Montgomery Burns and the players a fireman saving a kitten from the tree..
Its truly sad and not the FG I grew up with, I wont mention any names but those who followed for years already know. Not saying the article doesnt have merit just be careful going into it – I read this earlier at FG… it is worth the read for a few reasons
This is a reasonable offer finally. This is one the players could actually accept though I imagine they will counter with something a tiny bit more friendly to them and the owners will accept that. But at this point if a deal isn’t reached the blame is tilted more towards the players than the owners for me.
It’s the same offer, just dressed up differently with a bigger number at he front to fool idiots like you.
I’ve been watching MLW Wiffleball on YouTube…time to move on to bigger and better things. Let’s get this going!
Max Schezer vs Rob Manfred in a Hell in a Cell. Winner decides the agreement.
Lol. Sub in Chris Davis so we can get some entertainment value out of his contract. Doesn’t even matter for who. Chris Davis vs Mad Max to settle the MASN dispute. Make that one a ladder match.
Seems to me the Players can extend an olive branch back for guaranteed deferrals on the remaining 15-20% of prorated salaries. They “win” on the negotiating front but it could be palatable to the owners (perhaps build in future deferrals if no games or fans in 2021).
My reading of the situation is that salary deferrals were of no interest to owners. The bottom line on these negotiations seems more about total player pay and the risk of losing playoff money rather than liquidity/player safety.
I have been surprised at this. The players put the issue on the table, although in a format that was a non starter, but the owners didn’t pick it up at all.
The players should offer to defer 20% of salaries above a certain amount, say $1 million (actual paid, not original $1M, for one year at 1%, 2 years at 2%). So they get paid, but the owners meet their cost for this year made in their offer.
They might be concerned about teams putting those payments into the budget for next season and slashing payroll accordingly. If they could get assurance that payrolls would not be slashed, that’s worth lot right there.
If you look at this in extremes, would the 114 game proposal be any more appealing to the owners if the salaries were 100% deferred with equal payments over 10 years (ignore the playoff schedule issue)? Probably not much because it’s over twice the player expenses compared to 50 games.
Imagine getting a huge salary cut and needing to buy a car. You have $15k in cash saved and are comparing a $15k used car or a new car at $35k. If the new car dealer offers 0% financing for 3 years, you’re still ultimately paying $20k more. Dangling a low interest rate that increases your total cost won’t be appealing.
I understand where you’re going and obviously I’d spend just what I need to in order to keep my job and the salary I still have. But knowing the future salary/ commissions (whatever source if income I got before) is somewhat dependent upon how much I spend on the car would definitely enter the equation. The 0% financing when dealing with a rolls royce is a lot safer if a game than if I were eyeing down a kia or something equivalent etc.
2 things that nobody is talking about. The owners side will make in the neighborhood of 33 million per team, with the postseason cash. This obviously benefits the smaller market teams, or rebuilding teams such as Baltimore and Detriot. The potential “big” losses are going to be the large market teams. Those are the teams that should be able to take larger hits, and have a better chance of the losses not being a longterm problem.
Secondly, Texas, for example has announced that the can have fans in the stands, limited of course. I would venture to say, that come August, more than half of the states will allow so.e type of attendance. Even at 30% capacity, across 15 teams you are talking about millions of dollars of “unforeseen” revenue. How would this be factored in to the mix? This should allow owners to get close to the 100% prorated salaries…
You are not going to see fans in stands. How would you have some teams with…some without? Also fans in stands add to the costs. Also the virus spikes are happening again. The risks are too high for fans in stands.
I agree that fans attending will be difficult, and that without ways to control the virus will continue to put people at risk. However, like going to dine in at a restaurant, or do some other “normal” activities, the government is going to get to a point that they will let people decide what they want to do. Like going to the beach, if you want to go, then go. If you don’t, then don’t. As long as there are protocols in place, that are followed that are safety first, then again, I can see where fans will be allowed in the ballparks.
OMG. This ping-ponging the proposals back and forth is really draining my love for baseball. I understand they are looking out for their best interests but can we please see the games now?!
Just wait until 2022 when we have no season
NHL is where it’s at
Well, the Tigers had a great draft yesterday. So there’s that.
Happy, Happy, Too
I remember when i loved baseball
Ownership total payouts to players still haven’t really changed since their first offer.
Offer #1 (sliding scale) ~$1.23B.
Offer #2 (76 games, 75% prorated) ~ $1.43B- contingent on playoffs
Offer #3 (72 games, 80% prorated) ~$1.43B.- contingent on playoffs
Potentially: (50 games, 100% prorated) ~ $1.23B.
Just had a bagel for lunch
Send it to arbitration. Each side makes its best and final offer and the arbitrator has to pick one. The issues to be addressed in each offer must be agreed to in advance.
Optionally, the owners should open their books to a trusted 3rd party and then that 3rd party would release a generalized statement on the high, low, and mean profit for the last 5 seasons with game day revenue and without. No books would be made public.
That’s where it’s headed, in a way. If Manfred imposes a shortened schedule, the players can file a grievance, which would be heard by an arbitrator.
The problem with sending it to arbitration is this….They won’t be able to make a timely decision. It will take weeks/months to decide what is the right decision splitting up 3-4 Billion dollars. This isn’t a simple player arbitration hearing where there are precedents, and minimum information needed to make a decision in a couple of days.
with the grievance procedures, the season would be played and the hearing would take place later. There would be a period of discovery, fighting over what records have to be produced before any hearing.
There needs to baseball with fans so the astros can be booed
The heck with the fans, just make sure trash cans are available.
under the original schedule, the Astros were set to play in Anaheim for the Angels’ home opener, and thousands of Dodger fans have/ had tickets to come down I-5 and let them have it.
under the regional plan, the Astros would be playing the AL West and the NL West exclusively. So there’s a story line.
Sounds like a good deal. I’d take it if I were the MLBPA.
It’s no better than the last offer, or the one before that.
Actually it is.
Both offers are for a total of $1.43 billion, not fully guaranteed, based on what’s reported here. They move from 35.2% of full salary to 35.55%.
The players just came down $630 million in their last offer.
Owners are playing victim when they have nooo right too.
If things got soooo costly, that the league was in trouble or teams were in trouble. Organizations and owners can reach out to local/state/federal gov for relief with subsidies or tax breaks.
PLAYERS DONT HAVE THAT Luxury.
89 games doesn’t even make sense. That’s not evenly split. Make it 88 or 84 or 76. Even 80 would work. 74-82 with 80% prorated salaries. Owners will comback with some bs and counter with 74 games and 60%.
There are 79 days from July 10 to September 27. MLB wants to get the regular season over by 9/27 because
– they reduce the chances of a second wave of the COVID 19 virus which could wipe out the playoffs which are very profitable for them, and
– their TV contracts with Fox, ESPN, Turner, and all the RSN’s end at the end of September and new contracts for the playoffs commence. They don’t want to have to redo those deals.
So there’s not a lot of play in the time frame as far as the owners are concerned.
Owners aren’t concerned about anything but making and losing money.
This is all about accommodating the least profitable teams. Instead of that shortfall coming from the most profitable teams, they want the shortfall to come from the players.
It’s not a fair fight. The owners know all of the finances of the players, but the players have no idea of the finances of the owners.
And that is just the baseball team…. When the team owner also owns the broadcast channel, and is negotiating both sides of that deal… money is a little fungible. “Oh no, my TEAM is going to lose a lot of money this year because the network (that I also own) isn’t going to pay the team as much… Must cut salaries!”
The players are at a disadvantage in regular negotiations, and they’re at a disadvantage here. Billionaires will always crush millionaires in a negotiation like this… the players can fight, but the owners will come out on top every time.
Name me one business that has instituted paycuts for its employees during the pandemic that has opened their books to prove to them they can’t afford to pay them their regular earnings. I’ll wait….
Wawa
Opening the books is a requirement of collective bargaining under Section 8 of the National labor relations, when an employer claims an inability to pay.
Patrick OKennedy: A fool’s errand. Working through all of that when each side provides their own self-serving analysis of all affected business entities will never come to a conclusion. Literally years can go by before that would get resolved, and it wouldn’t be conclusive in the court of public opinion, even in NLRB picked an outcome.
bronyaur, which is why you can’t ignore Disney taking a near 9 figure hit on the Angels. They couldn’t justify the yearly losses to their stock holders.
If it was so profitable to own a major league team, Disney would have never sold the team. It wasn’t profitable.
Every publicly traded company?
Every single publicly traded company that instituted employee pay cuts?
One difference though, Phil, is that employees of most businesses are at-will employees and don’t have contracts. Private businesses are not compelled to open up their books, but they will if they want something from you. Players could use that as some leverage if they can’t close the gap with owners.
Wouldn’t the players make more money at 80% or a longer season than 100% or a short season?
Depends on the number of games right?
They would make more money playing 58 games at full prorated salary than 72 games at 80% salary, and it would be guaranteed and not contingent on playoffs.
Except that owners won’t go 58 games at full prorated if they unilaterally decide, it will be 48 or 50. So if that is the offer it is more, Maybe still not enough, but more.
Which makes sense, since additional games have to be worth something to the owners as does expanded playoffs.
The question for the players is full prorated most important, or is some additional income for something less than full prorated preferable.
58 games at 100% prorated salaries would be a better offer if only because it’s not contingent on playoffs.
Put these people in a room and lock the door until an agreement is done.
Who will force that to happen? The Minneapolis Police Department?
definitely not Seattle’s police department…
80% of 100,000 is $80,000. Most Americans make less than that.
And tons of MLB players make more than $100K.
Get real and get a clue, MLBPA.
Most make less than MLB players because they do the same things as many other people. You can say, for instance, school teachers are very important and should make more. But there are a lot of them and it’s not that hard to find replacements. MLB players are quite unique and the market rewards them for this talent. If there were 1,000s of Mike Trouts they’d all get paid less.
Economists call this scarcity. This is why a Rembrandt cost tens of millions: his paintings are exceptional and there are only a few in existence.
Yes I know, I’ve been reading MLB Trade Rumors a long time, and it’s not news to me that there are some here that will take the players side and rationalize anything away. Got it. Got it the last time you posted it too, and the time before that, and the time before that.
Keep telling yourself there’s some point in you blindly worshipping the player’s union. Enjoy yourself.
Meanwhile no baseball. Most Americans have very little savings. Most of them are loaded and you’re here defending them. It’s pathetic.
yep, because baseball is like any other business. right.
No it’s not, but you’re definitely like a lot of braindead posters.
Tough to watch the details of these back and forth issues.
I’ve resigned myself to let it be and what will be will be.
I’m astounded why they dont just play MiLB instead?
There was even a market for A League of Their Own in WW2 for women. Seems foolish this is taking so long.
Seriously.
44 million Americans are unemployed.
It depends on the details of the newest proposal, but I understand why playoff contingency is such a big deal to ownership. A 10% chance of playoff cancellation for the owners is a big risk in losing playoff revenue, so I see why they’re structuring their deals in this way.
I know there’s still negotiation room and the players should get the best deal they can, but if I were a player I’d even prefer the last offer to 50 games. No playoffs, they get 50%($0.95B) and with playoffs ($1.43B) vs $1.2B with 50 games.
My guess is there’s a 90% chance of playoff completion because baseball is played outdoors without much contact. So the expected value should be around.$1.38B, which is significant enough to offset the risk. If the likelihood of playoff completion is much lower (50%), then it’s not a good deal for the players. But if the probability is that low, the commissioner should cancel the season now.
I’m not sure why anyone would even want to watch and support this ridiculous situation after all this nonsense between the two sides.
Bingo.
It’s like Groundhog Day around here. Just not as funny.
Just did some gardening and now am going to go look at a three legged cat who is up for adoption!
Way more interesting than the dialogue between the MLBPA and the MLB. Love it. Goodluck.
Pinkerton, you live in AH?
I don’t know AH? I’m Philly.
80 games. 90% prorated, 15% deferred (at 0% interest).
1, why bother with a season now.2, did they consider rainouts, 3. With no one getting paid, bobby bonilla is the highest paid player this yr.
How does Bonilla’s salary compare to Prince Fielder’s?
This is the last year of Prince’s contract payments. The Rangers’ portion of his salary was insured, but the Tigers are on the hook for $6M per season through this season. Detroit pays Texas to cover that uninsured portion, and they pay Fielder. Texas reached a deal with the insurance company so that he could retire and not lose pay. We don’t know if they paid a lump sum or made payments to get that done, but he’s getting at least $6M this year,which is more than the annual payments that Bonilla gets.
Wasnt fielder an insurance payout? That wasnt a one time payoff?
Complexity is killing the negotiations, as is secrecy. Owners are looking for too much in backstops, too many ways for the players to take a hit. The players might prefer a straightforward offer on a guaranteed salary, maybe 40% of a year’s salary (net 40% of their contracted yearly) instead of worrying about specific number of games, plus a high threshold sweetener in the playoffs.
Manfred, I thought you were smarter than this. Have both the owner and MLBPA reps sit in a room with their respective options A through F and work out a deal. This back and forth is ridiculous and not good for baseball.
…
It’s like were all waiting for the summer blockbuster movie and the studio and the actors are fighting over money before its release. Just effing work it out and let us watch the Go*d*mn movie!
dirkg:
The longer they wait for an agreement, the less days left to finish the season on time & start the Playoffs on time. The Owners know what they are doing. They must finish by September 27 because the Regular Season Broadcast Contracts expire & The Post Season Contracts Start. So the longer this is stretched out, the less days left for a season & less days to pay the players.
Let say they come to agreement on June 20th. Add 21 days for second Spring Training that takes us to July 11th. That leaves 78 days till September, 27 Take away some days for days off & we would be looking at around 70-72 games. If it takes longer to come to an agreement, less games to be paid for.
Or they could add on 7 more days to warm up taking it down to 63-65 games.
I think they will come to an agreement by June 20th.
Who Really Know Though
I am getting annoyed by everyone jumping on Dewitt for saying baseball isn’t very profitable. It’s tone deaf for the moment, but I have not seen a single reporter or fan show real numbers to the contrary. The only financials anyone has seen have been from 2019 Atlanta and they lost money. And I know everyone is smart enough to know that net worth is not an income and is not tangible cash. So why doesn’t some interior reporter go see how profitable baseball is if everyone is so sure that it is extremely profitable
Here it is.
forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#tab:overall
The Forbes figures show an average of $300 million revenue. If they lose 1/3 of their revenue to fan-less games, the net will be $200 million. One half of the games will produce around $100 million.
The owners need to share some of the playoff revenue will all 30 teams, say 25%. The other 75% can be shared among the playoff teams.
The average payroll is $135 million. One half a season will reduce the payroll to around $68 million. 90% proration would be about $61 million. The average team can break even with about a 90% proration.
There will be some fans near the end of the season. Let’s play ball.
Hold out for 100% pro-rated salaries, players. Owners are on average billionaires, their teams are on-average worth over a billion dollars. What they are asking for is the equivalent of the owners of Wal-Mart asking their cashiers to take a pay cut from $12 to $9 an hour due to the economic downturn.
They might get 100% prorated salaries over 50 games and no playoff bonus. That’s the commissioner’s backup plan.
yeah, commish can declare 50 game season but if players don’t come to play what is he going to do? especially, with cba negotiations coming up!
The players can strike and won’t receive pay. People will have different opinions about this, but I’d imagine a strike will really hurt the players heading into the next CBA. They’ll be more desperate from not getting paid at all in 2020 and the majority of fans will blame them since they’re literally refusing to play over money.
Are you assuming that the players will somehow negotiate tougher if their feelings are hurt, and they will roll over next year if they get of what they want this year?
Bingo. The only option available to the players is to not play. Good luck keeping the MLBPA unified and together for that.
If Nightengale’s tweet is accurate, both sides seem to be making significant progress toward a deal. I’d really prefer a ~75 game season and this makes me optimistic.
Owners did not really give in that much here.
Yeah I’m seeing a much less antagonistic posture from the players after the “114GM Thanksgiving World Series” proposal. I think reality set in and they realized 50 games was the likely scenario if they didn’t budge. That’s why they proposed 89 games with a few other concessions.
At this point, both proposals seem to be good faith and headed toward a compromise.
The previous proposal was 50%/75% and now it’s 70%/83%. for (no playoffs/playoffs). That’s very significant.
the previous proposal was for more games. This article is apparently including $50M playoff pool money that has been part of offers from both sides. Only playoff teams get that money.
wait, why is there a limit on the number of players a team can use? that seems unreasonably restrictive.
It is a negotiated element of the CBA. Players want bigger rosters and more overall payroll, owners want less.
SIGH.
I do agree with owners in this case. Most sports without salary cap are not that profitable than people seem to think. Reason for them owning a team is more of flex and fame. Of course it doesn’t hurt to own team as it generates “value” by increasing franchise value because other wealthy ppl would like to enjoy that fame as well. It is like yacht I would say. They generate their wealth from sources other than their franchises..
Football is the biggest sport in the world yet most clubs run with operating loss. Each club publishes their financial statement. Even very best football players make less lifetime salary compared to baseball players..
TV revenue will likely see downfall in coming years as most people cut off cable TV to save bucks. Attendance is going down year by year but still one third of revenue comes from butts in the seat.
Teams will lose about half of them income this year. I remember seeing finances from deadspin a decade ago and I do remember most teams do not make much profit year by year. It won’t change that much now I guess..
Players seem not to understand business side and look like crying baby to me (talking to you, Snell.)
FC Barcelona is one of two biggest sport team in the world and Lionel Messi is the greatest ever football player ever exited but agreed to “70%” paycut due to COVID-19. Because everyone knows clubs finances are severely damaged due to pandemic.
How does that sound?.
Rapidly becoming less and less interested in sports in general. All while this is happening in starting to find other things to do and realize these athletes are all a bunch of spoiled bi%#@&$ that really don’t deserve my time money or attention.
This is no better than the last proposal.
Previous: 35.2% of full salaries, 26.4% guaranteed
“New” offer: 35.5% of full salaries, 31.1% guaranteed
$50M playoff pool was offered by both sides previously
50 games at 100% prorated = 30.8% full salaries, all guaranteed, no xtra playoffs
It’s a big improvement in pro rata terms. 50%/75% and now it’s 70%/83%. for (no playoffs/playoffs), with a few less games. If the players move off their 100% pro rata position, they could push the pro rata numbers up more or add games and get a deal done soon. A major issue is that time isn’t on the players’ side if they want something better than the 50 game backup.
The increase is 0.3% of full salaries.
The 83% figure is a misnomer. The $50M playoff pool is something that is always there, and is in both players and owners previous proposals.
The players got over $80M playoff pool last year.
The proposal is for 80% of prorated salaries if the post season is concluded. That’s up from 75% in the previous offer, but with four fewer games.
The guaranteed portion is a very small increase, but focusing on that portion is missing the bigger picture that includes the huge playoff bonus. You may have a different guess, but mine is that there’s about a 90% likelihood of full playoffs. Assuming 90%, the expected value of this deal is much higher than the 50 game proposal (35.1% vs. 30.8% 50 game). If you have a much lower estimate of playoff completion, than you’d have to conclude that it’s too risky for ownership to accept any season this year.
This proposal is an improvement. The players will reject and renegotiate, but I don’t anticipate it moving too far from this.
The playoff “bonus” is the annual pool that the players get to divide among the teams that make the playoffs. It’s nothing new in this proposal. Both owners and players have proposed a $50 million playoff pool. It was just over $80 million last year.
I have no idea what odds to put on playoff completion, or even season completion, but I do know that the players will reject the mere concept of linking that with payment of regular season salaries. And they should reject it.
I’m not referring to the $50m, which will be distributed in any season where playoffs are completed. I’m referring to the 83% pro rata pay on condition of completing the postseason.
The guarantee is about the same as a 48 game season with significant upside if the postseason is completed. Completing the playoffs is a very attainable milestone that will mean hundreds of millions extra. Of course we’re just guessing at the likelihood of getting 83% prorata, but my guess is a 90% likelihood. Even if it’s a 50% likelihood, it is a better offer.
If the players are willing to forego hundreds of millions of dollars to send a message to the owners, that’s their prerogative. They can file a grievance or even strike. Maybe they’ll win the grievance or get better terms with a strike, but I doubt it.
Per Jeff Passan
The league’s offer, delivered to the union Friday afternoon, called for a season of 72 games and for players to max out at 80% of their full prorated salaries. The total compensation would be $1.27 billion guaranteed and can max out at $1.5 billion — on top of an extra $50 million that would go to playoff teams, raising the overall percentage to 83%.
OK, so it’s 70/80% without/with playoffs. The point still stands. There is financial upside for the players to this compared to 48 games. It is objectively a better offer than either the 48 game offer or the previous offer, unless the players think a grievance/strike will lead to better terms.
Looks good. Let’s play some baseball!
Cardinals DeWitt owner is a rich cheap owner. why some players don’t want to play for the Cardinals because they’re aware of underpay practices from the Cardinals organization.
Pretty much believe that the players are rightly holding out for 100% prorated salaries if the playoffs complete. Down to let’s say 80% prorated salaries if the playoffs do not complete, with a sliding scale based on how much of the playoffs were played. You don’t get to socialize the losses right when times are bad after privatizing the gains for decades.
DeWitt claims that owning a team isn’t that profitable. Ricketts says that 70% of the Cubs revenue comes from game day revenue. Would they be willing to show an independent arbitrator their ledgers to prove their point?
The players should accept that offer.
Interesting that alternate locations for teams to play are spring training sites in Arizona and Florida. Those two states happen to be the biggest Covid hotspots that are in the brink of being out of control. What is MLB’s plan to deal with these issues?
Can’t/shouldn’t plan in LA. Can’t/shouldn’t play in Arizona. Where do the Dodgers play?
The current temperature this Friday afternoon in Phoenix is 108 degrees. Just a typical spring day in Arizona. In few weeks it will get really hot.
I think that’s a “dry heat”, so it only feels like 102 or so.
Thanks owners, y’all still suck at lying.
I’m not mad.. I’m just disappointed in you Baseball.
They’re getting paid to play a kids game! Just accept! Hell they could pay us fans a lot less per game to play and we’d have baseball back tomorrow!
yeah, but like, I wouldn’t pay to watch you, or buy your jersey and baseball cards. So… there’s that.
Union is expected to reject before the sunday Deadline.
I think they’re at the point where splitting the baby on the pro rata percentages would be a reasonable deal for both sides. The clock is ticking, but the players may be able to squeeze a few more games out of them and get it to 76-78 games.
They will not budge on 100% prorated, they rather see MLB burn to the ground before they give in. This battle is not about this season, it is about gaining power in the next CBA, if the union budges then the owners will use it against them in the next CBA talks.
I don’t blame the players for turning down every offer the owners make. There is no time where ownership should be financed by staff. Nobody would be okay if Vons or Stater Brothers told it’s staff they would need them to finance their losses. I know Jennifer the cashier and Max Sherzer aren’t in the same situation but the principle is the same.
That doesn’t mean I don’t roll my eyes everytime I see a new proposal from one side or the other. At this point it looks to me like both sides are just trying to impress upon the watching world that THEY are trying while the other side is being unrealistic and overly demanding.
If I was a waiter, and the restaurant temporary lost their liquor license, I’m going to take a huge pay cut.
I wouldn’t expect the corporation to raise their prices to help me with my tips.
I’m smart enough to understand that things just changed and a temporary adjustment needs to be made.
maybe if your restaurant had a regional TV deal for us to watch you work id accept this argument. As it does not, its apples and oranges.
Actually if you were that waiter you are going find a job waiting tables somewhere else before you would accept being forced to take a pay cut to subsidize your employer’s loss. Baseball is a monopoly so the players’ profession isn’t transferrable.
If restaurants do not have patrons the waiter will be out of a job. This is the part you do not understand. No fans means less revenue. That is the big reason for this fight in the first place. Catch up.
The waiter will find another job. Baseball players don’t have that option. This is the part you do not understand. Get real.
And lose his seniority? That would be short sided. It’s a temporary adjustment.
Unless the loss of liquor license was just temporary and the restaurants the best one in town ! In that case…….
As a worker in the restaurant industry I can tell you Blue skies is 100% correct, waiters would just slide over to the place next door but I dont think thats a completely useful way of looking at this analogy
Baseballs not a monopoly at all. Theres Independant leagues, overseas, and nothing stopping Vince McMann from opening up his own league.
MLB is the best restaurant in town, theres a reason why wait staff would continue to ride it out here even though tips will be bad this year.
@Halo11: If a restaurant lost its liquor license (and it actually wasn’t shut down for the offense) then yes, you would take a cut in tips but that cut in pay wouldn’t be from ownership. It would be from customers. There really isn’t a similarity here
Additionally, you are free to leave that restaurant for another serving job. Players don’t have that option.
So I really don’t see why this principle should change.
I mean, good luck to the waiter. You may have missed it, but nowhere are restaurants hiring more staff
You would be wrong. I work for Red Robin and we are hiring.
A
Owners are holding this thing up, they need to make more concessions. They are getting closer, I think a deal will be in place by Tuesday. The 76 games is good, fully prorated, players make some concessions if there isn’t a playoff due to C- virus. Get er done.
100% prorated isn’t going to get it done, and it shouldn’t. That means players have zero concessions to make. Both sides have to have some give or it’s not happening.
Just got back from seeing the three legged cat. I think we’re gonna get him!
In every other labor dispute between MLBPA and the owners, I could agree with one side, or the other. 1981 I agreed with the players. 1994 I agreed with the owners…
This time I think BOTH sides are not being reasonable.
EFF the owners and EFF the players!
After over 40 years of following baseball (especially the NY Mets) religiously, I’m done with MLB.
I gave up on the NHL during their lockout in 2004-05 and have not paid much attention to hockey since then.. I can do the same with MLB.. and unlike with hockey, I can easily find an alternative to watch if I want to get a baseball fix.
I’m just going to follow the Long Island Ducks.
You’ve been saying the same thing for days, stop posting if you are done with the sport
I can post if I want to. I have just as much of a right to speak my mind here as you.
If you don’t like it, perhaps you live in the wrong country.
And if you continue to spend your money on anything MLB related, you are a fool.
By all means keep on whining
Players can still opt not to play even if the union agrees to terms. How ugly will MLB look if it returns, only to have several star players not available. Pay them 100% of their prorated salaries and this will be less of an issue..
And MLB knows this, which indicates that they may not care if there’s baseball this year.
The Atlantic League is starting to get ready to get things going.
And they’re a better option than MLB.. no prima donna’s dogging it after signing a ridiculous contract. Everyone plays hard. The quality of play is about the same as AA or AAA baseball. You can take a family of four to a game and spend less than $200. Seats are closer to the action. Almost every player and coach takes time out for the kids. And you don’t have to worry about the millionaires not getting along with the billionaires.
Following any MLB team is like being in a bad relationship.. It’s time to end the relationship.
Partial MLB is better than no MLB, so I disagree that the return would be “ugly”. Fans want baseball any way we can get it.
I doubt many players will sit out. They won’t get paid, won’t get service time, and it would be unpopular with fans. Imagine Pete Alonso sitting out. Do you think that’s going to ingratiate him to Mets fans who’s playoff hopes are crushed by their star 1B sitting out? Will it affect his endorsements? Whatever upside there is in sticking it to owners won’t be worth being hated by your own fans.
Pete Alonso has one year under his belt. He’s not financially set for life yet and probably more concerned with fan opinion than a player with several years of service and a family.
For those players, sitting out versus playing a partial season during a pandemic at less than their prorated salary is probably something to really think about..
Fair enough. I probably chose the wrong example. Who will sit out and will the harsh fan reaction not apply?
Betts.
.
Players need to stand firm on their 100% prorated pay. Owners have dealt with waning attendance for years now and have shifted their business(es) to account for these losses. Not saying the complete attendance loss they have this year doesn’t hurt the pockets but it’s a blow they can manage. Owners already receive outside of baseball revenue. They have national TV deals (contracted for yrs so most likely that $$ is still secure), international and regional TV deals (with most teams having an ownership stake with their regional network), profits from anything MLB owned (MLB.com, MLB.tv, MLBN, + subsidiaries like MLBAM, At Bat, etc.), not to mention licensing and merchandise deals. They’ve also been reducing operating costs all year – furloughing employees, cutting minor leaguers, reducing staff, and they haven’t really used travel and lodging expenses this year yet either. With no firm numbers available, we can only speculate, sooo I’m with the players. The owners will prob take a loss this year but I doubt their actual losses exceed 12% of their overall profits.
From Jeff Passan on Twitter: just numbers
Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan
·
THREAD: There are some very interesting ways to look at the current state of MLB/MLBPA negotiations. One is comparing MLB offers with one another, and the other is comparing them with what could be. Here is how the league’s three actual offers have stacked up: (1/7)
First offer: 82 G, $1.03B guarantee, $200M postseason. Equals: 41 games prorated guaranteed, 49 with postseason.
Second offer: 76 G, $989M guarantee, $443M postseason. Equals: 38/57.
Third offer: 72 G, $1.27B guarantee, $280M postseason. Equals: 50/62. (2/7)
The upshot: The guarantee offered Friday is a slight step forward, and the potential of equaling 62 prorated with the postseason is not insignificant. But it still isn’t full prorated, and until it is, the players are, as @TheCUTCH22
said, going to respond with an lol. (3/7)
Now let’s look at MLB’s offer today for a player making $1M:
Guarantee: $311,111
With postseason: $355,556
Consider the possibilities if there is not a deal and MLB imposes a season for the same player:
48-game season: $296,296
50-game season: $308,642
(4/7)
It’s true: Players would be playing 22 to 24 more games in the former scenario. But they are at the point now where the guaranteed money they’ve been offered exceeds the money they would receive if the league imposes a season. Are they willing to make less money? (5/7)
My instinct says yes. Players have coalesced around full pro rata. They will die on that hill, and if that includes getting paid less, they’re OK with it, because they’ll have stuck together and can file a grievance against the league for not playing a full schedule. (6/7)
In the meantime, the union will counter with a lower number of games than 89 at full pro rata, and the dance will continue, and the calendar will shrink, and baseball will remain a figment of all of our imaginations, and the real loser won’t be the MLBPA or MLB but the fans (7/7)
——————————————————————————————–
72/162 = 0.444% x 80% = .3555 pct of full salaries
50/162 = 0.309% x 100% = .309 pct of full salaries
A 4.6% difference in the pct of full salaries = $194 million
If the figures presented by USA today are correct, MLB could get up to $123 million per season more revenue for expanding playoffs to 16 teams, or $246 million for 2 seasons.
So both the owners and players would be losing money by not settling this.
The players have come down in their demands. The owners are holding steady on wanting to pay about 35% of their annual salaries. They’re offering more games (which means more TV revenue), but not willing to boost the overall pay to the players. It’s getting to the point where I almost, *almost* hope the players just say screw it and sit out the season just to teach the owners they won’t roll over and do as they’re told.
From what I can see, this offer, money wise, is much the same as the last offer which the union rejected. The union will probably reject it.
espn headline-dead on arrival!
Hurtling toward 54 game season.
do they really need a 21 day spring season?? make it 2 weeks and get playing . most players are in shape, hitting off tees and the pitchers never pitch more than 50 pitches in spring training anyway. . unless they are eating hotdogs everyday . get playing spoiled millionaires,
I worked for an MLB team in a full time capacity. I can’t say for certain because every team is a little different and I did not work in finance , but the 70% comment by Ricketts is interesting and “could” be true. Although it is complicated. The revenue from in-park corporate sponsors was about 30%, ticket sales another 40-50%, TV revenues, concessions, merchandise make up the rest. So if they couldn’t shift the in-park corporate sponsors to TV only sponsors then that combined with the loss of ticket and concessions could equal 70% of revenue on game day. These are capital plays. Not cash flow rich businesses really. Not saying the owners don’t have the money, but this is what I recall from many internal meetings.
Baseball needs to take this opportunity to fix itself.
1) Team owners vote to league revenue sharing ( small market teams will get
more money yearly and big markets will get less yearly ). This will result in more competitive balance and all teams having an equal shot to win yearly. Baseball will be exciting again.
2) Players will agree to a salary cap because each team will be spending more
money annually ….possibly 150 million to 200 million per team to be adjusted
annually based on revenue from TV and team revenues. Players will make more money. Owners will make more money because of more competitive product and increased playoff interest.
Not if they don’t spend the money. You have to have a soft cap also…minimum spend. This is basically the nfl plan. Won’t work in mlb without open books.