SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 17, 2020 12:31:07 GMT -5
It's rather simple, seen reports owners are willing to split revenue 50-50, which would put the players a head compared to years past. The players want no part of it. Those articles are crazy funny, completely one sided articles that favor the players. Owners are rich so they can afford to take the extra loss. Players are willing to negotiate, but owners aren't which is crazy wrong. Players won't budge from making prorated salaries, even though the MLB will lose 40% of revenue with no fans. Now given the climate I can see players wanting a little extra, yet expecting owners to eat the complete change in revenue is greedy.
The Player Association has been horrible for years. They are picking the wrong time to try and act tough. It's truly amazing how bad they have been for years and years.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jun 17, 2020 13:29:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 17, 2020 13:36:55 GMT -5
It's rather simple, seen reports owners are willing to split revenue 50-50, which would put the players a head compared to years past. The players want no part of it. Those articles are crazy funny, completely one sided articles that favor the players. Owners are rich so they can afford to take the extra loss. Players are willing to negotiate, but owners aren't which is crazy wrong. Players won't budge from making prorated salaries, even though the MLB will lose 40% of revenue with no fans. Now given the climate I can see players wanting a little extra, yet expecting owners to eat the complete change in revenue is greedy. The Player Association has been horrible for years. They are picking the wrong time to try and act tough. It's truly amazing how bad they have been for years and years. I could be wrong, but from what I understand the owners haven't been willing to open their books, so the players would have to trust the owners to self report accurate revenue totals. The owners themselves acknowledge players believe owners are hiding profits, and at least one owner suggests baseball "isn't very profitable". If the owners admit players don't trust them to report their own revenue, why would they make the offer in the first place? Without transparency, it's a clear non-starter. Any serious offer of a true 50/50 revenue split includes giving the players access to internal revenue reports. Maybe the owners have recently budged on that issue as I've stopped following the negotiations. If they want to operate in good faith and aren't hiding anything, why wouldn't they be transparent with the players to prove their doubts are misplaced?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 17, 2020 13:57:28 GMT -5
Well hallelujah. Will miracles ever cease!! Honestly, I miss baseball and will be glad to see the Red Sox play, even if they are mediocre. From a Red Sox centric view - a short season is the best thing that can happen to this franchise. Reset the luxury tax threshold after this season and even be players to bring back Mookie Betts (I'm still dreaming about that although I don't believe for a second that he's returning to the Red Sox in 2021 and beyond - but at least it becomes a non-zero possibility anyways!) Play great or .500 even should get them toward the playoffs - or suck and only have a short duration of that and get ready to pick toward the top next season. Win-win either way. Play Ball! Of course, no baseball for as long as we've had is a dress rehearsal for the 2022 season that won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jun 17, 2020 14:06:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 17, 2020 14:21:07 GMT -5
It's rather simple, seen reports owners are willing to split revenue 50-50, which would put the players a head compared to years past. The players want no part of it. Those articles are crazy funny, completely one sided articles that favor the players. Owners are rich so they can afford to take the extra loss. Players are willing to negotiate, but owners aren't which is crazy wrong. Players won't budge from making prorated salaries, even though the MLB will lose 40% of revenue with no fans. Now given the climate I can see players wanting a little extra, yet expecting owners to eat the complete change in revenue is greedy. The Player Association has been horrible for years. They are picking the wrong time to try and act tough. It's truly amazing how bad they have been for years and years. I could be wrong, but from what I understand the owners haven't been willing to open their books, so the players would have to trust the owners to self report accurate revenue totals. The owners themselves acknowledge players believe owners are hiding profits, and at least one owner suggests baseball "isn't very profitable". If the owners admit players don't trust them to report their own revenue, why would they make the offer in the first place? Without transparency, it's a clear non-starter. Any serious offer of a true 50/50 revenue split includes giving the players access to internal revenue reports. Maybe the owners have recently budged on that issue as I've stopped following the negotiations. If they want to operate in good faith and aren't hiding anything, why wouldn't they be transparent with the players to prove their doubts are misplaced? It was only a few years ago Tony Clark was saying the players were getting what they should. How can you claim that if you have zero insight on the books? I don't really buy that, yet Baseball is a mess compared to other sports so who knows. Baseball isn't very profitable from a year to year percentage of net revenue. Like certain teams do well, the Red Sox were at 17%, the Rays were amazing given their revenue, yet the A's made less than 5%. There Net Revenue was 10 million on over 200 million in Revenue. They could easily lose money this year. Heck go buy the Red Sox for 3-4 billion and make 89 million in yearly revenue, that is horrible from a pure business point of view. Yet they can make a killing long-term selling the team. For most teams Baseball isn't a huge money maker year to year and they aren't sitting on large piles of cash. The real money is made when selling the team decades later.
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Jun 17, 2020 14:59:28 GMT -5
Basically, MLB and the MLBPA can't even agree on whether or not they've reached an agreement.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 17, 2020 16:19:25 GMT -5
Basically, MLB and the MLBPA can't even agree on whether or not they've reached an agreement. Did anybody see that part of the "agreement" if they have agreed - who the hell knows - says that there would be expanded playoffs for 2020 AND 2021. I get it for 2020 - makes sense, but 2021? If it's not a shortened season, I'd hate to see them make it so all you have to basically do is play a shade or two above .500 ball and you make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 17, 2020 16:33:35 GMT -5
Basically, MLB and the MLBPA can't even agree on whether or not they've reached an agreement. Did anybody see that part of the "agreement" if they have agreed - who the hell knows - says that there would be expanded playoffs for 2020 AND 2021. I get it for 2020 - makes sense, but 2021? If it's not a shortened season, I'd hate to see them make it so all you have to basically do is play a shade or two above .500 ball and you make the playoffs. The point is to help recoup lost revenue*. It's also in case the playoffs don't happen this year because of a second COVID spike. * - yet another reason why player pay cuts aren't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 17, 2020 20:19:28 GMT -5
if the 60 game proposal is accepted, we can see it was all a charade to break the union. I am sure they ran the numbers a long time ago. The owners have no soul. I will always back labor.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 18, 2020 9:05:19 GMT -5
The point is to help recoup lost revenue*. It's also in case the playoffs don't happen this year because of a second COVID spike. * - yet another reason why player pay cuts aren't necessary. Unless I misunderstand this, the key to playoffs is not the expanded revenue, but the games don't count toward the pro rata, so the owners can get those games with no additional player cost. That allows them to concede the 100% pro rata for the 60 game portion. In effect, 60 games but then 10 extra playoff games, means players are playing 70 to earn 100% of 60, so net 6/7th pro rata. The players, having essentially gotten that tradeoff, now appear to want more than 60 games pro rata, thereby increasing the cost again to the owners (which basis was the reason for a deal). So if its 70 games, then the players get paid 70 out of 80, or 7/8th, rather than 6/7th. That's the nickle and diming going on. Its always a tradeoff, not an issue of what is "necessary".
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jun 18, 2020 10:01:35 GMT -5
The point is to help recoup lost revenue*. It's also in case the playoffs don't happen this year because of a second COVID spike. * - yet another reason why player pay cuts aren't necessary. Unless I misunderstand this, the key to playoffs is not the expanded revenue, but the games don't count toward the pro rata, so the owners can get those games with no additional player cost. That allows them to concede the 100% pro rata for the 60 game portion. In effect, 60 games but then 10 extra playoff games, means players are playing 70 to earn 100% of 60, so net 6/7th pro rata. The players, having essentially gotten that tradeoff, now appear to want more than 60 games pro rata, thereby increasing the cost again to the owners (which basis was the reason for a deal). So if its 70 games, then the players get paid 70 out of 80, or 7/8th, rather than 6/7th. That's the nickle and diming going on. Its always a tradeoff, not an issue of what is "necessary". Well it seems like you forgot to account for the 25% of the revenue they would earn for the playoffs in your theory? How much would that be? "There was more hope for peace earlier Wednesday when commissioner Rob Manfred, after a meeting with union chief Tony Clark, said the two sides had “a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement.” However, the union remains dissatisfied with the league’s proposed 60-game regular season that would take place over 70 days if it were to end Sept. 27, even though the players would earn 100 percent of their prorated salaries and, per Joel Sherman of the New York Post, a 25 percent playoff pool." www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/06/mlb-mlbpa-still-apart-on-length-of-potential-season.html
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jun 19, 2020 7:27:25 GMT -5
Lets see if I can help..........
(60 + 70) / 2 = 65
|
|
|
Post by chr31ter on Jun 19, 2020 7:28:46 GMT -5
Jayson Stark dropped this happy little ray of sunshine in The Athletic today... theathletic.com/1877320/2020/06/17/stark-if-you-think-major-league-baseball-is-ugly-now/I won't quote the whole thing, because paywall, but here are a few highlights: On this winter's Free Agent market: "Club officials, from markets of varying sizes, offered similar predictions – of unprecedented numbers of unsigned free agents … of up to 300 players getting non-tendered (yes, 300!) … of veteran players begging for any kind of deal … of even the marquee free agents – Mookie Betts, George Springer, J.T. Realmuto – settling for one-year contracts." On where some teams are financially: "I would say under oath, under threat of perjury, that we’re going to lose (well over $100 million) this year,” said an official of one team, who then ran through exactly how much his club was losing in attendance revenue, TV/radio money and other in-game revenues. After which he asked, angrily: “So tell me where the money is coming from. If you can find it, I’ll go get it. It’s not there.” On the threat of a work stoppage in 2022: “I don’t mean to sound like I’m the voice of despair, but if we have a work stoppage, I don’t see how 10 to 12 teams get through it. I mean they don’t get out the other side. I’m talking about, they file for bankruptcy. I could even see bankruptcy for the league, which could mean you’d have player contracts getting voided. I don’t think that’s off the table if there’s a work stoppage." And it pretty much gets worse from there, including talk from both sides about tearing the whole league down to Ground Zero and starting over. Lovely.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jun 19, 2020 7:44:47 GMT -5
I know this will never happen, but at this point the only way baseball can save face from this disgraceful fight over money while millions are unemployed plus 120k+ dead is if the players play this season for free, and owners donate 100% of TV or any profits to COVID relief funds. None of them will land in bread lines if they did this, and their sport would benefit from being a welcome source of entertainment while removing the stain of this financial fight.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Jun 19, 2020 8:22:56 GMT -5
Jayson Stark dropped this happy little ray of sunshine in The Athletic today... of even the marquee free agents – Mookie Betts, George Springer, J.T. Realmuto – settling for one-year contracts." I have to assume that beyond the AAV, the uncertainties will chill contract length. Even if the Sox are confident the virus will be over in two years, and also that fan behavior will not change, and that revenues may bounce back, all of those risks militate against binding to a 10 year deal on assumptions that are now more risky. There is no need to cry for Mookie, who already has earned tens of millions, and who will probably earn 100+ million over the remainder of his career. But it won't be in one fell swoop of a career long 10 year deal for 300 million. Not taking a reasonable deal will have cost him at least 120 million. I say that trying not to have a little glee, but I do generally dislike comfortable players chasing every last dollar, even if raw economics and "doing it for labor vs. owers" are decent theoretical justifications. (I think there are counterveiling justifications that aggregating costs in one player does have costs such as the chopping of minor league teams and players, but that is a discussion for another day)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 19, 2020 11:52:33 GMT -5
That last sentence.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,758
|
Post by mobaz on Jun 19, 2020 13:46:42 GMT -5
I'm skeptical any of the 4 sports will start/restart and then finish a season.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jun 19, 2020 14:01:21 GMT -5
No chance of this happening now. Players are starting to test positive. This is a potentially deadly pandemic. Stay the Fuck Home. Just my opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Jun 19, 2020 14:06:42 GMT -5
I've been saying that all along.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jun 19, 2020 16:19:10 GMT -5
No chance of this happening now. Players are starting to test positive. This is a potentially deadly pandemic. Stay the Fuck Home. Just my opinion though. Which of course was inevitable, and the thing I STILL haven't seen addressed is how you get around this problem; everyone's just talking about the negotiations over moneybucks while hand-waving about the "health issues that need to be worked out." But when one player in the NBA got infected they shut down the whole league. One possible solution is just to say, "look, players are gonna get the coronavirus, as will clubhouse attendants and other team employees, etc., and we're just gonna barrel through. If half the Phillies get it then they just have to go on with half their players while the rest quarantine. And if anyone gets hospitalized, or god forbid, dies, then that's the price we'll have to pay. If, as a nation, we're doing it for bars and restaurants and movie theaters, then we may as well do it for major league baseball." Maybe that's defensible. But I haven't actually heard anyone say that. So what is the plan, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jun 19, 2020 16:31:24 GMT -5
With the virus exploding in about half the states that opened when it was not under control, I don't think we are going to see any live public events for quite a while. I always side with the players. Without them there is no game. The billionaire owners offer no value. Oregon was doing well, until it wasn't. The state had the thing under control, but there have been outbreaks now. First a fish plant on the coast, and now a Pentecostal congregation that blew off all the recommendations, kickstarting a hot spot on the other side of the State. This thing is insidious because of the latency and the asymptomatic and/or very mild nature of 80% of the cases. But it can kill and it's doing that
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jun 19, 2020 18:55:55 GMT -5
Nope. If we have ties in baseball I won’t watch a single inning. Running the sport
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 19, 2020 20:12:58 GMT -5
Nope. If we have ties in baseball I won’t watch a single inning. Running the sport Yuchhh! The owners are determined to do everything in their power to screw up their sport. I'm half surprised they haven't settle on HR derby to break extra inning ties.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 19, 2020 21:07:13 GMT -5
Why? Why do we need 15 inning games? What's romantic about that?
I have no issues with ties after 12 (or so) innings and felt that way before the present situation.
|
|
|