Major League Baseball, players union reach tentative agreement to salvage 2020 season

[Benjamin Grimm]

That's a good point. The schedule is complicated. I can imagine the schedule makers on standby, wondering if they're going to have to come up with an 82-game schedule or a 114-game schedule or something in between.



At least, for this year one complication will be removed since there won't be teams playing a series on one coast followed by a series on the opposite coast. Time zone differences won't be a factor if teams play all their games in their own time zone or the one adjacent to their home time zone.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The danger of playing regular-season games through the end of October is, as has often been stated, that if there's a second wave, it could wipe out the postseason. The owners prefer to get the World Series completed by October 31 to mitigate this risk. The players are asking for regular season through October. The proposed expanded playoffs would then extend through the end of November, more or less.



I wonder if any consideration has been made to putting the playoff teams in a quarantine bubble for these November games, which can all be hosted at a neutral site, perhaps in Hawaii or somewhere. For half of the fourteen teams, that quarantine would only last about a week, as they'll be eliminated in the first round. Only two teams would be bubbled for the full month. I can understand why players wouldn't want to be quarantined for months at a time, but maybe agreeing to a quarantine bubble for November post-season games would alleviate some of the owners' fears.

[Ceetar]

i like how people talk about a 'second wave' like the first one's receding.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The first wave is receding. It's way too early to spike the ball, but the numbers are in decline. Not in every area, but in most of the areas that had been hardest hit.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The first wave is receding. It's way too early to spike the ball, but the numbers are in decline. Not in every area, but in most of the areas that had been hardest hit.

Lost the link, but a story from Italy over the weekend said that the virus is changing and newest forms of the -19 strain are less deadly. We can only hope.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I saw that too. I'm a bit skeptical. I'll be more likely to believe it once it's confirmed by a few additional sources. But it's certainly encouraging news if true.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The first wave is receding. It's way too early to spike the ball, but the numbers are in decline. Not in every area, but in most of the areas that had been hardest hit.

we've all been inside, allowing the hospitals to catch up. That's hardly the same thing. Like if a huge real wave came and flooded the beach. We've got most of the people out of the water and fewer and fewer drownings, but if everyone starts going back on the beach..

[Benjamin Grimm]

...then there will be a second wave. I know. All I'm saying is that cases are currently in decline. Whether or not that lasts depends on how badly we screw things up going forward. I can certainly understand not being optimistic.

[Frayed Knot]

=Ceetar post_id=37710 time=1591017442 user_id=102]I don't think it really matters what the owners are 'claiming' about revenues, since literally everyone knows it's a lie.

[Willets Point]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The first wave is receding. It's way too early to spike the ball, but the numbers are in decline. Not in every area, but in most of the areas that had been hardest hit. Lost the link, but a story from Italy over the weekend said that the virus is changing and newest forms of the -19 strain are less deadly. We can only hope. Later

This is probably a question that's not going to be anyone here's expertise, but how much can it mutate and still be C19 and not become, say, C20.

[Ceetar]

COVID-19 is the disease. If a mutated SARS-CoV-2 continues to cause the same, or similar, symptoms, it'll probably still be COVID-19.

[MFS62]

Willets Point wrote: This is probably a question that's not going to be anyone here's expertise, but how much can it mutate and still be C19 and not become, say, C20.

IIRC, Met Irish works in a hospital lab. I hope he sees this and provides an answer.

Later

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: =Ceetar post_id=37710 time=1591017442 user_id=102]I don't think it really matters what the owners are 'claiming' about revenues, since literally everyone knows it's a lie.

Without getting into a discussion about particular numbers, it stands to reason that if they have to play all or most of somewhere between 82 and 114 games with no fans in the stands meaning no tickets sold,

no parking, no concessions, plus whatever else adds up when fans show up at ballparks then it would be idiotic to suggest that revenue isn't going to be affected.

[MFS62]

COVID-19 is the disease. If a mutated SARS-CoV-2 continues to cause the same, or similar, symptoms, it'll probably still be COVID-19.

Found it - see the bottom of the article:

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-losing-its-lethality-in-italy-according-to-doctors-2020-6https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-losing-its-lethality-in-italy-according-to-doctors-2020-6



Later

[Ceetar]

COVID-19 is the disease. If a mutated SARS-CoV-2 continues to cause the same, or similar, symptoms, it'll probably still be COVID-19. Found it - see the bottom of the article: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-losing-its-lethality-in-italy-according-to-doctors-2020-6https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-losing-its-lethality-in-italy-according-to-doctors-2020-6 Later

seems to agree with what I said, though the genome itself may change slightly (which may mean the antibodies that work best against it may change, similar to the flu) the virus and the disease itself are the same.

[Frayed Knot]

=nymr83 post_id=37751 time=1591042143 user_id=54] Of course revenues will be down, but the idea that they are 'operating at a loss' isn't credible given that the numbers they usually show aren't credible either.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Of course revenues will be down, but the idea that they are 'operating at a loss' isn't credible given that the numbers they usually show aren't credible either. So MLB is a business which can lose half of their revenue off the top (with the lost half season) and then another 40-ish percent off the half they might play (estimate of the live gate as a pct of their whole income) and it's still not possible that they'll operate at a loss off of that? I'm not buying it.

Sorry I was not clear there at all. rather than "the idea that they are 'operating at a loss' isn't credible" I meant to say "the owners' contention that they are 'operating at a loss' isn't credible"



It may be true that they will be losing money. But they have done nothing to prove it and I don't trust their numbers anyway. Which is fine, their CBA doesnt require them to prove the numbers as part of a revenue sharing/salary cap agreement with the players the way that the NFL does. They have every right to be secretive, but the union has an equal right to demand more accountability if the owners want concessions. everyone is right and wrong here.



The question is do they want to figure it out and play?

[Frayed Knot]

Given the circumstances, I find the contention that they'll lose money this year to be very credible.



btw, the player's union DOES get financial data from the teams so things aren't totally on the 'cuz we said so' system.

As far as how complete that data is I have no idea. Those figures aren't made public and none of us would know how to judge their accuracy even if they were.



I would just prefer it if the overall union argument wasn't: no point in debating that issue because it's already been decided, and we won't discuss it further because it violates our principles.





btw, Joel Sherman had a good column on this this morning (Mon)

https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/sherman-mlbs-potential-disaster-isnt-about-players-greed/https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/sherman-mlbs-potential-disaster-isnt-about-players-greed/

Edited June 1, 2020 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

Jeff Passan, ESPN wrote: Unable to yet reach a return-to-play agreement, Major League Baseball has discussed playing a shorter schedule in which it would pay members of the MLB Players Association their full prorated salaries, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN. Though MLB does not intend to propose this to the players, the possibility of implementing a schedule of around 50 games that would start in July has been considered by the league as a last resort in the event the parties can't come to a deal, sources said.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Joel Sherman had a good column on ...

April Fools Day was 2 months ago.

[batmagadanleadoff]

FiveThirtyEight.com concludes that the owners are full of shit. It's upshot is that the owners are putting out misleading numbers designed to give them the same revenue stream and profits that they would receive in a normal season while asking the players to take pandemic-related huge salary cuts.



___________________





MLB Owners Say They Could Lose $4 Billion Even If Games Are Played. Does That Math Add Up?



By Neil Paine

Filed under MLB





Excerpt:

Leave it to baseball: Somehow the biggest impediment to starting the 2020 season isn't the deadly pandemic swirling around us, but rather dollars and cents. Several MLB proposals to cut player salaries were rejected by the players' association, with both players and agents blasting the owners' plans as yet another breach of trust in a relationship full of them. A counterproposal was filed by the union Sunday afternoon, which — according to ESPN's Jeff Passan — is expected to be rejected by the league, though it might be a path to an eventual agreement. The crux of the argument is around how much of a salary hit players should take to offset the lost revenue not only from playing an abbreviated season with fewer games but also from having to play without fans in the stands — a major source of league revenue — when games do start. In March, the players came to what they believed was a firm agreement to prorate their salaries relative to how much of a full 162-game schedule is played (so, 50 percent of a full salary in an 81-game season, and so forth). The owners have claimed that agreement didn't cover the eventuality of playing games without fans, and that they have the right to negotiate further salary reductions to offset the reduction in revenue. As you might imagine, the players have, um, not been receptive to that idea. The owners have claimed (via a presentation from the commissioner's office to the union leaked to The Associated Press) that playing an abbreviated season and paying the players their prorated salaries would result in 89 percent of league revenue going to the players and would hand teams a $4 billion total loss. That number was met with immediate skepticism and fact-checking scrutiny. Infamously, the public doesn't know each MLB team's financial situation — but even a little back-of-the-envelope math off public estimates paints a far rosier picture for teams' finances even if they had to pay the players their prorated salaries. [Analysis] [Conclusion] In other words, the owners' proposed salary-reduction scheme looks like a clever sleight-of-hand designed to cause a shortened season — in the midst of a life-changing pandemic for millions of Americans — to essentially give them the same profit as they made during a full season in the midst of a baseball boom. Unless we think baseball teams were just barely breaking even last year (despite record revenues and even the small-market Kansas City Royals selling for $1 billion), it's hard to believe the owners aren't trying to live by the words of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Trouble is, everyone else stands to lose under this tactic. The players face the choice between taking a massive pay cut — and handing owners an undue profit — or making themselves the villains in the public's eyes, potentially catching the blame for a lost season. The fans would lose a source of joy at a moment when those are sorely needed. And as ESPN's Buster Olney wrote Sunday, the future of the game itself could be at stake if MLB misses an entire year to bickering over money in the middle of a recession and pandemic. Although it still seems like all parties involved have too much to lose not to come to a compromise, it bears questioning why MLB owners would let the future of the sport hang in doubt to preserve their own profitable status quo in the short term.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mlb-owners-say-they-could-lose-4-billion-even-if-games-are-played-does-that-math-add-up/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mlb-owners-say-they-could-lose-4-billion-even-if-games-are-played-does-that-math-add-up/

[Willets Point]

Quelle surprise!

[nymr83]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=37776 time=1591077706 user_id=68]
FiveThirtyEight.com concludes that the owners are full of shit. It's upshot is that the owners are putting out misleading numbers designed to give them the same revenue stream and profits that they would receive in a normal season while asking the players to take pandemic-related huge salary cuts.

[Edgy MD]

I'm surprised to say this, but I'm ready to let go of the season.



We have 1968, 1929, and 1918 out there already. We might as well toss 1994 in the pile.



I want baseball back, but not as some sort of farcical quest to return to normal — #americastrong hashtag bullshit.



All this horror is a byproduct of normal. MLB should taking this time to put less energy into returning to the status quo and more into reforming itself.

[nymr83]

I don't agree. NOT playing games is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved - fans, players, owners, non-player employees, broadcast partners, everyone. Who benefits for not playing at all?

[batmagadanleadoff]

=nymr83 post_id=37801 time=1591119825 user_id=54] Who benefits [from] not playing at all?

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: "Jeff Passan, ESPN" -- Unable to yet reach a return-to-play agreement, Major League Baseball has discussed playing a shorter schedule in which it would pay members of the MLB Players Association their full prorated salaries, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN. Though MLB does not intend to propose this to the players, the possibility of implementing a schedule of around 50 games that would start in July has been considered by the league as a last resort in the event the parties can't come to a deal, sources said.

This is just a giant game of chicken at this point.





The problem with killing this season and just saying 'Let's start afresh next April' (aside from the blown opportunity of course) is that the CBA is up at the end of '21 so the bickering is only going to increase

to the point where it's not a given that they'll start on time even IF Covid is all under control by then. The owners are going to accuse the players of killing the season while the players will want revenge for their

lost paychecks in 2020 on top of the FA money they think they were cheated out of for the last two/three years.

So while it would be nice if the time could be put into reform rather than just slap-dash repairs ... I don't think that's what's gonna happen.

[Edgy MD]

=nymr83 post_id=37801 time=1591119825 user_id=54]
I don't agree. NOT playing games is the worst possible outcome for everyone involved - fans, players, owners, non-player employees, broadcast partners, everyone.

[TransMonk]

Yeah...baseball is around #47 on my priority list right now. If they do play, it'll be a mangled, you-rah-rah mess that will always have an asterisk next to it.



They can play if they want, but I don't believe I'll pay attention. I'm watching the world burning down around us.

[Ceetar]

I could see, particularly the Dodgers, try to claim 2020 doesn't exist if they don't play, and that say Mookie Betts is NOT a free agent. While the players argue the opposite.