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

[Edgy MD]

Don't get me wrong. Baseball still delights me. I love the personalities. I love the different ways of excelling. I love the different types of athletes. And I love that the whole point is to get home.



My attitude toward this lockdown is, though, that the desire to get back to normal or as close as possible to normal is a waste. We can make things a lot better, in virtually ever sector of society, every sector of the economy, and I think baseball should put their efforts into making things better rather than having a farcical version of the same old.

[Benjamin Grimm]

[ashie62]

I posted early on that 2020 baseball was in jeopardy. Beyond jeopardy now



On my list of things important to me now MLB is 11th on a scale of 10.



I am however enjoying DFS in the KBO. Same strategies. You do have to learn your Kim's

[ashie62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1269716874885038080

Well.... if the owners stick to the 50 game dingy I doubt players will be smiling or terribly motivated to win, no less play.

[Frayed Knot]

So the owners' latest proposal is for a 76 game regular season with the players getting 50% of their pro-rated salary, a rate which would go up to 75% if the planned post-season is completed.

I guess one thing the owners are worried about is a new spike in Covid right around the time post-season would start. At that point the players would have their money while the teams would

lose out on the biggest share of TV money if no playoffs. If the full (76 + post) season does happen 75% of pro-rated would wind up around the same as full pro-rated at 57 games so the

owners could argue that it's 'better' than their fall-back position of 50 games which Manfred could apparently declare to be the case although the players could counter that they'd need to

work about 30% more just in order to get the same.



The owners are also throwing in a waiving of the FA compensation rules this winter which would free potential FAs from a drag on their negotiations although with the CBA up after 2021 it's likely

those rules have their days numbered anyway so this just speeds that up by a year heading into a winter where dollars are going to be tight coming off the reduced season.

[ashie62]

So, if they play a 76 game or about 1/2 season the players get 75% pay?



MLBPA would have to be total idiots to not make this work

[Benjamin Grimm]

No, they get 75% of their pro-rated pay. For a 76-game season, assuming the postseason gets played, players would receive 35.1% of their salary.



(76/162) * 0.75.



That really doesn't look like the kind of proposal that the players will go for, does it?



Maybe if instead of 50 and 75 percent it was 75 and 100. And maybe that will be the counter proposal.

[Ceetar]

=ashie62 post_id=38367 time=1591644769 user_id=90]
So, if they play a 76 game or about 1/2 season the players get 75% pay?



MLBPA would have to be total idiots to not make this work

[MFS62]

Not only is he incompetent, but he's a sneak:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mlb-accuses-ngel-hern-ndez-200536181.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/sports/mlb-accuses-ngel-hern-ndez-200536181.html

And then he lies about it.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

=ashie62 post_id=38367 time=1591644769 user_id=90]
So, if they play a 76 game or about 1/2 season the players get 75% pay?



MLBPA would have to be total idiots to not make this work

[Benjamin Grimm]

And not all games will be played in empty stadiums. There won't be any crowds of 40,000, but I know that there are mayors and governors who said that they would allow paid spectators at sporting events. (I haven't been keeping track of which ones have said that.)



If you could put 5,000 people in the park and charge them $100 per ticket (I'm totally making these numbers up) that would mitigate the $640,000 they owners will lose (using numbers that they probably totally made up) each game.



What happens if the players agree to 75% and then the ticket revenue starts up again? The owners addressed that in an earlier proposal, but they players don't trust the bookkeeping so that didn't get anywhere.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Then there was a clause in that agreement which stated that further talks needed to occur if the truncated season was going to be played in empty stadiums.... Players want to pretend it was a meaningless add-on; owners are claiming they can't function without a reduction off the pro-rated part.

Meaningless add-on? Try having a contracts law professor explain that one. No contract terms are meaningless. Otherwise, why the hell would it be in there? Especially here, when both sides are represented by the most sophisticated attorneys in this particular field.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And not all games will be played in empty stadiums. There won't be any crowds of 40,000, but I know that there are mayors and governors who said that they would allow paid spectators at sporting events. (I haven't been keeping track of which ones have said that.) If you could put 5,000 people in the park and charge them $100 per ticket (I'm totally making these numbers up) that would mitigate the $640,000 they owners will lose (using numbers that they probably totally made up) each game.

I wouldn't go to a baseball game in these times if they paid me. And then fed me.

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: Then there was a clause in that agreement which stated that further talks needed to occur if the truncated season was going to be played in empty stadiums.... Players want to pretend it was a meaningless add-on; owners are claiming they can't function without a reduction off the pro-rated part. Meaningless add-on? Try having a contracts law professor explain that one. No contract terms are meaningless. Otherwise, why the hell would it be in there? Especially here, when both sides are represented by the most sophisticated attorneys in this particular field.

Well that's been My point all along. Not that I'm rooting for the players to lose out to owners in this negotiations (I don't particularly care how it winds up) but I've been pissed at the player side reaction to

this whole thing which has essentially been that the pay issue was already decided back in March (pro-rated portion of existing contracts) and that if the teams wanted something else then they should have

brought it up back then. But of course they DID bring it up back then but the future was so sketchy at that point that there was no point in even talking about specific numbers. And each of their counter-

proposals to plans from the ownership side have yet to acknowledge that the issue of something less than the same per-game rate is even in play.



This is getting like the old days where the more negotiating sessions they have the further apart the two sides get.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Then there was a clause in that agreement which stated that further talks needed to occur if the truncated season was going to be played in empty stadiums.... Players want to pretend it was a meaningless add-on; owners are claiming they can't function without a reduction off the pro-rated part. Meaningless add-on? Try having a contracts law professor explain that one. No contract terms are meaningless. Otherwise, why the hell would it be in there? Especially here, when both sides are represented by the most sophisticated attorneys in this particular field. Well that's been My point all along. Not that I'm rooting for the players to lose out to owners in this negotiations (I don't particularly care how it winds up) but I've been pissed at the player side reaction to this whole thing....

I know. I'm with you on this one.

[Benjamin Grimm]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=38390 time=1591650105 user_id=68]


I wouldn't go to a baseball game in these times if they paid me. And then fed me.

[kcmets]

I'd go to a game if my Jeannie could blink me in but no way I'm spending

an hour X 2 on the train and a trip on the '7' X 2 from GCT.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And not all games will be played in empty stadiums. There won't be any crowds of 40,000, but I know that there are mayors and governors who said that they would allow paid spectators at sporting events. (I haven't been keeping track of which ones have said that.) If you could put 5,000 people in the park and charge them $100 per ticket (I'm totally making these numbers up) that would mitigate the $640,000 they owners will lose (using numbers that they probably totally made up) each game. I wouldn't go to a baseball game in these times if they paid me. And then fed me.

I wouldn't be surprised if "tickets" are $200 a pop for your own section and include food/beverages (prepackaged stuff, they're not opening up teh whole stadium)



that said, I would go to a game if it was affordable, but probably alone or with just one family member. Masks, stay outside, be prepared to leave early/in shifts. Mostly safe.



I wonder what it'd be like. I'm not a vocal person, so I'm not gonna be the guy heckling and chanting lets go mets by myself. Will their be enough of a crowd to feel like a crowd? or will it just be like watching outside? Might be better off with the TV and my own deck then.

[Benjamin Grimm]

According to the Associated Press, the latest MLB proposal offers to expand the playoffs this year to up to 16 teams. (Why not?) And there's also this:

The proposal would eliminate all free-agent compensation for the first time since the free-agent era started in 1976. It also would forgive 20% of the $170 million in salaries already advanced to players during April and May.

The part about the free-agent compensation will only help a small subset of the players. I'm not familiar with the $170 million advance.

[nymr83]

Not only is he incompetent, but he's a sneak: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/mlb-accuses-ngel-hern-ndez-200536181.htmlhttps://www.yahoo.com/sports/mlb-accuses-ngel-hern-ndez-200536181.html And then he lies about it. Later

Worst umpire ever.

[Willets Point]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: According to the Associated Press, the latest MLB proposal offers to expand the playoffs this year to up to 16 teams. (Why not?) And there's also this: The proposal would eliminate all free-agent compensation for the first time since the free-agent era started in 1976. It also would forgive 20% of the $170 million in salaries already advanced to players during April and May. The part about the free-agent compensation will only help a small subset of the players. I'm not familiar with the $170 million advance.

This is why I'm saying that they just make it a fun tournament instead of trying to play a "season" that goes on and on into November (and into a second wave of COVID-19). Have a group stage with five groups of six teams each. The top 3 teams from each group and one wild card advance to the playoffs. Play the whole thing over 2-3 months and finish in October like normal.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I would be down with that idea. Don't even call it a World Series. This year there would be an "MLB Tournament Champion" instead.



It's just nomenclature, to be sure, but I'd rather see the Mets with two World Championships and a Tournament Championship than three World Championships with one having an asterisk. There would, forever, be that "yeah, but..." attached to it.

[ashie62]

I guess the owners could ram a 50 game schedule down the players throats.



I wish there would be fans attending just so as to see how many people can pony up for a day at the park.



It feels as if neither side is trying to get this done with any real urgency



Baffling

[bmfc1]

I've had it all wrong. I thought that the owners were greedy and making a fortune but that's not true according to the owner of the Cardinals:

[bLOCKQUOTE]The industry isn't very profitable to be quite honest, and I think they understand that. But they think, you know, the owners are hiding profits, and you know there's been a little bit of a distrust there.[/bLOCKQUOTE]

So the players should play the rest of the season for minimum wage and when the ballparks open please raise the ticket prices to help those less fortunate than us.

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/09/cardinals-owner-bill-dewitt-jr-the-industry-isnt-very-profitable-to-be-quite-honest/https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2020/06/09/cardinals-owner-bill-dewitt-jr-the-industry-isnt-very-profitable-to-be-quite-honest/

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And not all games will be played in empty stadiums. There won't be any crowds of 40,000, but I know that there are mayors and governors who said that they would allow paid spectators at sporting events. (I haven't been keeping track of which ones have said that.) If you could put 5,000 people in the park and charge them $100 per ticket (I'm totally making these numbers up) that would mitigate the $640,000 they owners will lose (using numbers that they probably totally made up) each game. I wouldn't go to a baseball game in these times if they paid me. And then fed me.

I'm tempted. Paid me and fed me, you say?

[Frayed Knot]

With outdoor transmission, particularly in warmer weather, said to be very low -- and even a new report from WHO saying that transmission from the infected but asymptomatic is also

rare* -- it shouldn't be a problem allowing at least some tickets to be sold. Maybe not immediately but as the 'season' (whatever that winds up meaning) progresses.







Below is a theoretical 10 Row / 12 Seat across section of seats. The X's are people, the dashes empty seats.

Tickets are sold in blocks of four only so those buying them would (should?) be comfortable with those they're sitting with while each group has several feet of horizontal and vertical feet

between it the nearest other groups. In this (totally made up) example the stadium sells 32 seats out of 120, or just over 25%

How well something like this works out will depend on the public's acceptance of whatever plan each stadium comes up with, but a potential 10,000 seats sold for each game is a helluva

lot better than zero.





X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _ X X

X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _ X X

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _

_ _ X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _ X X

X X _ _ _ X X _ _ _ X X













* Some WHO spokeswoman announced this on Monday and then had to do a bunch of verbal gymnastics to walk it back today.

Nowhere did she imply that what she previously said was wrong (in the end she pretty much stuck to yesterday's story) but you can tell

that the org was trying to NOT to make that scenario sound too rosy lest people hear "rare" and interpret it as a license to ignore social

distancing norms.

[Ceetar]

sure but they have to walk past each other. at best it'd be row per group and then skip a row.



but still probably with concessions closed.



and then you're still all walking in/out the same exits.



I mean, it's doable in certain situations and states are opening up anyway because actually providing support for people is too foreign for them, so they'll probably with some suitable half-assed approach.

[Gwreck]

=bmfc1 post_id=38475 time=1591740071 user_id=73]
I've had it all wrong. I thought that the owners were greedy and making a fortune but that's not true according to the owner of the Cardinals:

[bLOCKQUOTE]The industry isn't very profitable to be quite honest, and I think they understand that. But they think, you know, the owners are hiding profits, and you know there's been a little bit of a distrust there.[/bLOCKQUOTE]

[nymr83]

=Ceetar post_id=38489 time=1591756212 user_id=102]
sure but they have to walk past each other. at best it'd be row per group and then skip a row.



but still probably with concessions closed.



and then you're still all walking in/out the same exits.



I mean, it's doable in certain situations and states are opening up anyway because actually providing support for people is too foreign for them, so they'll probably with some suitable half-assed approach.

[Ceetar]

oh absolutely they're waiting until the deal is in place before they try to get some of the "lost" revenue back.



They don't actually care about employees, and vendors are barely employees (what's left of them) anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised to see canned/bottled/package stuff sold via vendor. of course, they have the tech to order via app and deliver to your seat, pre-paid. That would be the smart thing.