There’s been considerable movement from both the players and the owners since our last round of polling. For the first time, May will no longer be an option for the season start date. Thanks again for taking the time to answer these questions, and help us understand your perspective on a potential 2020 season. Read the rest of this entry »
Last week, MLB proposed that major league players take a $1 billion pay cut beyond the pro-rated salaries they’d already agreed to under their March deal. Last Tuesday’s proposal was not met positively by most players, and they had pretty good reasons to be upset. Now the MLBPA has responded to MLB’s proposal, with Jeff Passan first reporting the details followed quickly by Evan Drellich and Jared Diamond. The focus of the union’s response centers around more games, which would take regular season play into October, but it also includes potential salaries deferrals and expanded playoffs for this season and next.
On it’s face, this proposal might not look much of a step forward to getting baseball back in 2020. After all, the MLB proposal asked for a billion dollars in cuts to player pay; adding 32 games to the schedule and increasing player pay by nearly 40% means an extra billion dollars for the players. A source told Jon Heyman the deal was a “non-starter” for owners. But while the deal might not be looked upon favorably by ownership, there are several aspects of it that invite negotiation.
At least publicly, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the players and owners regarding whether regular season games make money for baseball’s owners without the presence of fans. In MLB’s presentation to players from last month, their claims of a $640,000 loss per game missed huge chunks of revenue that need to be included to arrive at a more realistic revenue figure. When I ran the calculations based on MLB’s own numbers, I found that MLB generally would make, after accounting for pro-rated salaries, about $170,000 per game. Those numbers actually edge slightly higher the more games are played due to MLB’s inclusion of some fixed costs, like buyouts. Even by these conservative numbers, which come directly from MLB and leave out considerable baseball-related revenue as well as marketing opportunities (or losses), that means that in 32 more games, owners make another $974 million while paying the players another $840 million or so, netting MLB another $134 million overall. While MLB’s public posture is that regular season games cost money, former MLBPA lawyer Gene Orza theorized in an Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal piece that Rob Manfred and the owners want more games just like the players do, but it is a better negotiating tactic to have the players ask for those games. So while more games might be something that the players have a strong desire for in order to make more money, it appears to be mutually beneficial, though certainly some teams will end up better off than others. Read the rest of this entry »
Usually, these results would have been posted last week, but the holiday combined with having some other business to attend to meant a delay until today. The polls closed early last week, before the most recent news cycle of proposals began. We again received more than 1,000 responses, similar to the first four rounds. In the fourth round of voting, the results showed more optimism that some sort of baseball season would be played than in any of the three prior rounds of polling. The results weren’t quite as rosy this time, but two-thirds of the responses believed there would be a 2020 season.
Here’s how the results have tracked since late March:
We saw a couple wild swings the last few rounds, and it will be interesting to see what the next round brings, but this week has settled in between.
In terms of the number of games, here’s how the responses looked the first four rounds:
And this round:
We see 76-100 maintaining the top spot, falling a bit as zero picks up some votes. The big change came in the outlier groups: those thinking there will be more than 100 games are basically non-existent, while the 51-75 group has picked up a bunch of votes.
As for when the season will start, this will be the last poll with May as an option, though it’s not as if it was a popular choice:
These results are basically in line with the last poll, with July or Never leading the way, though certainly some of the July responses might move to August before switching to Never.
As the league’s public plans have shifted from spring training facilities to home ballparks for game sites, the crowd has shifted its answers in response:
A month ago, 60%-65% of responses thought spring training sites would host regular season games. Two weeks ago, those responses dropped around 10 percentage points and they dropped again this round, with the majority believing no regular season games would take place at spring training sites.
As for games without fans, the results mostly line up with the number of regular season games, though there’s a small percentage of the 76-100 votes above that do shift downward, meaning a small percentage of respondents do expect some games with fans this season:
As for when the season will end…
Late November was about 10 percentage points higher in the last round of voting and it appears those lost votes split between No Season and early November. It appears MLB’s stated preference of a relatively normal postseason schedule if not format has caused some answers to move a little earlier in the year.
As for that format, we’ve seen a massive shift, as the clear majority of fans believe there will be expanded playoffs this season:
Expanded playoffs has nearly doubled in terms of responses since just a couple weeks ago.
Later this week, we’ll take another crack at polling our readers. Given the spate of news across the last week, it will be interesting to see how the mood has shifted.
Much of the focus regarding baseball’s potential return has centered on whether the players and owners can come to a financial agreement both parties feel works for them. The two groups may negotiate as cohesive units, but they are comprised of distinct individuals and entities that often have diverging interests. The league’s proposal appears to have been an attempt to drive a wedge between the highest earners in the sport and those making closer to MLB’s league minimum. And while Rob Manfred needs to find a solution that players will agree to, before he can even make such an offer, his proposal has to fly with his 30 bosses, the MLB owners. Those owners don’t always have the same goals or ideas about how the business of baseball should be run – the league’s latest proposal reflects those differences, as big-market teams received the biggest benefit.
A few weeks ago, Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich reported in The Athletic that baseball’s traditional revenue sharing was at risk in 2020. Local television money is big for teams in this era, and the gap between the top 10 teams in television revenue and the bottom 10 is, on average, $67 million even before accounting for network ownership. Attendance and stadium-related revenue tends to further exacerbate that gap. Revenue sharing, where each team pools together 48% of local revenue and divide it equally, shrinks the gap some, but still provides the big-market, high-revenue teams a significant advantage. With most stadium-related revenue potentially gone, the divide gets a bit skinnier. From the Drellich and Rosenthal piece:
“The discrepancy between the Rays and the Red Sox this year is not that dramatic,” the executive said. “It’s still money. It’s tens of millions of dollars. But it’s not hundreds of millions of dollars. And if you’re going to share that, it’s not going to move the needle enough this year.”
MLB’s presentation to the players regarding team losses had some fairly significant holes, but it did show the traditional big moneymakers like the Yankees and Dodgers suffering the biggest losses. Lost stadium revenue drives some of that, but high payrolls contribute as well. Those high payrolls are normally easily justified by massive revenues, but if team revenues were the same, the higher payroll clubs would be more likely to lose money. MLB’s latest proposal attempted to do those clubs a huge favor.
To provide some sense of the typical payroll gap between teams, the graph below shows only salaries of $1 million or more projected in the original 2020 season:
We see a huge spread between the top and bottom teams, which is fairly typical over the last few years. Here’s what the same graph looks like with pro-rated salaries over an 82-game season:
The second graph is basically the first one divided in half. These aren’t full payrolls because we’d need to add in all the minimum-salaried players, but the differences you see are pretty close to the total numbers. MLB’s latest proposal hits the highest-salaried players the hardest, and the teams that pay the higher-salaried players tend to have the larger payrolls. Here’s what would happen to team payrolls under MLB’s latest offer, including only players originally scheduled to make $1 million or more in a full season. The $200 million for playoffs is included in the figures below:
We see these salaries bundled more in the middle. MLB’s proposal dropped these players’ salaries by 45% compared to a pro-rated 82-game season, but the standard deviation of these salaries dropped by 53%. The graph below shows the changes in each team’s payroll from the March agreement with pro-rated salaries to MLB’s latest proposal:
Those teams on the left have the most to gain under MLB’s latest proposal, while those teams on the far right barely see any change to payroll at all. It’s not hard to identify the types of teams in each group. We have the Yankees, Astros, Dodgers, Phillies Cubs, Angels, and Red Sox leading the way with salary cuts while the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Royals, and A’s are all near the bottom in terms of change. To illustrate the change a little more, here’s a scatter plot showing the change above with Forbes valuations:
There’s a pretty strong relationship here (the R-squared =.57) and a lot of that is because rich teams spend more. In MLB’s latest proposal, those same rich team receive the biggest benefits. It’s the owners’ of trying to share the lost revenue, except instead of doing it amongst themselves, they are hoping that the players will do it for them. It’s a way that prevents some potentially difficult conversations between Rob Manfred and the owners. If the union response is any indication, the owners are going to need to have some of those difficult conversations in the coming days if they want to have a 2020 baseball season.
On Tuesday, MLB delivered its first economic proposal concerning player pay to the MLBPA since the two sides reached an agreement in March. There were reports that owners had previously agreed to propose a 50/50 split of revenue for what looks to be an abbreviated season played to empty ballparks, but after that potential offer leaked, it was never formally proposed due to the negative public response from the union. MLB’s actual proposal, which includes a paycut for all players from the prior pro-rated agreement in March, was particularly harsh to those making the most money, as the proposed cuts were on a sliding scale with the highest-paid players taking the deepest reductions. Jay Jaffe laid out yesterday why the proposal wasn’t likely to fly with the players, a sense confirmed by Max Scherzer last night:
After discussing the latest developments with the rest of the players, there’s no reason to engage with MLB in any further compensation reductions. We have previously negotiated a pay cut in the version of pro rated salaries, and there’s no justification to accept a 2nd pay cut based on the current information the union has received. I’m glad to hear other players voicing the same viewpoint and believe MLB’s economic strategy would completely change if all documentation were to become public information.
Jeff Passan and Jesse Rogers first reported the proposed salary breakdowns at ESPN:
The formula the league offered, for example, would take a player scheduled to make the league minimum ($563,500), give him a prorated number based on 82 games ($285,228) and take a 10% cut from that figure, leaving him with a $256,706 salary.
The scale goes down as salaries go up, with every dollar:
- $563,501 to $1 million paid at 72.5%
- $1,000,001 to $5 million paid at 50%
- $5,000,001 to $10 million paid at 40%
- $10,000,001 to $20 million paid at 30%
- $20,000,001 and up paid at 20%
On March 26, MLB and the MLBPA reached an agreement with respect to playing the 2020 season. The parties were mostly silent for a few weeks regarding financial matters, with much of the focus on when and how the season might be resumed and played safely with the threat of COVID-19 still looming. But operating in the background were increased concerns over lost revenues in the event of games or an entire season played without fans in attendance.
With those concerns has come some anxiety that a public debate on the fate of millions, even billions, of dollars will be perceived by fans of the sport as unseemly, especially when set against the backdrop of the suffering the pandemic has inflicted on so many. But how have the terms of that debate come to be known? With the MLBPA in the position of reacting to proposals offered by the league, I thought I might examine the how and when of MLB’s public claims. Below, you’ll find excerpts from pieces that ran at a variety of publications showing how MLB has attempted to negotiate or portray its financial situation publicly since reaching the March agreement (links are in the date)
Manfred said about 40% of operating revenue derives from gate and gate-related areas, such as luxury suite rentals, concessions, parking, signage, and program sales and advertising. Going forward with a plan to play in empty stadiums likely would lead to another negotiation with the union, led by former All-Star first baseman Tony Clark.
“I talked to Jeff Wilpon today, the owner of the Mets. Go Queens. Go New York,” [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo said. “I said, ‘Why can’t we talk about a baseball season with nobody in the stands? Why can’t you play the game with the players?’ I think it would be good for the country. I think it would be good for people to have something to watch and do to fight cabin fever. And it’s something I’m going to pursue. Apparently Major League Baseball would have to make a deal with the players, because if you have no one in the stands, then the numbers are going to change, the economics are going to change.”
A league spokesperson said that “both parties understood that the deal was premised on playing in stadiums with fans and the agreement makes that clear.”
There are owners who have privately said that without readjustments they would lose so much more money, why even play the games.
“Our clubs rely heavily on revenue from tickets/concessions, broadcasting/media, licensing and sponsorships to pay salaries,” Manfred wrote in an email Monday, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. “In the absence of games, these revenue streams will be lost or substantially reduced, and clubs will not have sufficient funds to meet their financial obligations.”
Although an agreement between the sides on return to play exists and includes a section on players receiving prorated sums of their salaries, multiple owners have suggested that it could cost them more to play games than it would not to play them and said they believe the agreement between the sides could allow them to pursue pay cuts from players.
[T]o have games just on TV for the whole season for many, many reasons is not practical. – Randy Levine, team president, New York Yankees
Some teams contend that they could actually lose money if games are played. Their rationale is that local and national TV money will not cover their operating costs. And if that’s the case, they would like players — who already have agreed to be paid a prorated portion of their salary depending on the number of games — to take an even greater pay cut.
“If we ended up playing and playing in front of full fans, for 82 games, it makes total sense that we would pay players’ full salaries,” one industry executive said. “If you’re in the more extreme where we have to play empty everywhere, that’s half the revenue that would have come in that’s not coming in anymore. We weren’t equipped or budgeting to pay full salaries for that.”
As things stand, league officials say that on average, for every incremental regular-season game played without fans in 2020, teams would spend more money on player salaries than they would earn in revenue.
Without the players making such a concession, league officials say they will spend more on player salaries than they would earn in revenue for every incremental regular-season game played without fans.
MLB has said it will lose more money by keeping the pay prorated without fans and is averse to playing games in that situation.
Major League Baseball owners, with an abundance of optimism that baseball will be played this year, are scheduled to vote on a plan Monday that will require teams to share at least 48% of their revenue with the Major League Baseball Players Association this season, two people with direct knowledge of the proposal told USA TODAY Sports.
The people, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss details, said the historic revenue-sharing plan is integral to diminish revenue losses with games potentially being played without fans beginning in July. MLB officials say that teams are expected to lose about 40% of their gross revenue from ticket sales, concessions and parking.
“We lose money on every single game (without fans),” one league official said. “We have to propose that they take something less than they already negotiated.
“We’re talking about heavy, heavy losses,” one owner told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because negotiations are private. “There are teams that would lose about $100 million during the regular season if we played with no fans and the players’ salaries stayed the same.”
MLB owners, saying they could lose as much as $150 million per club during the regular season if players don’t restructure their salaries, agreed Monday to propose a 50-50 revenue sharing plan instead of paying them pro-rated salaries.
Tom Ricketts told season ticket holders that 70 percent of the Cubs revenue comes from game day operations / ticket sales/ fans in the stands. He went on to say with half the season gone 15 percent of gross revenues would be the take with no fans.
[P]laying in empty stadiums is not a great feel for us economically, but our owners are committed to doing that because they feel it’s important that the game be back on the field. – Rob Manfred, on CNN
Angels owner Arte Moreno is particularly insistent the league should not re-start without economic concessions from the players, sources say.
Major League Baseball told players their prorated salaries would contribute to an average loss of $640,000 for each game over an 82-game season in empty ballparks, according to a presentation from the commissioner’s office to the union that was obtained by The Associated Press.
Teams say the proposed method of salvaging a season delayed by the coronavirus pandemic would still cause a $4 billion loss and would give major league players 89% of revenue.
A March 26 conversation between MLB and the union in which MLB portrays the union as acknowledging that a new negotiation was needed regarding how players would be paid this season could serve as an email version of a smoking gun.
The players have already agreed to prorate their salaries, costing them about half of their annual salary, but the owners insist without additional concessions they will lose money playing games without fans.
The players would make more money for every regular-season game played under the current arrangement and therefore could ask the league for an increase from the proposed 82 games. But the league says unless players take another cut, it will lose money for every additional game.
Major League Baseball dropped a revenue-sharing plan, and instead introduced a sliding scale of compensation to the Major League Baseball Players Association on Tuesday afternoon, the first time the two sides have formally discussed economic issues in an attempt to open the pandemic-shortened season by the July 4th weekend.
The plan, three people with knowledge of the proposal told USA TODAY Sports, proposes to pay players a prorated percentage of their salaries, with the players who make the most taking the biggest salary cuts. The three people spoke only on the condition of anonymity because negotiations are ongoing.
The timeline above certainly isn’t exhaustive; many of the pieces I’ve linked to also include quotes from agents, players, and union representatives, though mostly in response to the public positions MLB has taken. Some of the information has a name behind it, but much of it doesn’t. MLB has a pretty clear public plan, one that attempts to emphasize owner losses in an abbreviated 2020 season.
Over and over again, we hear owners or the league’s representatives asserting that MLB and its teams will lose more money playing regular season games without fans than they will if those games aren’t played at all. When MLB had the opportunity to present and support such claims, their arguments fell considerably short of being convincing. It’s possible that in private, MLB is putting forth good faith arguments, but their public PR battle against the players suggests otherwise. If a public fight is bad for the sport, why do those with the biggest financial interest in the game and its future keep waging one?
Over the past few weeks, we’ve looked at Mike Trout‘s dominance and how his first eight years stack up compared to the best 10-year periods in history, both by WAR and by offense alone. We’ve done the same on the pitching side, emphasizing Clayton Kershaw’s great run over the last decade-plus. Now, we’ll take the opportunity to do the same at individual positions, starting at first base. The position is known as a power-hitting position, though the reigning leader over the past 10 years has merely good thump. Joey Votto has hit over 30 homers in a season just twice in his career and his 284 long balls aren’t very high up on the all-time leaderboard. Rather, it’s Votto’s high batting average and ability to get on base with a great walk rate that have separated him from his peers and caused him to put up a 151 wRC+ since he started in Cincinnati back in 2007.
Votto’s 48.1 WAR over the last 10 years is the best in the majors among first baseman, though it isn’t his best 10-year period. Here’s how the top-three in 10-year WAR at first base has looked over the last decade:
| Yr End | 1st | WAR | 2nd | WAR | 3rd | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Albert Pujols | 77 | Lance Berkman | 49 | Todd Helton | 39 |
| 2011 | Albert Pujols | 74 | Lance Berkman | 47 | Miguel Cabrera | 40 |
| 2012 | Albert Pujols | 72 | Miguel Cabrera | 47 | Mark Teixeira | 42 |
| 2013 | Albert Pujols | 63 | Miguel Cabrera | 55 | Mark Teixeira | 41 |
| 2014 | Albert Pujols | 58 | Miguel Cabrera | 58 | Mark Teixeira | 37 |
| 2015 | Miguel Cabrera | 57 | Albert Pujols | 52 | Joey Votto | 40 |
| 2016 | Miguel Cabrera | 56 | Joey Votto | 46 | Albert Pujols | 44 |
| 2017 | Joey Votto | 52 | Miguel Cabrera | 51 | Albert Pujols | 35 |
| 2018 | Joey Votto | 52 | Miguel Cabrera | 49 | Paul Goldschmidt | 36 |
| 2019 | Joey Votto | 48 | Miguel Cabrera | 43 | Paul Goldschmidt | 39 |
Two weeks have passed since the last round of questions, so I am once again asking you to weigh in on the shape and size of the potential 2020 baseball season. Thanks in advance for your help in providing these responses. Read the rest of this entry »
