MLB Owners’ Latest Offer Even Worse Than the Last One
Prior to today, MLB owners had made one offer to the Major League Baseball Players Association to resume the season, one that included a renegotiation of the pro-rated player pay agreed to back in March. That proposal, made on May 26, was for 82 games and included about $1 billion in pay cuts from the March agreement. The offer seemed to unite the players rather than divide them, and five days later, the MLBPA proposed to play 114 games with expanded playoffs over the next two years. MLB has floated a 48-game schedule at full pro-rated pay, but never made that offer. Now, more than a week after the players made their proposal, the owners have responded with a proposal that’s somehow worse than their offer from two weeks ago.
As Karl Ravech first reported, the owners made an offer for 75% of pro-rated salaries for 76 games. He noted that the deal came with playoff pool money and that draft compensation for free agents would be eliminated. Jared Diamond reported that players were only guaranteed 50% of their pro-rated pay and would need to complete the playoffs to receive the rest. Diamond further reported that 20% of the $170 million advance would be forgiven. While the free agent compensation issue isn’t nothing, given the likely market climate this winter and the potential reduction in qualifying offers to begin with, it’s not clear how much this will actually benefit players. Overall, this offer is likely to be another unfortunate setback in the negotiations between the players and the owners, as it guarantees players less money than the owners’ other offer and pays them no more money upon completion of the playoffs.
Here’s a quick comparison of the 82-game offer with heavily decreased salaries compared to the 76-game plan with 75% pro-rated pay upon completion of the playoffs. The numbers include around $200 million in mostly fixed costs for player buyouts, pro-rated signing bonuses, and money still owed to players who have already been released; the per game amounts for pro-rated pay come from Jeff Passan’s piece last week:
| Proposal | 75% Pro-rated-76 G | High-Salary Cut-82 |
|---|---|---|
| No Playoffs | $1.17 B | $1.25 B |
| With Playoffs | $1.65 B | $1.45 B |
On the one hand, the players have the opportunity to earn about 14% more in this proposal than the the first one. On the the other hand, the players are asked to assume more risk that the postseason gets played. They risk $80 million to get potentially $200 million. Whether it’s worth risking 6% of guaranteed pay to get a potential increase of 14% is up for debate, but given that the last offer was deemed a massive insult, it’s hard to see much progress here. The two proposals above aren’t the only ones we’ve heard about. Let’s include the proposed 50/50 split that was floated back in March, as well as the pro-rated pay option over 48 games.
| Proposal | 75% Pro-rated-76 G | High-Salary Cut-82 | 50/50 Split-82 G | 48 G Pro-Rated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Playoffs | $1.17 B | $1.25 B | $1.04 B | $1.43 B |
| With Playoffs | $1.65 B | $1.45 B | $1.44 B | $1.43 B |
It is worth noting that including an extra round of the playoffs increases the number of playoff games considerably. Under the current format, there are between 26 and 43 playoff games. Making the Wild Card round a best-of-three play-in series takes the number of games to somewhere between 36 and 59. That’s a significant number of games added and a potentially very large payday that would need to be negotiated with the union. In exchange for a lower guarantee, the owners have essentially offered the players the extra Wild Card television money that they wouldn’t be able to get in the first place unless the players agreed to it.
A pro-rated pay, 48-game schedule guarantees players more money than the latest proposal and provides the owners with no extra playoff money. If that really is the owners’ base proposal, it’s hard to see the current proposal as better. Players are being asked to play 58% more games for under 20% more money. MLB’s own numbers show an estimated $980,000 in TV revenue per game, with an additional $55,000 in other revenue above what it costs to stage the games. For those 28 extra games, MLB owners will make $435 million in local revenue, $177 million in national television revenue (assuming it is pro-rated), and another $144 million from other central revenue sources. In exchange for that extra $756 million in revenue for the owners compared to a 48-game slate, the players would receive $250 million less in guaranteed regular season pay, and potentially $200 million more for playing an extra 28 regular season games and a full postseason with an extra round of the playoffs.
Even in the best possible scenario for MLB and the players under this deal, the owners get an extra half-billion dollars in regular season game profits plus the three-quarters of a billion dollars in postseason money, while the players only get the value of the extra round of playoffs. And given that the extra round of playoffs is a bargaining chip in the negotiations, it essentially amounts to a giveaway by the owners of something they don’t even have to give. The owners hare taking multiple angles at achieving the same result, but every offer ends up with the players getting somewhere close to a billion dollars less than they would be entitled to in a “normal” half season of baseball with pro-rated pay. That the fallback is a 48-game season with pro-rated pay and standard playoffs is a somewhat good sign, but it also implies the lack of a further agreement and a potentially billion-dollar grievance by the players for MLB’s failure to play as many games as possible under the March agreement. About a week ago, there looked to be optimism when it was thought that the owners would offer pro-rated pay over 50 or so games, but that the offer never materialized. Instead, the deal that came in its place constitutes a significant step back in negotiations, after the players took a step forward.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Totally agree. If the league had offered 78 games at 100% pro-rated pay, I think the union would have accepted.
If the league had offered 78 games at 85-90% pro-rated pay, I think the union would have asked for a bit more, maybe 95 games at 90% pro-rated pay, or 78 at 95%.
If the league had made this offer (75% of 78 games) with all that 75% guaranteed, I think the union would have found a way to compromise and make a deal.
But this is the same 33% of total 2020 pay that the MLB keeps offering.
The union shouldn’t even respond to this or it rewards the league for continuing to play games. Better yet, I’d love to see the union make a new offer that guarantees them the same amount they asked for in their last proposal. So like 75% of pro-rated pay for 140 games (or whatever is equivalent to their 114-game offer).
Respectfully disagree. Coming up with creative counter proposal that gets players what they originally asked for proves nothing and gains nothing. Not making a counter proposal is essentially holding your breath because you are angry, which is also nonproductive. My suggestion to players is to give owners the bottom line. Players will never take less than full prorated salaries. Players should tell owners let’s do it at 50 games and let’s play ball in 30 days. Put the onus back on the owners if they want more than 50 games. No reason to waste more time.
This is pretty much the only response that makes sense. It would be almost poetic justice if players then played out the 50 games and then did a strike during the playoffs. Owners shouldn’t be the only ones to play shenanigans with service time.
There is concern that a large free agent pool will be bad for salaries in 2021, but that was always going to happen until the current CBA expires. That being said, getting the young guys one year closer to FA – and real money – should be the goal.
Has anyone seen Gary Bettman and Rob Manfred in the same room at the same time? Rob has seemingly stolen Bettman’s tactics where the so called offers are more attempts to break the union— which simply won’t happen. It is amazing to me that fans take the side of the owners in these fights every damn time. I mean imagine being on the side of Fred Wilpon and Bob Nutting? Yikes.
It’s late, but you missed out Loria and McCourt.
Not to mention several owners from the Golden Age.
Don’t bring Marge Schott into it.
Unbelievable. Players shouldn’t even counter.
Starting to think the owners really don’t want to play, so they are submitting unreasonable asks just to see what they can get away with in case players union takes the bait.
They don’t seem to really want a season.
Fine by me. If a restaurant realizes that — due to a sudden health emergency keeping people at home — it’s going to lose a ton of money if it opens this summer and wants to wait until next year, that’s smart business.
I don’t know why this got downvoted. I want baseball too and I dramatically disagree with the truth of this scenario (I think the owners would, at worst, break even for each game in the regular season). But if it was true, I’m fine with it.
I think you are right in one sense and I think it gets to the core of the problem. It’s in the best interest of the league (indeed, it’s entire purpose) to play and the players’ contracts are contingent on play. But, it’s in the individual owners’ best interests not play. This a league structure problem. The League should require all owners to field teams (when and where the governments allow) whether the teams make money or not. If an owner can’t agree to this, an owner who can should be found. The League governance needs to be more isolated from the individual owners.
100%. The problem is there is no leadership that has a vision to grow the MLB brand. The commisioner should be the one driving the bus to grow the sport…..in MLB its the opposite. Manfred is a puppet to the owners and makes nothing but short sighted decisions. NBA not so much.
So…. I guess we’re done here. Thanks, MLB owners.
“The owners are taking multiple angles at achieving the same result” is the best description of this I’ve seen so far. Every single proposal that was either made or leaked has almost the exact same amount of money they’re paying out, regardless of how many games there are. Ownership collectively decided on a fixed amount they are willing to spend on salaries and keep on tweaking the amount of games as long as they get to the same number at the bottom.
Exactly why they have arrived at this conclusion, we don’t know. They say it’s because they’ll lose money per game, but since their numbers literally don’t add up, I don’t have any reason to take that at face value. All we know is the game plan is always the same, where the point is to spend a certain amount of money to get to the playoffs, where the profit margin is substantially higher.
In a normal situation, I’d say that the players should just respond by accepting most of these points, except they would defer the salary instead of cut it. The players would absolutely take that deal. Heck, they’d probably even take a larger deferral. But since the owners one consistent point has been they don’t want to pay more than a specific amount of money, period, it’s hard to see that going anywhere. This is not good news.
Yes… right or wrong, the owners have clearly decided how much money they think they will take in as revenue if there are no playoffs, and what salaries they are willing to pay or at least offer as a starting point in negotiations. (Of course, it takes two parties to negotiate, and one side keeps saying that ANY salary mods are a nonstarter.)
Who knows what the actual profit-or-loss is, or the net cash flow, but they’ve made up their minds on what they’re willing to pay per game in the event that the playoffs are interrupted and the postseason revenue windfall doesn’t materialize.
One thing I don’t understand is that there was a widely reported email that the league sent to the union saying “we accept your position that the prorated salary is the only thing you will take” and then rather than come back with a 50 game season they came back with this. I find this more than a little interesting. Did they have a sense that the union would be more or less likely to accept this one? Or do they just not care at all about what they’re saying?
The more I think about it, this really isn’t an insulting offer at all. It’s a 15% movement on pay if the playoffs are completed. That ain’t enough for the Union, but it shows movement on behalf of the Owners. And the Owners are trying to show movement.
Pure opinion… I think they’re going to keep making offers that keep regular season pay roughly the same but sweeten the pot with other things (more playoff pay, removing draft pick comp, etc.) so that the Union is seen as the intransigent side.
I suspect the owners have more room to move there (on the “if playoffs conclude” scenario) and will continue to make offers that they could live with if accepted. But I just don’t see the Union budging right now because they see salary modifications as a non-starter and the Owners see it as a requirement to anything other than a 48-game season.
I mean, the whole problem is that the players do not believe the owners’ numbers. And I have to agree with them. The owners seem to think they can do this without providing the context behind those numbers that proves it, and I suppose they might be able to. But things were already pretty fraught, and so this is a pretty low-trust negotiation.
I do think there is a world where the players accept playoff compensation at a 75% haircut, but that is going to require a larger cut of money, more goodies in the future, or more transparency. How far are they willing to go? I’m fairly pessimistic.
It would be *if* the full 75% prorated salary were guaranteed, but it’s not. And the payoff for taking that ~300M risk? About 200M more than what they would make in a fully prorated 50 game season.
*And* the owners get 16 team playoffs? Remember – they don’t get that benefit unless the players even agree, so they’re actually asking players to play for less guaranteed money *and* give them more playoff games.
This offer is almost designed to push the players to respond to the league by offering the commissioner’s 50 game season, with no expanded playoffs. They’re rapidly running out of time for more games as it is.
Exactly – the owners have decided they would rather not lose any more money than the various proposals on the table. Players just need to decide which of the menu choices appeals to them. I assume the owners will pull the free agent concession if they move to a 48 game schedule
A question I keep asking myself
Is this all the owners, or just an intransigent sub-set?
Either way, and like organisational finances, we’ll never know. But Manfred’s hands are bound by the collective, and he’s a labor lawyer … so, whatever his personal feelings on the matter, this nonsense is what we all get.
Olney has reported that it’s not all of them, that there’s a wide diversity of opinion on this. But they all have to be on the same page, so if some owners are willing to cancel the season rather than play (Arte Moreno being the one we all know about) then they have to find some common ground with him. At this point, it seems as though the collective opinion is pretty apparent and has not shifted much or at all.
The owners strategy seems to be “offer a more complex deal and hope the players get confused or desperate enough to accept it.”
I think we should just go straight into the CBA at this point. Lets start with the Arbitration system as that needs to go away completely. No players should be 31 yr old by the time they become a FA. Also needs to be a salary floor implemented.
You can’t have more than half the teams trying not to compete for a title and field the worse teams possible. MLB brand has been crushed under Manfred.
Tricky. A salary floor works in other leagues because there is revenue sharing, which also means salary caps.
The funny part about the owner’s position is, if teams really make 40-70% of revenues from gate receipts, teams like the marlins. orioles and tigers are already losing money from empty stands. COVID didn’t change much.
That’s why Angelos is being such a jerk over MASN, because the Nationals moving to Washington crushed attendance in Baltimore (they drew significantly more in losing seasons pre-Nats than playoff seasons post-Nats), which drastically hurt the club’s revenue.
No way the players get a floor without the owners getting a cap.
Owners already have a cap in the form of luxury tax. Its a soft cap, but its still a form of cap.
Players need the salary floor now if they are going to have a luxury tax soft cap. It can be a soft floor too. If they go below it their should be tax implications increasing with each year they are below just like the luxury tax. The floor and luxury tax threshold should be tied to 50% of the revenue meaning it floats and changes from year to year based on prior mlb revenue.
A salary floor is a must to achieve some sort of competitive balance. This disparity in team salaries between the large market and small market teams is detrimental to Baseball. The NBA and the NFL have achieved this competitive balance.
A team salary floor, even if coupled with a salary cap, will result in more dollars for the average free agent. Especially if the arbitration years are reduced from 3 to 2. Minimum salaries should also increase in years 2 and 3
The grossly overpaid player contracts like the ones for Trout, Cole, Stanton, etc. will no longer exist, but then average free agents will be compensated sooner. 90 % of the members of the MLPA would benefit.
The worst owner in the history of baseball (Loria) started this with Stanton’s contract, especially the way it was structured. Agents like Boras have made it worse.
No superstar needs to wait until they are 30 to get proper compensation, but no player needs to make in excess of $25 MM per year either.
Agree for most part except for players getting paid too much. Only thing i would add is the Stanton and Trout salaries are no where near what they should be. They are making the owner so much more money than they are getting paid. Huge surplus value for these owners on the star players.
Currently 65% of revenue goes to owners and only 35% goes to players. Depending mainly on how much feaux fluff they add to the benefits. It needs to be 50/50. Reason for huge disparity is more and more teams not trying to compete and pocketing profits. Revenues have sky rocketed last few years but players salaries have remained the same.
For the small market teams to compete a salary floor is essential. This will require a lot more revenue sharing as done in the NBA and NFL. If revenue is to be shared among the owners, total revenue will become more transparent and a 50/50 revenue sharing model with the players could be achieved.
The salary dominance of the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox , etc. would have to be sacrificed for the sake of the game.
Look at the NBA championships in the 21st century for example. San Antonio a AA city at best, has several championships. This would not be possible if the NBA didn’t have revenue sharing. If the NBA had the same model as MLB, the Knicks and the Lakers would like the Yankees and the Dodgers.
Attendance issues in many small MLB markets is a result of fan dissatisfaction from constant rebuilding. A salary floor funded by revenue sharing and by a salary cap will come a long way in avoiding a further collapse of MLB’s standing among the major sports.
Much appreciated to get clear-eyed numbers in front of this. It’s frustrating to see billionaires in this for the long-haul acting so myopically. No shared ownership and stewardship of a mutually beneficial product.
It’s unsurprising to see the union’s reaction, once the numbers and the risk becomes so clear.
Sorry if I’m off on this one, but is “48 G Pro-Rated” supposed to be labeled “82 G Pro-Rated” in the chart? The players will make more guaranteed money by playing only 48 games than the current proposal? My understanding was that the guaranteed money was similar between 48G pro rated and 76G at 75% pro rated, but the owners are dangling potential playoff bonuses.
Sorry, I missed that there’s an additional drop in regular season salaries to 50% rather than 75% if no playoffs happen at all. If they do, there’s 75% pro rata plus a sizeable playoff bonus. If the playoffs are still scheduled for October, it seems highly likely that they’ll be played. So this newer offer has more variance in outcomes for the players, but with a meaningfully higher expected value. It definitely won’t be accepted, but it seems to be a modest step in the right direction. There will probably be a deal if the players want to negotiate that 50% number upward to mitigate their downside.
If the players aren’t willing to share any of the financial risk of no playoffs (which is their right), it looks like 48 regular season games with no playoff bonuses is the likely route.
Agreed, there needs to be more upside with extra playoff game. Maybe something that ensures players get more than the prorated salary, getting them closer to whole.
This, like the other plans, seems to be an idea salad, but if a couple items could be picked out here and there from each proposal, a useful plan could be constructed.
70+ games, some of the prorated salary deferred until the playoffs, but returned *and then some if the playoffs happen*. Expanded playoffs to get everyone there. But it needs to be done fast!
This is just ridiculous. Some commenters have made very good points over the last couple weeks in defense of the owners really being in dire financial straits, and maybe they’re right. But if that’s the case, the owners need to take a different approach and build some trust with the players instead of just making these offers. Because the latest round of “how about we pay you one-third if your normal salary, but we’ll structure it like *this* instead” isn’t going to get us any closer to a deal.
All of their proposals have had about the same amount of guaranteed money. I think the owners have been pretty consistent that fanless regular season games are a money loser and they need the playoffs to offset those losses. The playoffs are in jeopardy due to a 2nd wave of COVID. There’s always the option of just playing 48 games and normal playoffs.
CDC came out last week and revised their numbers and said this virus is less deadly than the regular flu. 2nd wave of covid or not, its not going to shut the country down again now that they know what it is. Their will be substantial numbers of fans in the stands half way through the season in all states but NY, CA, and MN.
If the players agree to a deal no matter what it should stipulate that any park, in any state, that has at least 1 fan in the stand……then that team has to pay full prorated pay.
I don’t think they said it’s less deadly than the regular flu.
I think they said it’s less deadly than originally thought, and provided a range of possible mortality rates. The *best* of those rates was 0.4, which is still 2-4x more lethal than the flu (ranging between 0.1 and 0.2). COVID also still appears to spread and transmit more easily than the flu… and the flu largely sidesteps parts of the population who are vaccinated, which COVID does not… meaning COVID has both a higher infection point and a higher mortality rate.
Glad for you to provide any links that suggest otherwise, if I missed them. Here’s the CDC Source information:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
Interesting–some of those scenarios they’re considering are way better than anything else I’ve seen. The lowest one (by far) I’ve seen is 0.26% fatality rate, which is still 2.5x worse than the flu (which usually tops out at 0.1%, I think). The highest ones I’ve seen are over 1%. My sense that there is a consensus emerging that it’s somewhere between 0.4% and 1%, but I’m still seeing more epidemiologists calculating out more than 1% than under 0.4%.
Agree no one knows….but the point is that MLB owners are trying to strike a deal that there’s not going to be fans in the stands. I guarantee you there will be fans in some stadiums at some point during the season.
looks like everyone here knows. Excepting one. There are none so blind as he who will not see.
_
I’m pretty confident the CDC did not say that. And if it did, it would diverge from the consensus of virtually the entire epidemiological community.
Maybe games wouldn’t be shut down, but they very well could. And having fans back in the stadium is certainly not a given. I am very much not on the owner’s side, but they are dead right to worry about the playoffs not happening.
CDC did revise their numbers down drasitcally.
They did say that it was weaker than the flu, i posted several links and is awaiting moderation. Their have been 397,000 deaths in 8 months due to COVID. WHO estimates 650,000 regular flu deaths world wide yearly. Regardless if its more or less, its not by much at all, they are in the same reference range of error.
Point is, they revise these numbers down every week, and their will be fans in the stands in more than 1 mlb stadium this year.
I can’t wait to see those links. Because the CDC never said that COVID is less deadly than the flu, which is what you originally posted.
you are missing my point, you are trying to say who is right or wrong. I’m not a dr. I may be wrong. But the CDC drasitcally decreased numbers every week. These dr’s don’t even know, and they revise their numbers down every weak. My point is their will be fans in the stands in some parks…you can take that to the bank.
your “point” is entirely based upon a false premise with your alternative facts. Words matter.
.
We’re just not going to be able to support your position until you begin using “their” vs. “there” correctly.
Oh, and support your premise with some science based proof. Not a breitbart article.
NO. That is not what they said. They said there are 397,000 CONFIRMED COVID-19 DEATHS RIGHT NOW. And now it’s over 400K.
Besides–and I hate to totally derail the conversation here–only about 1/6th of flu deaths are actually confirmed. Those estimates are based on excess mortality rates and surveillance of the flu. The Apples-Oranges comparison isn’t really a good example of what you’ve done. A better one is that you’re doing something like comparing the number of cockroaches you can see to the number you estimate are in the walls (although the proportion visible is obviously a bit different in that case).
Yes they did say that
Yes they did, and they also came out yesterday and said it practically doesn’t stick to surfaces and that its “extremely rare” to transmit it if you are asymptomatic.
Um, link to that CDC report? Because 100,000 families would take issue with that conclusion.
Well 250,000- 650,000 people die to reg flu every yr world wide according to the WHO, so i guess those families would too?
I’m getting so much greater of an insight as to why I disagree with so many of your comments, so thanks for that. Very much.
Why are you comparing 4-5 months of Covid deaths in the US (110,000) with a full year of worldwide deaths (600,000)?
That’s not even apples and oranges; it’s apples and Ferraris.
I didn’t compare those too. I was comparing 397k covid to 650k flu. I never stated the 110. I shouldve clarified. Virus also started in November/Dec. 7- 8 months ago. Its alost mid june amigo!
Lord help me, Guru, why do you and others keep regurgitating these asinine flu/COVID comparisons? The number of COVID deaths we cite must take into account THE MASSIVE, GLOBAL EFFORTS to stop its spread. Just today, news reports cited a forthcoming article in “Nature” that indicates over 530 million cases were prevented by the interventions of just six countries. Also today, the WHO reported we have hit a new high for positive cases in a single day. In other words, despite herculean efforts that have prevented hundreds of millions of cases worldwide, COVID is still running rampant.
There is NO comparison between this pandemic and a normal flu season–if we locked down for the flu the way we have for this strain of coronavirus, the number of flu deaths would be minuscule. Whatever the final numbers end up looking like, COVID-19 is much more deadly than the flu, if only because it is so infectious (and quite likely also because its mortality rate is much higher).
There’s zero evidence the lockdown had any more impact than hand washing or social distancing. No one knows nor will they know. There is evidence that the virus mutated to a less lethal varietal which more likely explains the falling death rates even as infection rates stay steady or increase.
And you will never see another governor, prime minister, or president lockdown an economy given how badly the “experts” got the lethality wrong this time around
Peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals beg to differ with your unfounded assertion that lockdown had no effect, including the one I already mentioned (from one of the most prestigious science journals in existence). Read the “Nature” article, which includes lockdown in its list of effective policies, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2404-8.epdf?sharing_token=-4c0eJD5MJyvzx6bigOsoNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M3uHJG_l5lsYP3xOR5eqb7CPPkXGbKYCqSpFTBLPL7jIX0_buyUI_SsKhtJ2DwR0aQRWXiCMCYZ1F4Amu6Xq1k2iyAA7oVJiXjR_-ZbmgcVUhvpuFt_wT7pGrj54g38QQ%3D
Besides that, there are serious logical problems in your argument. Social distancing, but not lockdown, was effective? And how, pray tell, would lifting lockdown have affected social distancing? People would have been just as likely to avoid crowds/maintain six feet of separation if we were going to work, bars, restaurants, gyms, movie theaters? It’s not quite so easy to disentangle the two. Secondly, saying experts (note the lack of scare quotes) got it wrong betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how models work. Different models held different assumptions about the biological characteristics of the disease and what policies would be enacted in response, leading to a huge range of possible outcomes. This does not mean the models were wrong–it’s just how modeling works.
it might be the same report you are citing but the imperial college london recently released a report that estimates that without lockdowns ~3 million people could have died in Europe. I wont link to it because its a pain getting comments through with links but if you google Imperial College London its will be like the first thing.
At this point you pretty much have to be deliberatley ignoring reality to still believe this idiotic flu/covid comparison.
The study you mention happens to be _another_ study that is also currently in pre-print and will be published in “Nature.” I guess there are some number of those these days! Thanks for pointing me to it, added to my list.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7_reference.pdf
Will the stadiums be full, 50%, 25%? How profitable is a game with 25% fans with all the extra cleaning precautions? I hope you’re right about no 2nd shutdown, but I wouldn’t assume so if I were in a front office. The least risky path forward is 48 games with normal playoffs even if it sucks for fans.
I also posted a link that is awaiting moderation that Fauci said the 2nd wave of the virus this winter might not even happen.
He did indeed say it is “not inevitable.” But not much is inevitable. Here’s context:
Dr. Anthony Fauci is now offering optimism about the chances of a second wave of COVID-19 hitting the US in the fall. “We often talk about the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you reopen. We don’t have to accept that as an inevitability,” Fauci said. “Particularly when people start thinking about the fall, I want people to really appreciate that it could happen, but it is not inevitable.
Fauci is more optimistic due to the nation’s ramped-up testing capacity. “I’m feeling better about it as we go by with the weeks that go by and we see that we’re getting more and more capability of testing,” Fauci said. “The CDC is putting more of a workforce out there to help us do the kinds of identification, isolation, and contact tracing. I feel better and better that we’re capable of doing that.”
So, if we get more capability in testing, and do better at isolating those who are infected, and better contract tracing… you want to lay odds on a three-outcome event?
And, for a little baseball humor, my brain actually led me to type “three true outcome event” before having to go back and delete the word “true.”
Oh wait…so i’m correct again. Remember a couple days ago when i took you to school on the union deal? You had more downvotes than i’ve seen in a long time on here and you kept arguing thinking you were right! ha
You must be miserable to be around. I’m not a dr. Just posting links. You on the other hand just want to argue.
i post a statement of something i’ve read, you then go and google it to see if its correct, then come and copy paste and try to decifer how i might be incorrect…gotcha games. Total loser lol
You didn’t take me to school, and you’re still as wrong on that point as you are on saying that “this virus is less deadly than the regular flu.” As far as downvotes go… if you care about them, be my guest. They don’t influence me one way or the other. But thanks for reminding you that I wished this site had an ignore button so I could eliminate your misinformed takes.
Downvotes are the best way to measure the correctness of an argument, as we all know.
so true!
LMFAO. Keep editing your posts and adding more, pal. “i post a statement of something i’ve read, you then go and google it to see if its correct,…” No, I knew what you wrote was wrong and so in six seconds of Google I found the cite to share to make sure no one believed your misinformation because there are real-world consequences to spreading falsehoods about COVID.
You’re the worst kind of troll – one who backfires against facts by doubling down on your anger and misinformation. I mean, it’s the most American thing in the world these days, so have at it, I guess.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me that I’m done with ya. At least, until the next time you lie about verifiable information in the midst of a public health crisis that I can refute in under six seconds.
HTH! HAND!
Tomerafan….why the hell would i argue with you on how deadly the virus is…i don’t care. i;m not a dr, neither are you. Go copy paste something for me real quick ha! It will also be revised downwards again as it is every week.
My point was its not that much different than the flu whether if its lower or higher death rate.
The owners trying to strike a deal as if no fans will be in the stands…and that’s not true either. Just watch.
Your too busy trying to play gotcha games saying COVID kills x% more or less…then google and copy paste. Total loser.
come find me when you are wrong again….and that fans are in the stands at some parks at some point in the season.
I would stop worrying. You seem quite concerned about it. But it’s safe to say no one here is thinking you are a lawyer.
The big reason why he’s optimistic is because he thinks we have the surveillance tools to shut down if it looks like it’s coming, Which would, in turn, shut down the economy. In the absence of any intervention, the wave is absolutely coming. In the presence of an intervention, there will not be fans in the stadium (at minimum).
I’m concerned about how much of an infection surge we have in a week or so (i.e. the incubation period after so many protests and riots throughout the country). Hopefully, it will be negligble and demonstrate that the worst has passed (other than critically high risk individuals).
Well it’s not going to surge immediately. Incubation period is up to two weeks, and beyond that I don’t think you can expect to see the needle move much for about a month (which is when those people infect other people etc). This is the best explainer I could find on it–expect a plateau first.
https://twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1263587578021679117
The infection surge already started prior to the protests/riots in the Carolinas where I live. It started because of the reopening. Daily case counts here are now double to triple the daily average. Infection rates as a percentage of total tests have tripled to quadrupled during that time point. So it’s not additional testing that’s causing the observed surge.
“I also posted a link that is awaiting moderation that Fauci said the 2nd wave of the virus this winter might not even happen.”
It’s already happening:
http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/?chart=countries&highlight=Global&show=highlight-only&y=fixed&scale=linear&data=cases-daily-7&xaxis=right#countries
What’s already happening? Winter?
FWIW, Jeff Passan’s tweet outlines that the guaranteed money in all the proposals is similar:
https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1270020069448351744
I’m not arguing whether the owners will lose money. I’m saying that if the owners want the players to shoulder some of that burden, they need to make an effort to convince the players that the impact will be felt in the league beyond 2020 and it’s in their best interest to renegotiate their salaries this year, not just say “how about if we pay you less money.” Because based on the owners’ collective history, the players have no reason to think this is anything other than a money grab at their expense.
I’m not sure if it can be described as the players shouldering the burden. You can say the players’ per game salary is being reduced in the current proposal, but the total player guarantee seems to be the same in all of the owners’ proposals. Because the backup plan is just playing 48 games and earning the same guaranteed amount as 76 games at 75%. The owners are just dangling the carrot of playoff money to get the players to cooperate with expanded playoffs and prevent lawfare,
Is Jared Diamond, baseball reporter, the same person as Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse?
Yep.
Next book:
MLB, Microbes, and Money: The Fate of Organized Baseball
Different Jareds but I support the crossover
Oh man, hearing that title takes me back to grad school. Anthropologists and historians hate that book because of its public popularity despite many oversimplifications and inaccuracies.
He’s also Jared the Subway guy
Let’s just open the ballparks up and let fans know they are free to make their own choice about COVID risks… You know – treat fans like adults.
Then we can just have salaries prorated by % of games played, and everybody is happy.
Fans get live baseball. Players get full salaries. Owners get ballpark revenue. Everybody wins.
Or, you know, we can all keep cowering in our homes.
Yes lets do this, because your actions in no way could possibly effect me or others. eye-roll.
I am going to be part of mass gatherings, whether it takes place in a ballpark or not.
Nothing you do is going to stop people from getting together. Even if we might potentially affect you or others.
The shutdowns were supposed to “flatten the curve.” The curve has been flattened. Time to let people make their own decisions. Ball slap.
“The curve has been flattened.”
Forehead slap.
Apparently. People are gathering is huge groups all over the county lately, and apparently it is fine.
If you think you can keep Americans “socially distanced” when we see mass gatherings all around us, you are out of your mind.
I am done socially distancing. No “facial covering” for me unless I am performing surgery. And I believe many millions of people just like me are going to take the same position.
You don’t need to like it. But you can’t stop us.
Wake up Spa City….you should know its OK to go to a rally, burn things down, and go to walmart, but not ok to go to a ballgame. You can contract the virus there.
You get arrested for opening up your business early trying to not go bankrupt, but you don’t get arrested for burning the city down. ha
One of the most locked down cities in american was LA, they set fear in everyones eyes that live there thinking they were going to die if they stepped outside…….from the mayor and gov newsome. Yet those same people are the ones encouraging you to go walk down weho streets by the 100,000s for a protest like the virus doesn’t exist.
Its shocking how many sheep in the world there are that don’t see whats really goin on. They are literally controlled by the media and regurgitate msnbc talking points. Its kind of sad actually. People need to wake up.
I’ll repost this comment for Spa City:
The infection surge already started prior to the protests/riots in the Carolinas where I live. It started because of the reopening. Daily case counts here are now double to triple the daily average. Infection rates as a percentage of total tests have tripled to quadrupled during that time point. So it’s not additional testing that’s causing the observed surge.
The curve only stays flattened as long as social distancing measures continue. The instant you relax them, the curve snaps back to what it was before unless subsequent mutations have reduce the transmission and/or mortality rates. In the meantime, look up the effect that one Champions League soccer match between Atalanta and Valencia in Milan on February 19th had on Italy’s outbreak.
We do not need to agree on this.
I am moving on with my life and I am done with “social distancing”. I believe millions of people share my view on this. We will not let a virus shut us down forever.
If MLB let’s the virus rob us of a season, there are other options.
If you seriously want to “socially distance” until a vaccine comes along, have at it. I am not trying to stop you. Lock yourself in your house all year for all I care.
But good luck trying to force “social distancing” on everybody else. More people join my Team on this issue everyday. You cannot stop us.
Man, fuck this nonsense freedom fighter trip you’re on. We’re ‘forcing’ you to socially distance by explaining how flattening the curve works? The truth is you just don’t care about endangering the lives of others as long as you get to go to a baseball game or hold your Fourth of July barbecue or whatever.
Interesting points… But nope – no more “social distance practicing” or “facial coverings” for me.
But maybe I am wrong about 10s of millions of Americans sharing my POV on this. Let’s see how it goes.
Imagine being such an unbelievable big asshole that you see efforts to stop the spread of a disease as something to fight against and patting yourself on the back for doing so.
or maybe i give you too much credit. Maybe you are not an asshole. maybe you are just a moron. Flip a coin I guess.
Maybe I am both an asshole and a moron. You failed to cover that possibility.
If you want to be treated as an adult perhaps you should prove you are capable of even a modest amount of adult behavior. you know, like not hand waving a fucking pandemic because you dont understand how it works.
The great part of America is – we do not all need to agree!
I have a different view on COVID than you do.
Good luck forcing your views on everybody else. I am doing it my way. And 10s of millions of other Americans share my POV.
The only mass gatherings allowed these days are hugs for thugs.
I can appreciate the opinion that it’s not enough, but to say it’s “worse” just fails the smell test before even diving in with rigor.
Here’s Jeff Passan’s numbers:
Original offer: 82 games, players receive $1.03B in salary and $200M if playoffs are played.
Current offer: 76 games, players receive $989M in salary and $443M if playoffs are played, plus no direct draft-pick compensation.
48-game option: $1.03B in salary, no playoff money
So for virtually no less difference in base pay ($14M less salary for 6 less games), the players get 15% more if the playoffs are completed, and no draft pick comp. Salary goes from $1.23B to $1.43B if the playoffs are played.
That’s “worse”? I’m not saying it’s enough, but it’s “worse”? Can you appreciate that some folks don’t think you are portraying events fairly and without bias when you call an extra $229M “worse” when the contingency is playing the playoffs?
This was my understanding also. The owners aren’t budging on the amount of guaranteed salary they’re willing to pay, just dangling playoff money if they happen.
On a related note, do you know where “48 G Pro-Rated” at 1.43B comes from in this article? This is the only suggestion I’ve seen where the players get paid more guaranteed money than ~$1B.
I think Passan’s tweet is a bit off on the 48 G amount. In his piece, everyone agrees that per game, salary is 1.6784 M per game pro-rated. That times 48 x 15 is 1.21 B. Across the board, I’ve added about 200 million to all proposals to account for some fixed costs noted in the piece.
I kinda agree here, is it really that far off from where the compromise is? 80 games, 90-100% pro-rated play with a chunk of 25-35% deferred in payment? I mean the games number is close and they are at 75% now (the owners fully expect to have playoffs or they wouldnt even be talking).
I think this proposal is a step in the right direction if Passan’s numbers are roughly accurate. There’s probably room to negotiate for the players also. I’m not sure if there’s an error in Craig’s chart here or if I’m missing something, but he claims that players will make ~40% higher salary at 48G pro rated than the current proposal. If Craig’s numbers are right, then the players should just wait out the clock and play 48G at pro rated salaries.
I don’t think it’s enough, but I agree, it’s not “worse.”
I’m going to punt on analyzing the players, who are doing fine. But the owners need to fire Manfred. He’s clearly ineffective. I think it’s possible that some owners benefit form not playing the season- but some owners probably really suffer, too.
In Craig’s defense, article writers rarely write their own headlines. That probably came from someone else involved in the editorial process who’s less familiar with mathematics. It’s pretty clear to readers that $229M is better. The risk of no playoffs exists, but both sides will be so motivated to complete the playoffs that the probability of more money compared to the previous offer is substantially higher than the probability of less money.
Thank you for this.
I feel like I am taking crazy pills.
There are things we can agree to disagree but this is getting ridiculous.
In order for the current offer to be actually “worse” for a risk-neutral person,
you would need to assign ~15% probability of the playoffs happening.
Of course, people aren’t risk neutral and there is possibility of partial playoff cancellation, but that is the ballpark figure, which I strongly doubt people will agree on.
Right, this is definitely an improvement over the original offer. It’s just that the original offer was terrible. I think it’s possible to hold both in mind at the same time.
What this is potentially worse than (depending on how you view it) is the 48-game proposal, which was never officially offered. In that proposal, the players don’t get the playoff money, make a little more in the regular season (really about the same) but work a whole lot less.
If I had to guess, I think Craig got all the proposals tripped up.
I’m more surprised that the owners don’t realize people can do the math than seeing them keep floating proposals that aren’t even marginally better for the players. I’m also surprised that the owners don’t seem more cognizant of the damage they could do the game. Baseball is not indestructible. Already, it has an older fan base, and it relies on legacy stats, thresholds, year over year comparisons, and the authenticity of its playoffs as a reward for season-long play. The owners proposal is disdainful of all of those things.
They have increased the compensation to the players by 200 million with this plan. I know most of us are on the players side, but this is a step in the right direction.
“Overall, this offer is likely to be another unfortunate setback in the negotiations between the players and the owners, as it guarantees players less money than the owners’ other offer and pays them no more money upon completion of the playoffs.”
Yeah, it is so intellectually dishonest to say this is “worse.” Like, shockingly dishonest.
But the players’ proposal with 114 money losing games and December playoffs plus more salary advances was a good faith compromise position. That’s because it had conditional deferrals with interest (which ownership never wanted).
But it is better – it’s just not to your liking
ESPN is reporting as fact that MLB can impose any length of season on the players at pro rated pay. I think they are in for a rude awakening if that is their ultimate strategy. I’d just plan for players to get real worried about their health around the playoffs if not properly compensated.
Could you imagine being a playoff-bound team team that decides to fake worry about COVID to send a message to MLB? Players in this position want to win a world series, not destroy their reputations in front of the entire fanbase.
I have been thinking about this for a while too. There is going to be a lot of sick-outs and related things around the playoffs if the players feel like they have been treated unfairly.
But the owners did not go that route (yet) and I think that could be the reason why. They are (hopefully) starting to recognize that they’re going to have to give a piece of the pie in the postseason to get over the finish line. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.
If the 48 game plan happens and players start coincidentally “getting sick” because they aren’t receiving playoff bonuses, it’s hard to imagine the public not noticing. Imagine your team getting to the playoffs and a few of its star players faking illness to petulantly stick it to the MLB.
I don’t agree with the BS takes that “players don’t care about baseball, they only care about money”. I think players love the game and want to win a world series, even if it’s in a shortened season. But if a “sick out” were to happen , it would lend credence to that bad take.
If it defaults to the 48 game plan, the players won’t be getting paid *at all* for the playoffs. Playoff shares come from the gate.
This the only part of the proposal that is encouraging–the league recognizes something needs to happen to compensate for playoff shares.
Exactly. The players are not going to just play a microseason and then play the playoffs for nothing or next to nothing, simply because MLB claims they can do that and ESPN dutifully repeats that claim.
I’m more worried about the moral hazard of both sides having so much financial incentive to complete the playoffs. I hate to think of decisions being made on whether or not to move forward after an outbreak with that much money at stake. I’ve seen decisions get corrupted by far fewer dollars.
I think it’s worth asking why the owners in baseball are particularly intransigent compared to other sports who worked through their labor concerns almost immediately. In particular, they should heed the case of Tillman Fertitta, who is levered up to his eyeballs and was desperate to complete the season. Some of this definitely needs to be laid at the feet of owners, particularly as it seems that the heterogeneity of ownership (and debt, and revenue) structure means that different owners are served by different resolutions. The league ought to consider homogenizing the debt covenants each team holds, certainly.
Something that people are talking about less is how deeply ineffective Manfred has been as a negotiator and manager of the different owners’ interests. Prior to the Marlins sale, I was largely indifferent. After the Marlins sale, the Astros debacle, and this situation, I cannot see how he remains chairman and retain the confidence of ownership.
I recognize that the commissioner works for the owners, but is there nothing in the job description about impartiality? It strikes me that an MLB commissioner who also must, by definition, act as an antagonist to players is a recipe for disaster (as opposed to an owners’ negotiating group with the commish, jointly chosen by owners AND players, acting as moderator/arbitrator).
As with most bad outcomes, this system seems designed to produce them.
Is this a good time to call for the end of anti-trust exemption? Every party’s ox gets gored but the players and untimately the game may come out ahead. Some major league cities will suffer but the minor leagues may not remain so…….minor.
The guy in the long thread above basically calling COVID a hoax is clearly a clown, but I think partial re-opening of stadiums could be a key to getting a season of substantial length.
Houston and Texas can operate right now at 50% capacity. Later in the year, the potential for more grows higher. I could see partial capacity being allowed in Atlanta, Miami and Tampa (so no change in attendance), Arizona, Kansas City and St. Louis, Colorado, and possibly more by July, with maybe more states allowing partial capacity in August or September. The stadium revenue would need to be shared among the owners, but signs that states are moving in that direction could make owners more comfortable making additional concessions.
And, truthfully, pretty much every club could sell out luxury boxes right now and not have it be a public health concern given gatherings would be limited to <20 people. The optics would be pretty terrible, but something like "X% of proceeds from luxury box ticket sales are going to COVID testing of essential workers in our local markets" would make it more palatable.
They also can control the tv cameras and you can bet that if they did this it would not be shown on TV.
Mass public events at even partial capacity aren’t feasible because it’s not just how far apart you sit, it’s going into the stadium together, going through walkways together, going to the concession stands together, and going down the aisles together. I haven’t seen any epidemiologists endorse partial seating. All the ones that I’ve seen have said that games need to be without fans until further notice.
I don’t see why stadia can’t open in many states at reduced capacity. Teams can be creative and restrictive with entry points, traffic flow, concessions, etc. I’m in Florida now and people seem to be packing into restaurants, bars, gyms, and churches. Theme parks are opening. I went to universal Orlando last week and they did a good job of implementing and enforcing new rules. Is an open air stadium really higher risk than all these other venues? I’m not trying to debate the wisdom of reopening these things but it seems very arbitrary to ban fans from sporting events when hundreds or thousands are allowed to gather elsewhere in probably riskier environments. Local and state governments are being very arbitrary and contradictory with their decisions. In St Louis organized youth baseball is still banned for an unclear period of time, which seems ridiculous considering the very low risk of infection in kids and with all the other businesses and activities that have been fully reopened. I guess youth baseball has a very weak lobby.
The big problem with fans going to stadia is twofold.
First, even though it’s not likely higher risk than those other things (and lower risk than all those indoor things you mentioned), the consequences of being wrong about that are staggering. It’s what we call a super-spreading event, where huge numbers of people are infected at one time.
The second problem is that absolutely none of those things should be open right now, because the risk of transmission in all of those environments is much too high.
The evidence is that there are some restrictions that could be lifted in a scenario if (1) cases are very, very low and going in the right direction (2) there is enough public health capacity to test and trace everyone (3) universal mask wearing is the norm and nobody has to take them off or talk loudly (4) there are not more than, say, 50-100 people in one place at a time. But even that is preliminary, and in this case (1) and (2) are not true now and stadia fail on (3) and (4).
You are essentially arguing that one bad idea (packing gyms, restaurants, churches, etc) supports an even worse idea (opening stadiums to fans).
The more logical answer is that the former should probably not be happening to begin with and the latter definitely shouldn’t be happening.
I live in a pretty sparsely populated province of Canada that has not been hard hit (under 700 cases total) and restaurants were just allowed to re-open yesterday. And even then only at half capacity and with adequate distancing in place (gyms still are not open yet). The idea that places in the states are just fully opening is insane to me.
With this offer I think the odds of an MLB enforced very short season, with a significant number of players sitting out, have increased substantially.
Then again, as much as I hate speculating about intent, that may be the message ownership wants to send.
Once again there’s an insinuation in here that the owners would actually make money for playing regular season games, which is a position that wholly baffles me. We don’t know precisely what their economics are, but I think we can agree on the following:
1. MLB owners like making money
2. MLB owners would prefer to play baseball instead of not playing baseball
If we are to assume that for each regular-season game played, the owners would actually turn a profit, does anyone think that a protracted, public fight with the PA, in the middle of a pandemic, with zero sports competition if they can get their stuff together, is something they want? Why do we think the owners are using this as an opportunity to just pay players less? If that’s something they were trying to accomplish, they sure did a terrible job of it a few months ago when they handed out all those huge contracts. And if the argument from there is that well, they were counting on revenues that they aren’t seeing now when they made those deals, if more games were more profitable then why wouldn’t they be trying to stage as many as possible to get closer to what they thought the world would look like?
Don’t get me wrong, they absolutely want to pay players less and will try to do so if they can. But I hope nobody thinks these teams are outright stupid, and at this point the cost of the negotiations (especially if it results in a canceled season that we’re assuming would be generally profitable) is higher than any benefit they could get from reducing salaries. If playing regular season games is profitable, they’d want to do as much of that as they can. They very clearly don’t, which I think we can conclude means it isn’t.
And from that perspective, these proposals, especially this one that defers some of the risk of not having the jackpot of the playoffs, make sense. The owners likely stand to lose a whole bunch of money if they just play the regular season and not the playoffs. Personally, I’m completely fine with that – it’s not my money, plus billionaires could stand to lose a little wealth. At the same time, I can’t really fault someone for not making a bad business decision – if there is a risk of not playing the playoffs, and the playoffs is the only chance at getting into the black this year, then you either make a lot of your expenses contingent on uncertain revenue streams or you cut your losses now. Yeah, we all want to see baseball, and yeah, the owners should probably lose some money to provide a public good. You’re still asking a bunch of billionaires – AKA grand prize winners in the game of capitalism – to act against their own self-interest. The outrage over that not happening is pretty silly.
Have you read Lords of the Realm? It outlines how, historically, the owners as a whole are petty, self-interested, and at times, flat out stupid. After reading that book, my default position has changed from yours to a perspective more cynical about anything coming from an owner or their mouthpiece.
(ref: Padres’ owner Fowler trying to curry favor by “opening the books”; once in public, these limited release budgets were pretty roundly found to abstract over the interesting things)
It’s not about whether or not the owners will make money from playing games.
The question is, how much less money will they lose from playing regular season games vs. not playing any games?
If it’s a matter of losing $100m for no games vs. $50m for games played on a deal that the players can accept, then the owners are at fault. If it’s “lose $100m vs. lose $90m”, then yeah, the owners are probably right to say it’s not worth it.
Much has been said about the wording of the March agreement guaranteeing 170 million…in hindsight, would the players be better off not making deal? I get that some players needed that pay out, but I feel like it put a floor for the owners spending. Perhaps they would be negotiating more earnestly without that back drop…ie potentially on hook for full salaries.
The break-even point is 25% chance of the playoffs happening. Basically, for the previous offer to be considered better than this offer, you have to think there’s only a 25% or less chance of the playoffs happening. Otherwise, this offer is better, not to mention the getting rid of the compensation to the qualifying offer.
Does FG really think there is less than a 25% chance of the playoffs happening? If so, could you state this in the article so readers are given that context?
I’m really hoping for a season of decent length, which requires both sides to come to a compromise. I have no interest in reading Twitter comments of fans saying “Shut up, overpaid players, stop complaining and get on the field”, without knowing anything about the economics of the sport. So I come to FG to read quality analysis.
And it’s just really disappointing that FG is unable to provide an honest assessment of the proposal. This is definitely a better offer. Is it enough? I don’t think so, and the players don’t seem to think so. But it’s a shame that one of the few places I could rely on for quality and honest information can no longer be described that way.
Here is a question.
If you believed that there is <25% chance of playoffs happening contingent on MLB season starting, would you want the baseball season to begin at all?
I know I wouldn't.
There needs to be some kind of shared common ground/reality upon which we can have an earnest discussion.
This is verging into alternative facts.
I understand people make mistakes and Fangraphs is no exception.
While most of them have been honest mistakes, I don't think this article is an honest mistake.
It is more of a culmination of a worrying trend of only looking at the evidence that supports one's stance.
Now I'm not saying Fangraphs should not have a stance when it comes to players vs. owners, an argument used by many people who in reality simply want Fangraphs to support their own perspective.
But when it seeps into misrepresenting the facts to fit whatever agenda, that is where I draw the line.
A hard line.
I still like Fangraphs.
I thought Jeff Sullivan and Dave Cameron were irreplaceable but Ben Clemens has proved me otherwise.
The only complaint I have about Rachel McDaniel is that she doesn't write on Fangraphs as often as I want her to.
These are of course just two of my favorite writers, not meant to diminish the contribution of others.
And it is precisely because I like Fangraphs that I really hope Craig and others look at this small backlash with an open mind instead of being defensive, and examine what went wrong and why.
Agree. I love FanGraphs. But I’m really disappointed in how this is being covered. There is a lack of objectivity in how labor matters are presented. There also does not seem to be any attempt to engage alternate viewpoints. We understand if authors have a bias, but good writing seeks to at least present facts fairly. Put it all out there and persuade me to your viewpoint, rather than putting out what supports your position.
All of this, of course, is FG’s prerogative. But you’re not applying the same analytical rigor to labor strife as you do to statistical analysis, and that’s a real bummer.
Also, a lot of this season’s negotiation is based on the loss of reg season games…what happens in 2021 if far less fans in attendance? Or none again? Without a new amendment, owners would be on hook for full salary, correct? If this is enough to impose a 48 game schedule now, would they lock out next year too? If I’m the players Istrike a deal and dig in next year…they may never get financial numbers, but if fans in seats is so important they need to get them in there before owners completely ruin there sport…
All of this is taking a toll on my mental health. I just don’t understand the greed… Americans could use baseball more than ever..
The US is starving for professional sports. This is baseball’s shot to increase and diversify it’s fanbase. They’re blowing it…
MLB is not all of “baseball”. If Americans love baseball so much (which I hope they still do), they should go support their local youth travel teams. No tickets to buy. Parking is free. A couple hot dogs and a Gatorade at the concession stand For $5. And watch some great kids play baseball.
That is like asking people to go watch a high school play instead of the newest blockbuster.
i watch local baseball frequently but surely you must see how its not a replacement for the highest level of baseball.
Craig how exactly did the players take a step forward, but u see this offer from MLB as a step back? They have offered an additional 200-300 million dollars in the players pockets. Plus FA assistance plus letting them keep a portion of their prepaid stipend without it counting as part of there salary. The players need make similar concessions. Counter with 66% upfront instead of 50 and an additional 20% at playoff time. If they continue to dig their heals in on not taking a pay cut this is on the MLBPA.
Having been downvoted here on a couple of my comments I’m going to risk it again with a few observations. 1) None of us know what the Owners finances really look like–how much of their claims of losses are creative bookkeeping and how much real. 2) I see health concerns being dismissed by many. I don’t understand that. While the probability of someone in their prime athletic years of becoming seriously ill is small, it’s not zero, and players ought to have the right to decide for themselves if they don’t want to play. The owners should do a carveout and pay the players who have well-known health vulnerabilities. As to the rest, you can sidecar compensation/service time into arbitration hearings. 3) We all want to see baseball, so it’s a natural impulse to blame the side who hasn’t just taken whatever deal is being offered, regardless of its terms. 4) Assuming that 2021 will be “normal” the financial implications of 2020 on payment to draft picks, player salaries, service time, minor league contraction, etc. are huge positives for the Owners. MLBPA made major concessions to get that first $170M. 5) The players really don’t want to feel as if they got torched in negotiations. These players have limited earning lifetimes. The money they aren’t making this year is not going to get made up. Two years from now, franchise values will be even higher. 6) One of the CBA’s most valuable for the owners assets is the disparity between what it pays younger players and older ones. Watch for many more low cost extensions over the next several years, as players who didn’t get big draft bonuses find they have less ability to resist. 7) The funky draft will not only mean lower compensation for many in this year’s draft, but put downward pressure on next year, simply because of more competition.
Look at the whole picture. If you think the players are being greedy, fine, but it’s a lot more for them than just taking a pay-cut in 2020. OK, I’ve had my say.
How are 1200 players supposed to live off 1.2 billion dollars. That’s outrageous!
That’s only a million bucks a piece for five months work. How are they supposed to buy groceries?
Oh.
a whole lot of this is that manfred wants the union to hold his hand and go over the cliff with him. what’s the point? let manfred tell fans that he’s the guy who unilaterally imposed a 50 game season on them, when MLB could’ve played 100. he can explain why some of the richest men in the country “can’t afford” — to use steve phllips’ favorite phrase — to play more than 50. let the $4.1B lerners, after trying to confiscate 100 dollar bills from the kids they already pay poverty wages to, tell us all that $4.1B isn’t what it used to be. let john henry and fenway sports — worth $6.6B — explain from the deck of his 220 foot mega yacht that this is all he can “afford” to give sox nation. manfred’s propagandists keep saying that teams are going under, but they never say who. same old billionaire bullshit.
I know everyone is against the owners here, so can someone enlighten me what the players are offering? They want full pay based on number of games, correct? Are they giving up anything for the loss of fans? Are they taking on any risk if the playoffs are cancelled? Does the players offer have any of this in it?
The players are offering to take half of what they are owed. They have a legally binding contract that if they weren’t nice….they could stick it to the owners and make them pay full price. Only way out of those contracts for the owners is through bankruptcy or an agreement. Players agreed to take pro rated pay even though they didn’t have to do anything.
Any other industry those contracts wouldn’t get changed. Owners would have to face tough luck.
I think Craig may be missing the real picture. Other than a few clubs with huge local TV rights deals, teams without paid crowds lose money every game. They have a chance to make it up with TV money from the post season but the more games that are played the higher the risk the post season does not happen. These owners did not become rich by giving away money and they are also pretty good negotiators although probably not as good as they give themselves credit for. They think the players are giving away more from not playing and for the players anything is better than nothing.
The fault of Craig’s (and others) argument is that Craig agrees with the players that if they gave into profit sharing for this year it could affect future bargaining with the owners. Well if the owners from the rich teams (Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs etc..) started profit sharing with other owners now it is the same argument the players have so easy to understand why the owners are negotiating from the position of the small market clubs and not the league as a whole or the big market clubs.
For something to work the big market clubs are going to have to share some revenue or the players are going to have to share revenue. Or a combo of both.