COVID-19 impact on MLB season

[AdvantageSchneider]

Are the big stars really going to want to play for this money? The Harpers, Trouts, Kershaws, etc will just sit out, won't they? Even guys like Mookie Bets isn't going to risk a $200-$250M payday for $7M. So even if this passes by like a 70-30 split I envision the end product being put out on the field will be very watered down. It seems like a very penny wise pound foolish approach by the owners.

 

That's just not how a union works and it would defeat the purpose of having one. Either they're all in it together or they are not. If the MLBPA passes an agreement, no individual player is sitting out the season because of the money. It would be a horrible look, there has to be solidarity in their decision.

 

Now yes, they cannot physically force them to play and there may be players here and there who choose not to. But those players will certainly cite health concerns and not money, and may still be in violation of their contract to refuse to play if MLB and the MLBPA both agree that the approach is safe.

 

It's already not a great look for the higher paid players in MLB if they simply don't want to play because they don't want to play for partial money while their union counterparts making the league minimum and maybe trying to get their career started are quietly pleading to get the season going but fear speaking out against the stars. It reminds me of the recent CBA passed by the NFL where stars were generally against the agreement but the little guys at the bottom who benefitted more outnumbered the stars and so the CBA passed.

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/05/mlbs-rob-manfred-responds-to-concerned-players-we-would-never-force-players-or-try-to-force-them-to-come-back-to-work.html

 

MLB’s Rob Manfred responds to concerned players: ‘We would never force players or try to force them to come back to work’

 

I don't think it is a horrible look. 95% of my company is working from home right now and we aren't going back to the office anytime soon. So it is not unreasonable for any player not to play this season for any reason.

[adambr2]

Are the big stars really going to want to play for this money? The Harpers, Trouts, Kershaws, etc will just sit out, won't they? Even guys like Mookie Bets isn't going to risk a $200-$250M payday for $7M. So even if this passes by like a 70-30 split I envision the end product being put out on the field will be very watered down. It seems like a very penny wise pound foolish approach by the owners.

 

That's just not how a union works and it would defeat the purpose of having one. Either they're all in it together or they are not. If the MLBPA passes an agreement, no individual player is sitting out the season because of the money. It would be a horrible look, there has to be solidarity in their decision.

 

Now yes, they cannot physically force them to play and there may be players here and there who choose not to. But those players will certainly cite health concerns and not money, and may still be in violation of their contract to refuse to play if MLB and the MLBPA both agree that the approach is safe.

 

It's already not a great look for the higher paid players in MLB if they simply don't want to play because they don't want to play for partial money while their union counterparts making the league minimum and maybe trying to get their career started are quietly pleading to get the season going but fear speaking out against the stars. It reminds me of the recent CBA passed by the NFL where stars were generally against the agreement but the little guys at the bottom who benefitted more outnumbered the stars and so the CBA passed.

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2020/05/mlbs-rob-manfred-responds-to-concerned-players-we-would-never-force-players-or-try-to-force-them-to-come-back-to-work.html

 

I don't think it is a horrible look. 95% of my company is working from home right now and we aren't going back to the office anytime soon. So it is not unreasonable for any player not to play this season for any reason.

 

It's not unreasonable for a player to not play for health related concerns, based on the information you provided on what Manfred said.

 

It would be unreasonable for a player to simply refuse to play because they didn't like the 2020 salary structure that was agreed upon by the MLBPA.

 

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the percentage of your company working from home has to do with it -- working from home is obviously not an option for MLB. I work for a company of about 275 that also cannot perform our job from home and not one individual has refused to continue working for health related concerns. Some fields have this flexibility to a great degree, some do not have it at all.

 

I acknowledge that there will likely be at least some players who refuse to play on health concerns, but in no way should it be influenced by a player's means but rather by his honest concerns that the given plan is not safe.

 

Which honestly, I'm guessing it will be just as safe if not safer than simply not working, but I suppose there will still be some that refuse.

 

But if MLB and MLBPA reach an agreement and as part of the agreeement, at Bryce Harper's salary level he receives 9 million for this season and Bryce Harper says, "forget it, I feel it's safe but I'm not playing for 9M, I don't care that the agreement was passed", then yes, that's a very bad look for him.

[jerichoholicninja]

Part of me thinks there is a deal already agreed to waiting to be signed at the last minute and both sides are trying to squeeze out whatever else they can beforehand.

 

The other part of me thinks both sides are totally going to blow it. I sympathize with players concerned about health and safety issues and wanting to get every cent they can. I also understand the owners who are still writing out checks and paying bills without the usual cashflow coming in. Are broadcast rights contracts and sponsorships currently being paid out or do those only come when games are actually being play? Anyway, everyone involved with major league baseball has looked like a real dunce in all of this.

[TURBO]

Jon Heyman of MLB Network reports that some within the MLBPA feel that MLB's economic proposal "doesn’t even warrant (a) counter proposal."

 

Players held a call Wednesday and were “pretty galvanized” in their disdain for MLB's proposal, with the reactions ranging from “disappointing” to “disrespectful,” per Heyman. Heyman does add that some feel this is all “part of (the) process,” so perhaps the two sides eventually will be able to find common ground. However, there's no doubting that MLB's initial proposal -- which called for massive player salary cuts on a "sliding scale" basis -- was ill-received.

 

Source: Jon Heyman on Twitter

May 27, 2020, 9:44 PM ET

[AdvantageSchneider]

 

It's not unreasonable for a player to not play for health related concerns, based on the information you provided on what Manfred said.

 

It would be unreasonable for a player to simply refuse to play because they didn't like the 2020 salary structure that was agreed upon by the MLBPA.

 

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the percentage of your company working from home has to do with it -- working from home is obviously not an option for MLB. I work for a company of about 275 that also cannot perform our job from home and not one individual has refused to continue working for health related concerns. Some fields have this flexibility to a great degree, some do not have it at all.

 

I acknowledge that there will likely be at least some players who refuse to play on health concerns, but in no way should it be influenced by a player's means but rather by his honest concerns that the given plan is not safe.

 

Which honestly, I'm guessing it will be just as safe if not safer than simply not working, but I suppose there will still be some that refuse.

 

But if MLB and MLBPA reach an agreement and as part of the agreeement, at Bryce Harper's salary level he receives 9 million for this season and Bryce Harper says, "forget it, I feel it's safe but I'm not playing for 9M, I don't care that the agreement was passed", then yes, that's a very bad look for him.

 

Isn't pay part of the equation of whether you want to work or not? Many companies gave essential workers bonuses for working during a pandemic. So part of the equation of do I want to work during this time is pay. It would seem that if a player normally gets paid $7M a year they might not be willing to go back to work and risk exposure for himself and his family for $2M.

 

I guess the point is despite things opening back up, this pandemic hasn't gone away. And many companies are treating it like that still working from home. If the owners want the players to take on this added risk they will need to pay them to do so.

 

If you look at what Snell said it was about the risk and the reduced pay. They go hand in hand. I haven't seen a player say they won't play only for reduced pay, because they already agreed to play for reduced pay in March.

[AdvantageSchneider]

Part of me thinks there is a deal already agreed to waiting to be signed at the last minute and both sides are trying to squeeze out whatever else they can beforehand.

 

The other part of me thinks both sides are totally going to blow it. I sympathize with players concerned about health and safety issues and wanting to get every cent they can. I also understand the owners who are still writing out checks and paying bills without the usual cashflow coming in. Are broadcast rights contracts and sponsorships currently being paid out or do those only come when games are actually being play? Anyway, everyone involved with major league baseball has looked like a real dunce in all of this.

 

If there was an agreement ready to be signed they would announce it so they could start talking about baseball stuff.

[adambr2]

 

It's not unreasonable for a player to not play for health related concerns, based on the information you provided on what Manfred said.

 

It would be unreasonable for a player to simply refuse to play because they didn't like the 2020 salary structure that was agreed upon by the MLBPA.

 

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the percentage of your company working from home has to do with it -- working from home is obviously not an option for MLB. I work for a company of about 275 that also cannot perform our job from home and not one individual has refused to continue working for health related concerns. Some fields have this flexibility to a great degree, some do not have it at all.

 

I acknowledge that there will likely be at least some players who refuse to play on health concerns, but in no way should it be influenced by a player's means but rather by his honest concerns that the given plan is not safe.

 

Which honestly, I'm guessing it will be just as safe if not safer than simply not working, but I suppose there will still be some that refuse.

 

But if MLB and MLBPA reach an agreement and as part of the agreeement, at Bryce Harper's salary level he receives 9 million for this season and Bryce Harper says, "forget it, I feel it's safe but I'm not playing for 9M, I don't care that the agreement was passed", then yes, that's a very bad look for him.

 

Isn't pay part of the equation of whether you want to work or not? Many companies gave essential workers bonuses for working during a pandemic. So part of the equation of do I want to work during this time is pay. It would seem that if a player normally gets paid $7M a year they might not be willing to go back to work and risk exposure for himself and his family for $2M.

 

I guess the point is despite things opening back up, this pandemic hasn't gone away. And many companies are treating it like that still working from home. If the owners want the players to take on this added risk they will need to pay them to do so.

 

If you look at what Snell said it was about the risk and the reduced pay. They go hand in hand. I haven't seen a player say they won't play only for reduced pay, because they already agreed to play for reduced pay in March.

 

All I'm really getting at is that there has to be solidarity in a union like the MLBPA among members in all important decisions. If everyone just does their own thing and makes their own decision, the MLBPA doesn't really serve any purpose.

 

Obviously, these are very unique circumstances with a little more wiggle room for individuality in the name of safety. But I would expect that if there is an agreeement between MLB and the MLBPA, the vast, vast majority of players will report. I would go as far as to bet that Blake Snell will be reporting for whatever he makes under the agreement, regardless of what he said. Time will tell. Or maybe it won't since I think there's a good chance they can't come to an agreement in which case it's all a moot point anyway.

[DuWayne Steurer]

https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/brewers-brett-anderson-rips-mlbs-latest-return-proposal/

 

Our own Brett Anderson says this proposal makes the highest paid players out to be the bad guys when the union inevitably rejects this deal. He's not necessarily wrong.

[nate82]

The MLBPA is proposing a longer season than what the owners have proposed to keep the prorated salaries.

 

It is not about safety it is 100% about the money. If the players wanted to do this then they should have done this earlier. The talks of having all of the teams in 3 sites would have allowed for this but the players didn't want to be separated from their families but now that is what is exactly is going to happen with their proposal.

 

100 games would mean the season would have to start on June 1st with no ramp up. The season would start June 1st, don't tell me the players are concerned about their safety when this is their proposal. They don't care about the safety they only care about the money and that is it.

 

For 100 games to be played there would be at most 2-3 days off a month between June through September. You basically have to play about 30 games a month to get to 100 games by the end of September. If the season starts later than June 1st you basically are playing games with maybe an off day once a month.

[MillerParkSouth]

If there is no season this year, it is on the owners. They have an agreement on salary with the players and they want to go back on it to protect their profits. It seems that they and Manfred have done nothing but negotiate in bad faith through the media. It's pathetic.

[monty57]

If there is no season this year, it is on the owners. They have an agreement on salary with the players and they want to go back on it to protect their profits. It seems that they and Manfred have done nothing but negotiate in bad faith through the media. It's pathetic.

 

I haven't been following this, but the article linked by RoCoBrewFan says "but the league said that agreement also left the door open for further financial negotiations if the games were to be played with no fans in attendance." If true, then they aren't "going back on a deal," they simply following the wording of the deal they had, which puts them into more negotiations.

 

I generally take anything said publicly in these negotiations with a grain of salt, but a while back the owners said they would lose $4 billion if games were played with no fans in the stands. I'd have to believe that would cause some teams to go into bankruptcy, as I can't imagine teams like the Brewers could afford to lose over $100,000,000 in a season. If that is indeed the case, they would probably be better off just not playing the season and resuming play "as normal" in 2021. Of course, if they do this then there would probably be a lot of players who would file for bankruptcy, so there is some reason for both sides to want to work out a deal.

 

I don't really look at anyone as "the bad guy." A lot of money is being lost by a lot of people this year, and sports leagues and players are included in this. I hope they can work something out. I'd like to see baseball, and I think it would be good for the country's morale.

[MVP2110]

Both sides imo are too blame. I could understand if this was a safety issue but the fact that this is about $ for both of them makes both at fault if a deal can't be reached. That said it seems like both sides lose a lot of $ if no deal is reached so I have to believe that they will come to an agreement

[monty57]

Both sides imo are too blame. I could understand if this was a safety issue but the fact that this is about $ for both of them makes both at fault if a deal can't be reached. That said it seems like both sides lose a lot of $ if no deal is reached so I have to believe that they will come to an agreement

 

I agree to a point. If the decision for some owners is "play baseball and go bankrupt, or not play this season and lose some money," then it technically is "about money," but it's really about survival. I don't want Attanasio to sign off on a deal that would end the Brewers, or one that would force him to sell the team. Any deal will probably have to work out that the owners won't lose more money by playing the games than they lose by not playing the games.

 

Meanwhile, the players will lose a lot of money if the season isn't played. Many of them (especially the younger guys) probably won't be able to pay all of their bills without their expected income.

 

Therefore, I agree that both sides have incentive to sign a deal, but "just being about money" is a big thing. No business is designed to lose all their revenues for an extended period, and many thousands of businesses around the country are going to be out of business when this is all said and done. They'll probably lose money either way, but owners have to be sure that they are still around at the end of the year.

[KeithStone53151]

I would tend to think more games is something owners could get behind. I personally love it as well, average more than a game a day. There's plenty more to work out, but if players are willing to do it...that will probably happen.

[jerichoholicninja]

Part of me thinks there is a deal already agreed to waiting to be signed at the last minute and both sides are trying to squeeze out whatever else they can beforehand.

 

The other part of me thinks both sides are totally going to blow it. I sympathize with players concerned about health and safety issues and wanting to get every cent they can. I also understand the owners who are still writing out checks and paying bills without the usual cashflow coming in. Are broadcast rights contracts and sponsorships currently being paid out or do those only come when games are actually being play? Anyway, everyone involved with major league baseball has looked like a real dunce in all of this.

 

If there was an agreement ready to be signed they would announce it so they could start talking about baseball stuff.

 

Why sign on the dotted line until you absolutely have to? See what else you can squeeze out while publicly dragging your opposition through the mud right before CBA discussions. That seems to have been Tony Clark's goal the last few years at least.

[owbc]

Scott Boras nails it...

 

"Owners are asking for more salary cuts to bail them out of the investment decisions they have made," Boras said. "If this was just about baseball, playing games would give the owners enough money to pay the players their full prorated salaries and run the baseball organization. The owners' current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks. This type of financing is allowed and encouraged by MLB because it has resulted in significant franchise valuations.

 

"Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout. They are not offering players a share of the stadiums, ballpark villages or the club itself, even though salary reductions would help owners pay for these valuable franchise assets. These billionaires want the money for free. No bank would do that. Banks demand loans be repaid with interest. Players should be entitled to the same respect."

[jerichoholicninja]

Scott Boras nails it...

 

"Owners are asking for more salary cuts to bail them out of the investment decisions they have made," Boras said. "If this was just about baseball, playing games would give the owners enough money to pay the players their full prorated salaries and run the baseball organization. The owners' current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks. This type of financing is allowed and encouraged by MLB because it has resulted in significant franchise valuations.

 

"Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout. They are not offering players a share of the stadiums, ballpark villages or the club itself, even though salary reductions would help owners pay for these valuable franchise assets. These billionaires want the money for free. No bank would do that. Banks demand loans be repaid with interest. Players should be entitled to the same respect."

 

How did he nail it? The prorated salary deal was based on fans being allowed in stadiums. There's no guarantee that happens making that agreement void. Owners were well within their rights to change the deal.

 

And his rant about unfettered spending and "bailouts" can be directly tied to a good number of his clients' god-awful contracts and Boras's MO as an agent in general. Sorry, but I can't take any words from him about fiscal responsibility seriously.

[sveumrules]

"Privatization of profits + socialization of losses = Capitalism, apparently." - sveumrules, April 29 2020

 

"You don't privatize the gains & socialize the losses." - Scott Boras, May 14 2020

 

We must have seen the same bumper sticker.

[owbc]

How did he nail it? The prorated salary deal was based on fans being allowed in stadiums. There's no guarantee that happens making that agreement void. Owners were well within their rights to change the deal.

 

And his rant about unfettered spending and "bailouts" can be directly tied to a good number of his clients' god-awful contracts and Boras's MO as an agent in general. Sorry, but I can't take any words from him about fiscal responsibility seriously.

 

I think you're missing the point--he's saying that the owners are losing money because of investments that are not related to player salaries or baseball operations, which is a very acute observation from someone who knows more about the finances of MLB than just about anyone.

[nate82]

How did he nail it? The prorated salary deal was based on fans being allowed in stadiums. There's no guarantee that happens making that agreement void. Owners were well within their rights to change the deal.

 

And his rant about unfettered spending and "bailouts" can be directly tied to a good number of his clients' god-awful contracts and Boras's MO as an agent in general. Sorry, but I can't take any words from him about fiscal responsibility seriously.

 

I think you're missing the point--he's saying that the owners are losing money because of investments that are not related to player salaries or baseball operations, which is a very acute observation from someone who knows more about the finances of MLB than just about anyone.

 

I wouldn't say Boras is someone who knows more about the finances of MLB.

 

He may know more than the average fan but the majority of what he is saying can be deducted logically.

 

The owners are not losing money because of investments. When you don't have a revenue stream coming in you are going to be losing money regardless if you have investments or not.

 

So no he is not nailing it.

[owbc]

How did he nail it? The prorated salary deal was based on fans being allowed in stadiums. There's no guarantee that happens making that agreement void. Owners were well within their rights to change the deal.

 

And his rant about unfettered spending and "bailouts" can be directly tied to a good number of his clients' god-awful contracts and Boras's MO as an agent in general. Sorry, but I can't take any words from him about fiscal responsibility seriously.

 

I think you're missing the point--he's saying that the owners are losing money because of investments that are not related to player salaries or baseball operations, which is a very acute observation from someone who knows more about the finances of MLB than just about anyone.

 

I wouldn't say Boras is someone who knows more about the finances of MLB.

 

He may know more than the average fan but the majority of what he is saying can be deducted logically.

 

The owners are not losing money because of investments. When you don't have a revenue stream coming in you are going to be losing money regardless if you have investments or not.

 

So no he is not nailing it.

 

Huh? The only relevant question to this debate is whether the TV revenues alone can cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations. Boras' point is that yes, they can, because players do not have a stake in the franchise. So those losses are not the players' responsibility to cover. And he's shrewdly pointing out that when these ballpark investments were profitable the owners have made the same argument, resulting in player salaries decoupling from franchise values.

[nate82]

 

Huh? The only relevant question to this debate is whether the TV revenues alone can cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations. Boras' point is that yes, they can, because players do not have a stake in the franchise. So those losses are not the players' responsibility to cover. And he's shrewdly pointing out that when these ballpark investments were profitable the owners have made the same argument, resulting in player salaries decoupling from franchise values.

 

huh? No where in Boras' rant did he make that point.

 

For the relevant question yes some teams can cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations namely the large market teams could. The Brewers specifically would not be able to cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations with their TV revenue and I believe the majority of the teams in MLB would be just barely in the black with a very small margin for error.

 

Secondly franchise value has no bearing on player salaries and if you are comparing the two you are a fool.

[JosephC]

"Owners are asking for more salary cuts to bail them out of the investment decisions they have made," Boras said. "If this was just about baseball, playing games would give the owners enough money to pay the players their full prorated salaries and run the baseball organization. The owners' current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks. This type of financing is allowed and encouraged by MLB because it has resulted in significant franchise valuations.

 

"Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout. They are not offering players a share of the stadiums, ballpark villages or the club itself, even though salary reductions would help owners pay for these valuable franchise assets. These billionaires want the money for free. No bank would do that. Banks demand loans be repaid with interest. Players should be entitled to the same respect."

 

What a pile of crap. Owners don't borrow money for that, they strong-arm politicians and take that money from the taxpayers.

[homer]

 

Huh? The only relevant question to this debate is whether the TV revenues alone can cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations. Boras' point is that yes, they can, because players do not have a stake in the franchise. So those losses are not the players' responsibility to cover. And he's shrewdly pointing out that when these ballpark investments were profitable the owners have made the same argument, resulting in player salaries decoupling from franchise values.

 

huh? No where in Boras' rant did he make that point.

 

For the relevant question yes some teams can cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations namely the large market teams could. The Brewers specifically would not be able to cover the pro-rated salaries + baseball operations with their TV revenue and I believe the majority of the teams in MLB would be just barely in the black with a very small margin for error.

 

Secondly franchise value has no bearing on player salaries and if you are comparing the two you are a fool.

 

 

First off, don't call people fools regardless of what they post.

 

Secondly, do you have a link to your assertion that teams would not be able to cover the pro-rated salaries and operations?

[jerichoholicninja]

"Owners are asking for more salary cuts to bail them out of the investment decisions they have made," Boras said. "If this was just about baseball, playing games would give the owners enough money to pay the players their full prorated salaries and run the baseball organization. The owners' current problem is a result of the money they borrowed when they purchased their franchises, renovated their stadiums or developed land around their ballparks. This type of financing is allowed and encouraged by MLB because it has resulted in significant franchise valuations.

 

"Owners now want players to take additional pay cuts to help them pay these loans. They want a bailout. They are not offering players a share of the stadiums, ballpark villages or the club itself, even though salary reductions would help owners pay for these valuable franchise assets. These billionaires want the money for free. No bank would do that. Banks demand loans be repaid with interest. Players should be entitled to the same respect."

 

What a pile of crap. Owners don't borrow money for that, they strong-arm politicians and take that money from the taxpayers.

 

I was thinking that too.

 

This whole thing has pretty much turned into politics. No one really wants to solve the problem, just make some gotcha sound bites ripping the other side to make it look like they're trying.