COVID-19 impact on MLB season

[adambr2]

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.

 

I would be plenty happy with this too, but it's telling about what this is really about that the players' first counterproposal was "let's just play more games so there's more revenue."

 

This isn't really about safety. That's just a leverage play. Realistically, I don't believe that any player is any less safe doing this than they are sitting at home. In some ways, I think you could argue that they're even safer. They are going to be monitored and tested so much it'll make their head spin. On the off chance that they manage to infect anyone, their very situation will likely be the thing that results in it being caught so fast that they can be quarantined and contact traced before they can even spread it to a single person.

[nate82]

 

 

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

 

There wouldn't be a link as the teams are privately held companies and even if there was it would just be a best guess estimate either way at least for the operations side of things. The Brewers TV deal just wouldn't be able to cover the operations side of things and the pro-rated salaries it is just not enough. There are other teams that are going to be in this same boat. Unless you have a TV deal like the Dodgers it is going to be very difficult to pay both the pro-rated salaries and operations.

 

The Reds, Brewers, Royals, Pirates, Rockies and the Rays are all possibly going to lose money. The Royals maybe saved by their lower payroll but the Reds increased their payroll this off season and the Brewers cut a little but definitely not enough for the TV contract to cover the expenses.

 

Teams like the Reds and the Brewers rely heavily on the ticket sales without this revenue coming in the TV contracts are just not enough. We also don't know if the TV contracts will only be for a partial season which makes sense that the teams would only receive money for the games that they play. That means with a 100 game season that is about 60% of the TV contract revenue that would normally come in. I believe it is safe to say that the teams at the lower end of the TV revenue scale are going to lose money this season. I think the best bet for fans at games will only be at 25% capacity which might allow the lower revenue teams to get into the black.

 

This is also not taking into any consideration any expenses that the team will have to incur due to reopening and allowing fans into the stadium. There are going to be things that the teams are going to have to buy like digital thermometers and extra masks if they are required by the state not only for the players and employees but for the fans also. I just don't see how this season is going to be a financial success for the small market teams. The large market teams will be fine as their TV contracts will cover their expenses and then some the fans in the stadium will just be an extra bonus for them.

[owbc]

I’ll never understand why so many of you will bend over backwards to defend billionaires. They signed guaranteed contracts to pay players X amount for X number of games played. Every single team in MLB could easily eat a $100 million loss without any long-term consequences. All that’s going on here is straight up capitalism, they are trying to not spend a penny more than they have to.

 

I’m not even necessarily on the players’ side, I’m just calling out the BS of the owners’ arguments. And Boras is pointing out the important fact that the players have ALL of the leverage in these negotiations, so he’s telling them not to budge.

[owbc]

 

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.

 

The Brewers are a great example of a team that tried to get public funding for their spring training facility, failed to do so, and then ate the entire $60 million cost themselves while running a record high payroll at the same time. Followed by signing their star player to a huge extension. Doesn’t sound like a team that is hurting for money to me. If fans return in 2021 then this year is little more than a bump in the road.

[ZBTMP]

 

The Brewers are a great example of a team that tried to get public funding for their spring training facility, failed to do so, and then ate the entire $60 million cost themselves while running a record high payroll at the same time. Followed by signing their star player to a huge extension. Doesn’t sound like a team that is hurting for money to me. If fans return in 2021 then this year is little more than a bump in the road.

 

Its not about taking a side. Its about wanting games played. Sure owners could operate this season at a loss, but there is no motivation for them to do so. By the same logic, the millionaire players could play this season for free. If the players are going to take a hardline stance of no paycut with substantial revenue reduction, the season doesn’t seem possible.

And here is the big thing to emphasize….. INCREASING PLAYER SALARIES DISPROPORTIONATLY AFFECTS SMALL MARKET TEAMS. I don’t care if that isnt the leagues primary motivation, I just care that it is the consequence. You touch on this yourself with the Brewers financing their own spring training renovation. I don’t want the Brewers to be obligated to spend that money on player salaries, I want them making more spring training facilities, stable development environments, increased world wide scouting, etc.

Whether its decreasing free agent service time or raising minimum salaries; it will affect those teams who have a higher % of its payroll made up of these players. I will gladly get behind proposals to decrease revenue that increase fan access for the long term interest of the game but neither side has much motivation to pursue those things

[Fear The Chorizo]

And Boras is pointing out the important fact that the players have ALL of the leverage in these negotiations

 

ALL the leverage would imply the players have another league/option to continue playing and earning their current contracted salaries if this group of billionaire owners doesn't capitulate and there's not a MLB season. If there's no season this year, there will be a lot of current non-marquee MLB players who will never set foot on a major league field again. And for the most part, "billionaire owners" in reality is a whole lot of ownership groups that individually aren't all billionaires - these ownership groups, like it or not, have to manage their franchise as a business. It's not nearly as simple as, "well, we can afford to operate at a 10% loss this year because we'll get 'em next year" with pro sports ownership groups - for many of these investors, their regular businesses/net worth portfolios are taking a hit and I'd imagine there will be turnover in minority owners across the pro sports leagues - including MLB. A handful of MLB organizations with sole ownership families and/or huge market clubs are essentially immune to the problems many small and mid-market MLB ownership groups are facing with essentially no revenue coming in aside from TV/broadcast $$, with the prospect of diminished ticket/merchandise revenues for much longer than 2020 knowing that people are going to have diminished disposable income and overall wariness to congregating in large crowds for awhile. No doubt the MLB owners are just as fractured as the players likely are in terms of 'haves' and 'have nots' when they are facing the prospect of no on-field product - a pro sports league isn't a league if there's not games.

 

I'd argue that nobody has leverage in this situation, because the reason MLB is in this predicament has nothing to do with baseball. If both parties can't understand that then they deserve universal resentment - owners and players. MLB had a golden opportunity to have the sports spotlight this summer, and it sure looks like they've ruined things for themselves even if they wind up reaching an agreement - European soccer leagues are ramping back up, NASCAR and Golf in the US are active, the NFL will have its full season, the NBA and NHL are likely to be running its playoff series during the midst of any MLB regular season later this summer. If MLB can't salvage some form of a season despite it not having to abruptly halt their ongoing regular season games/playoffs like the NBA/NHL needed to this spring, it will be egg on their faces for a loooong time - and as adambr2 posted the primary reason for not having a season wouldn't be player/coach/staff safety - it'd be $$$. That's a terrible look for the league heading into its next round of CBA negotiations. Reality is this is presently unfolding as a CBA negotiation.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Fear The Chorizo

[homer]

 

The Brewers are a great example of a team that tried to get public funding for their spring training facility, failed to do so, and then ate the entire $60 million cost themselves while running a record high payroll at the same time. Followed by signing their star player to a huge extension. Doesn’t sound like a team that is hurting for money to me. If fans return in 2021 then this year is little more than a bump in the road.

 

Its not about taking a side. Its about wanting games played. Sure owners could operate this season at a loss, but there is no motivation for them to do so. By the same logic, the millionaire players could play this season for free. If the players are going to take a hardline stance of no paycut with substantial revenue reduction, the season doesn’t seem possible.

s

 

A player making zero dollars is not the same as an owner losing money on an investment.

[ZBTMP]

 

Its not about taking a side. Its about wanting games played. Sure owners could operate this season at a loss, but there is no motivation for them to do so. By the same logic, the millionaire players could play this season for free. If the players are going to take a hardline stance of no paycut with substantial revenue reduction, the season doesn’t seem possible.

s

 

A player making zero dollars is not the same as an owner losing money on an investment.

 

Doesn’t matter, no owner is willingly going to sign up to lose $30 million just because they can just like the players aren’t going to sign up to play for free just because they can. Maybe Im missing significant additional revenue stream, but my simple math says the Brewers’ $10 million in local tv and $25 million in national tv isn’t going to come close to covering prorated salaries and overheads.

[Samurai Bucky]

 

The Brewers are a great example of a team that tried to get public funding for their spring training facility, failed to do so, and then ate the entire $60 million cost themselves while running a record high payroll at the same time. Followed by signing their star player to a huge extension. Doesn’t sound like a team that is hurting for money to me. If fans return in 2021 then this year is little more than a bump in the road.

 

Its not about taking a side. Its about wanting games played. Sure owners could operate this season at a loss, but there is no motivation for them to do so. By the same logic, the millionaire players could play this season for free. If the players are going to take a hardline stance of no paycut with substantial revenue reduction, the season doesn’t seem possible.

s

 

A player making zero dollars is not the same as an owner losing money on an investment.

Even if a player were making zero dollars, does the contract cover health care costs? I'm guessing the team typically pays for surgery, etc.

 

According to the following link, it seems like they would still receive insurance...

https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-health-insurance-do-MLB-players-receive

[homer]

Speaking of insurance, do teams have any kind of catastrophe insurance? I would think so in case of like an earthquake or war or something. I have no idea though.

[LouisEly]

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.

If they are losing money per game, then no, it's not something the owners will get behind. It's players wanting more salary, nothing more than that.

 

I’ll never understand why so many of you will bend over backwards to defend billionaires. They signed guaranteed contracts to pay players X amount for X number of games played.

I can't speak for others, but for me (as someone who is in one lawsuit against the former owner of my house and about to be in another lawsuit against the HOA) it's about adhering to everything that is in the agreement. We only hear about the headlines, a fraction of the stipulations that are in all of these contracts/proposals/agreements.

 

The ESPN article I linked to a couple of weeks ago detailed the owners proposal to the players that many people are now saying that (paraphrasing) the owners are not honoring the agreement. That's the headline, but it's not the entire proposal. The ESPN article clearly says that there are stipulations to that proposal, one of which was that (paraphrasing) there would be no restrictions on public gatherings that would prevent fans from attending games. That stipulation clearly will not be met, therefore the proposal is void because not all of the stipulations will be met.

 

Right now I'm out $50,000 because the former owner of my house and the HOA are not honoring everything that is in the relevant agreements, not just the headlines.

[pacopete4]

If the MLB doesn’t play this year and other sports do, they’ll have a hard time getting me back as a hardcore fan. I probably will always follow the game to some extent but going to games, buying gear, etc.. nope.

[Mr Southpaw]

If the MLB doesn’t play this year and other sports do, they’ll have a hard time getting me back as a hardcore fan. I probably will always follow the game to some extent but going to games, buying gear, etc.. nope.

 

Same here. Rich and greedy on both ends.

[Dean Machine]

I’ll never understand why so many of you will bend over backwards to defend billionaires. They signed guaranteed contracts to pay players X amount for X number of games played. Every single team in MLB could easily eat a $100 million loss without any long-term consequences. All that’s going on here is straight up capitalism, they are trying to not spend a penny more than they have to.

 

I’m not even necessarily on the players’ side, I’m just calling out the BS of the owners’ arguments. And Boras is pointing out the important fact that the players have ALL of the leverage in these negotiations, so he’s telling them not to budge.

 

I would think every sports team is worth 50 percent of what it was worth in March. Who would possibly spend billions of dollars when you don't know when fans will be back and if and when another virus will hit.

[OldHeidelberg]

I haven't been following this that much, just waiting for an announcement either way, and I am sure this has been covered here but just reading if there is no season the players get service time that matches 2019. So guys like Woodruff and Hader are both a year closer to FA and for us it's about like they missed a season due to injury. But if we play for 3 months they get 3 months service time which could push out FA for some guys another year? If true it seems like they made it more complicated to get a deal done to play this year.

[rickh150]

I haven't been following this that much, just waiting for an announcement either way, and I am sure this has been covered here but just reading if there is no season the players get service time that matches 2019. So guys like Woodruff and Hader are both a year closer to FA and for us it's about like they missed a season due to injury. But if we play for 3 months they get 3 months service time which could push out FA for some guys another year? If true it seems like they made it more complicated to get a deal done to play this year.

 

Great insight on the service time... not sure if what you are saying is true, though. For some reason, I thought they were getting full service time, or like last year, regardless of how many games are played this year.

[MVP2110]

[JimH5]

 

It's encouraging that the Players Association came back with an actual offer.

 

With all of the tragic news in the headlines over the past few days, neither side of the baseball negotiation is likely to garner much in the way of public support. Caring about baseball seems like a luxury.

 

The two sides will either work it out or they won't. But doing their negotiating in public seems petulant. We have more important stuff in the public consciousness right now.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

It's encouraging that the Players Association came back with an actual offer.

 

With all of the tragic news in the headlines over the past few days, neither side of the baseball negotiation is likely to garner much in the way of public support. Caring about baseball seems like a luxury.

 

The two sides will either work it out or they won't. But doing their negotiating in public seems petulant. We have more important stuff in the public consciousness right now.

 

I feel like a lot of people have checked out of this. I think I'm there. They could never say another word about MLB this year and I've moved on. The fact that I can't go to any games really sucks a lot of it out for me. Personally, I think all the makeshift season ideas for all the leagues just make it illegitimate. If the Bucks go on and win their pick-up tournament with no fans at Disney World, it will be pretty hard for me to consider that a championship.

 

At this point I'd be unaffected by a white flag and a commitment to make this work in March. With fans, like normal, as it should be.

 

When something drags out this long people adjust. Probably a lot of people that have realized going for walks with their families is a better use of time than 3.5 hours with FSN every night. Just feels like it's past the point of giving people some hope - most of us have adjusted to how things are now.

[adambr2]

 

It's encouraging that the Players Association came back with an actual offer.

 

With all of the tragic news in the headlines over the past few days, neither side of the baseball negotiation is likely to garner much in the way of public support. Caring about baseball seems like a luxury.

 

The two sides will either work it out or they won't. But doing their negotiating in public seems petulant. We have more important stuff in the public consciousness right now.

 

The constant pining for public support is the equivalent of this:

 

You work for corporate at Walmart and your salary is $1,000,000 per year. As time goes by, the company, and the CEO and Board of Directors are making even more money than they were before. They decide that they want to keep as much of this as possible and not share it with you. So you go out to your local Walmart and explain your situation to the cashiers and stockers about how unfair the CEO and Board are being.

 

Are they being unfair? Well, yeah, probably, but good luck getting anyone to care.

 

This is why neither side is going to get public support and neither side got public support in 1994.

[JackNicholson1974]

 

It's encouraging that the Players Association came back with an actual offer.

 

With all of the tragic news in the headlines over the past few days, neither side of the baseball negotiation is likely to garner much in the way of public support. Caring about baseball seems like a luxury.

 

The two sides will either work it out or they won't. But doing their negotiating in public seems petulant. We have more important stuff in the public consciousness right now.

 

I feel like a lot of people have checked out of this. I think I'm there. They could never say another word about MLB this year and I've moved on. The fact that I can't go to any games really sucks a lot of it out for me. Personally, I think all the makeshift season ideas for all the leagues just make it illegitimate. If the Bucks go on and win their pick-up tournament with no fans at Disney World, it will be pretty hard for me to consider that a championship.

 

At this point I'd be unaffected by a white flag and a commitment to make this work in March. With fans, like normal, as it should be.

 

When something drags out this long people adjust. Probably a lot of people that have realized going for walks with their families is a better use of time than 3.5 hours with FSN every night. Just feels like it's past the point of giving people some hope - most of us have adjusted to how things are now.

 

 

This is a pretty good take. I miss sports. I miss going to sporting events, the anticipation of taking my family, but I have adjusted. From time to time I remember that I miss sporting events, but as with anything, other things have taken the place of sports in my life. For one a lot more exercise. Cooking. A lot of projects around the house.

 

I am entirely sick of the hang ups on play or not play. I dont care anymore. I want a decision one way or another sooner rather than later.

[dlk9s]

I don't care if they have a season or not or if it's a full season or not. I just want everyone to be healthy. If that means no season, I don't care as a fan. I certainly feel for the players, staff, stadium employees, and people who indirectly make their living from baseball (hell, the pandemic has cost my wife her job), but simply from a baseball fan's perspective, I can deal with a lost season if it means people are healthy.

[clancyphile]

At this point, I say write off 2020, players get 50% pay for the season, contracts automatically extended for a year (since the season was cancelled through neither the fault of owners or players), and just come back for 2021.

[adambr2]

At this point, I say write off 2020, players get 50% pay for the season, contracts automatically extended for a year (since the season was cancelled through neither the fault of owners or players), and just come back for 2021.

 

The 50% pay for the season with no revenue is going to be a non-starter for owners, and extending contracts for a year is going to be a non-starter with players especially after already getting service time agreements for this season.

[Fear The Chorizo]

MLB owners will now offer a 50 game season with full prorated salaries across the board. So now instead of a handful of marquee players getting significant pay reductions while most of the regulars get what amounts to a full prorated salary despite no gameday gate/ticket revenues, all MLB players will have the option to make peanuts on their overall contract amounts while playing in far fewer games to maximize "safety".

 

MLB had a perceived advantage in not having its regular season halted by Covid shutting the world down - but they are at a disadvantage in that 75-90% of its regular season revenue wasn't already on their books like the NBA/NHL had. No gameday gate/ticket revenue plus uncertainty of postseason baseball due to inclement weather or the unkown surrounding a second wave of infections that shuts their season down before postseason TV revenue is available makes this alot trickier that just millionaires and billionaires arguing over huge piles of money.