• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 MLB Season Thread -- Rays v. Dodgers -- Small Payroll v. Large Payroll

Have the players made an offer yet? I may have missed it, but I keep hearing the owners' offers and the players rejecting them....which they probably should. They need to get beyond just saying "no" to win the fans. Every other sport has a plan and schedule to resume playing except baseball.

They had a deal earlier that everyone agreed to with pro-rated pay.
 
They had a deal earlier that everyone agreed to with pro-rated pay.

The deal had an "economically feasibility" provision that provided for a second negotiation if games were not going to be played without fans. This was explained to the MLBPA before the March 26 deal was finalized: https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/mlb-thinks-email-is-smoking-gun-in-salary-fight-with-players/

BTW, as part of the March 26 deal, the owners agreed to pay a $170 million advance to the players in 2020 salaries which they would keep if there was no season, and the owners agreed that 2020 service time would count if there was no season, which was huge for young players approaching free agency and arbitration eligibility. So, the MLBPA already received key concessions in the March deal. Why would MLB agree to pay pro-rata salaries to the players if some or all of the games were played under conditions when at least 40% of the revenues in ticket and concession revenue are lost for the games that are played without fans? That would make no sense, and was expressly explained before the deal was signed and $170 million was paid.
 
A whole $170M??? That's not even the Yankees or Dodgers' single team payroll. It's less than $6M/team. It's nothing.

Something I haven't seen much talk about is what about Latin or Asian players who can't travel to the US to play. What happens to them?
 
$170 million is player salaries when no games are played is something. Particularly for the MLB minimum guys. It was up to the MLBPA to decide how to distribute the money.

The US Government has already advised all of the pro leagues that it will take the necessary steps for foreign based players to get the necessary approvals to return to the US. This applies to the NHL, NBA, MLB and PGA. Returning players will need to follow a testing/quarantine protocol when entering the US. These are the same steps that US players already took when they returned to South Korea and Japan for the start of those baseball leagues.
 
I believe the players over Shillchard and the owners. They are not losing more money paying prorated salaries and getting no incidental revenue than playing no games at all.
 
One other aspect that makes this a completely different scenario than a typical CBA negotiation is that both the MLB and the MLBPA agree that any player that doesn't want to play this year because of pandemic concerns or a determination that it's not worth playing for a reduced salary for 82 games, does not have to play this season. Their contract will not be voided and they will not lose their vested rights as an MLB player. Meaning that those that elect to not play will receive their contractual guaranteed amounts in future years, and they will receive credit for service time for free agency, arbitration and pensions for this season. So, if Blake Snell or Max Scherzer don't want to play given the current circumstances, they don't have to play without voiding their contract or their rights as an MLB player.

If the owners don't want to pay the full pro rata per game share for the highest paid players, the highest paid players can say "FU; I'm not playing", and the owner is still on the hook for the balance of their contract (so, Bryce is still going to get his $30 million for the next 11 years; just not in the year of the pandemic which shutdown the sport for at least half a season and which will likely keep fans from going to games). If enough top players elect to not play, maybe the owners change their tune and offer to pay a higher percentage of their 2020 wage. OTOH, if there are players that want to play, under whatever the best deal that they can negotiate, those players can play. This is not a typical collective bargaining situation where every player has to agree to the negotiated conditions or their contract could be voided, and the MLBPA rights are lost.

If getting paid a reduced portion of your salary to play from July to October is a non-starter for you, don't play. If it is acceptable to you, let's play.
 
Last edited:
So stars should play 50% of the season for 20% of their pay?

That makes no sense.
 
If I'm the networks and advertisers, I'm not paying anything close to full contractual price if start sit out. The outlets should offer ownership 5-10% if they are offering the players who drive viewership and ad prices 20%.
 
Scherzer nailed it. There's no reason to believe MLB's claims of financial distress unless they release more proof.

 
If I'm the networks and advertisers, I'm not paying anything close to full contractual price if start sit out. The outlets should offer ownership 5-10% if they are offering the players who drive viewership and ad prices 20%.

Many of the teams (Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Orioles), now own all or part of the local networks that televise MLB games. So, if the advertisers refuse to shell out the cash, the MLB teams will feel it immediately. Regardless of who is playing, ratings will spike when/if games are played. That said, the available money from advertisers may not be as strong.
 
The deal had an "economically feasibility" provision that provided for a second negotiation if games were not going to be played without fans. This was explained to the MLBPA before the March 26 deal was finalized: https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/mlb-thinks-email-is-smoking-gun-in-salary-fight-with-players/

BTW, as part of the March 26 deal, the owners agreed to pay a $170 million advance to the players in 2020 salaries which they would keep if there was no season, and the owners agreed that 2020 service time would count if there was no season, which was huge for young players approaching free agency and arbitration eligibility. So, the MLBPA already received key concessions in the March deal. Why would MLB agree to pay pro-rata salaries to the players if some or all of the games were played under conditions when at least 40% of the revenues in ticket and concession revenue are lost for the games that are played without fans? That would make no sense, and was expressly explained before the deal was signed and $170 million was paid.

The “smoking gun” article you linked has been widely ridiculed across all platforms. The e-mail was from an MLB employee to another MLB employee about an alleged verbal conversation with an MLBPA employee. Misleading headline and nothing in that article strengthens ownership’s position. The economic feasibility section is in an entirely different section of the agreement from the pro rated and other compensation provisions in the March agreement. MLBPA would win in arbitration on this matter.

The MLB lawyers messed up the drafting and the MLBPA lawyers did not get that message out quick enough allowing for “both sides” debates or the age old, fans defend the laundry (and thus ownership) over players.

Salary deferment is most likely way out for both sides here to save face, for 2020. Then ownership will spend nothing this offseason and 2021 CBA stage will be set for an ugly, but much needed battle.
 
Think the MLB lost me this year. Owners and league front office have truly shown their stripes.
 
Think the MLB lost me this year. Owners and league front office have truly shown their stripes.

They hadn't already shown their stripes? This is the same group of owners that essentially used Congress to ensure that minor league players would never be able to unionize or argue for reasonable pay (or even something approaching minimum wage). It's also the same group of executives that frequently abuses service time rules in order to prevent star players from being paid reasonably until they are, at best, in their mid twenties.

The MLB owners/execs care more clearly about money and only money than any other sport.
 
Think the MLB lost me this year. Owners and league front office have truly shown their stripes.

It's sucks, I'm feeling much more apathetic than I expected.

Meanwhile, I have $600 tied up in Rays @ Cubs tickets for 4th of July weekend. No refunds yet because MLB has only officially cancelled games through May.
 
The MLB owners/execs care more clearly about money and only money than any other sport.

Just to illustrate this further, Ronald Acuña Jr. hasn't even made $2 million yet including his signing bonus in 2014, all his minor league pay, and two seasons of MLB pay. Zion Williamson probably was paid almost as much in NCAA-illegal payments before he got drafted than Acuña Jr. has been paid in salary thus far. And Acuña Jr. is a top 15-20 player in the MLB IMO.
 
Ok the Zion thing is an exaggeration but I thought it was funny
 
I think Pilch was pointing this out but a huge part of MLB revenues are ticket sales/concessions, etc. Yeah I know some team owners also own networks which throws numbers off, but that's a mess to even get into. The fact is there is a huge gap between total revenue and TV revenue in MLB compared to the NFL or NBA. I'm sure the owners suck and aren't being as fair as they could, but don't see how the players could expect anything close to pro rata given the massive rev loss due to empty stadiums.
 
When you own a business, sometimes you lose, but you honor your contracts if you want to continue. Sports owners have had the value of their teams skyrocket during the past decade. They have the ability to take one year of big losses.
 
Just to illustrate this further, Ronald Acuña Jr. hasn't even made $2 million yet including his signing bonus in 2014, all his minor league pay, and two seasons of MLB pay. Zion Williamson probably was paid almost as much in NCAA-illegal payments before he got drafted than Acuña Jr. has been paid in salary thus far. And Acuña Jr. is a top 15-20 player in the MLB IMO.

A lot of that's on Acuna's agent for signing him to ridiculously awful contract.

Some owners have the ability to take on this year's losses and other's don't.

The bottom line is of the players won't budge off paying a full pro-rated salary, and then the question becomes under which scenario do owners lose less: no season, but with no further payroll obligations until 2021 or a season with no gate/concession/parking revenues and perhaps reduced advertising/media revenues while paying players the pro rata amount? If the answer is no season; there won't be a season. Owners lose, players lose, fans lose.
 
Back
Top