Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flavum

MLB considering 154 game and delayed schedule

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

We don't watch the owners. We watch the players. Without the players, the owners have nothing. 

The players should get more. Simple as that. Owners were making money hand over fist before the pandemic and the players deserve more. They are the product.  

Without the owners, we get nothing too. I get you are very anti-ownership, but aligning yourself to one side without compromise is not how the business world works.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

We don't watch the owners. We watch the players. Without the players, the owners have nothing. 

The players should get more. Simple as that. Owners were making money hand over fist before the pandemic and the players deserve more. 

And the owners get their money from the fans. Majority of fans would probably want expanded playoffs. If fans want it, no matter who ultimately gets more money out of it, it should be implemented. If they don't agree to a deal to start the season by at least May, this sport is going to start losing fans fast.

If the compromise is expanded playoffs, and they get NL DH, plus full pay minus 8 games...you gotta take it. Negotiate more with the expanded playoffs if you want, but that's a deal worth taking. No one involved in the business of this game can afford to not play out the season...due to money haggling.

Edited by ScooterMcGee
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Without the owners, we get nothing too. I get you are very anti-ownership, but aligning yourself to one side without compromise is not how the business world works.

I'm anti-zero sum game, not anti ownership. Don't be condescending to me. Economics is a hobby of mine. I tend to focus on the practical side rather than the theoretical side. (hint-practical side says theory is incorrect) 

They say that a rising tide should lift all boats, but everywhere in American society that's not happening. 

Think win-win. 

The owners think win-lose. They make more money and engage in anticompetitive behavior. That's not how it should work. 

I'm all for being reasonable, but generally, people need to make a living wage and in the upper reaches like Baseball, owners are not sharing enough of the revenue with the players. 

I'm not saying that owners shouldn't turn a profit, but I am saying that the proportion of profit to salaries/wages is out of whack. Not just in baseball, but everywhere. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the flip side, teams that are fringe playoff teams could look to add to compete (or not) instead of tearing it down and selling off now or at the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jack Parkman said:

I'm anti-zero sum game, not anti ownership. 

Think win-win. 

The owners think win-lose. They make more money and engage in anticompetitive behavior. That's not how it should work. 

I'm all for being reasonable, but generally, people need to make a living wage and in the upper reaches like Baseball, owners are not sharing enough of the revenue with the players. 

I'm not saying that owners shouldn't turn a profit, but I am saying that the proportion of profit to salaries/wages is out of whack. Not just in baseball, but everywhere. 

Well, this proposal is a win-win if you ask me. Owners get their expanded playoffs. Players play less games without a decrease in pay and DH, fans have more of a chance to go to games since the season is pushed back. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

Yeah, I noticed that too and was surprised it isn't being discussed more. That alone is enough for the union to reject, even with the other ~6 reasons in the Nightengale article 

I don't think this was posted here actually:

Lots of good insight in there for why they'll reject, such as the proposal including Manfred having full authority to halt the season, the fact that pitchers are already ramping up and would likely see an increase in injuries (like last year), the lack of off days in the proposal and their impact on health, and more

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'm anti-zero sum game, not anti ownership. 

Think win-win. 

The owners think win-lose. They make more money and engage in anticompetitive behavior. That's not how it should work. 

I'm all for being reasonable, but generally, people need to make a living wage and in the upper reaches like Baseball, owners are not sharing enough of the revenue with the players. 

I'm not saying that owners shouldn't turn a profit, but I am saying that the proportion of profit to salaries/wages is out of whack. Not just in baseball, but everywhere. 

This I just don't understand, in the baseball world. I understand that there is a wage gap, believe me I do. But in sports? Let's say an owner makes a billion dollars a season. Payroll of the major league team is, let's say 130 million.

I wonder how much it costs to lease the ballpark. Cost of taxes for the park.

Cost of facilities to the park.

Cost of transportation for the players to away games. 

Cost of the hotels at away games.

Cost of feeding the players.

Cost of other personal running the park and the coaches.

Cost of equipment.

Cost of ballpark food.

Cost of keeping the park clean. Cost of the grounds crew and their equipment.

Cost of upgrades to the park.

There are so many costs, and I'm sure I'm not even making a dent in it all.

Not all the money goes into the pockets of the owners. They aren't all greedy. They want to invest back into the product they own. Most of them anyway

Edited by ScooterMcGee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Well, this proposal is a win-win if you ask me. Owners get their expanded playoffs. Players play less games without a decrease in pay and DH, fans have more of a chance to go to games since the season is pushed back. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

Not if you realize that expanded playoffs are a salary suppression tool. 

No expanded playoffs without a floor and soft cap. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don't think this was posted here actually:

Lots of good insight in there for why they'll reject, such as the proposal including Manfred having full authority to halt the season, the fact that pitchers are already ramping up and would likely see an increase in injuries (like last year), the lack of off days in the proposal and their impact on health, and more

Those are things that I didn't know about. Interesting...ugh maybe this is going to drag on forever...again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don't think this was posted here actually:

Lots of good insight in there for why they'll reject, such as the proposal including Manfred having full authority to halt the season, the fact that pitchers are already ramping up and would likely see an increase in injuries (like last year), the lack of off days in the proposal and their impact on health, and more

Yes, **** these ****** ************* *********** ***** ** **** ******* ********. **** Rob, Jerry, and the other 29 ************ **** ** **** ***** ******** who would not only **** ***** ******, but would also send her ***,

The proposal, however, would not guarantee full pay if the season was shorter than 154 games, while still giving Commissioner Rob Manfred authority to suspend the season for health concerns, according to two additional people with direct knowledge of the proposal. 

The union has steadfastly rejected the expanded postseason proposal in talks this winter, believing it would disincentivize teams’ willingness to spend if it would be easier to qualify for the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

This I just don't understand, in the baseball world. I understand that there is a wage gap, believe me I do. But in sports? Let's say an owner makes a billion dollars a season. Payroll of the major league team is, let's say 130 million.

I wonder how much it costs to lease the ballpark. Cost of taxes for the park.

Cost of facilities to the park.

Cost of transportation for the players to away games. 

Cost of the hotels at away games.

Cost of feeding the players.

Cost of other personal running the park and the coaches.

Cost of equipment.

Cost of ballpark food.

There are so many costs, and I'm sure I'm not even making a dent in it all.

Not all the money goes into the pockets of the owners. They aren't all greedy. They want to invest back into the product they own. Most of them anyway

Have you been paying attention the last few years to baseball at all? 

The overwhelming majority of baseball owners have been engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The number of owners cutting payroll is ridiculous. The Pittsburgh Pirates are a disgrace to MLB. Even the Yankees and Dodgers have been partaking in some of this behavior to a degree. 

If you think all of the owners aren't greedy, you haven't been paying attention. 

The issue with MLB vs other sports is that in the other sports, they all sacrificed multiple seasons to institute a cap/floor system. 

Neither side in baseball wants a cap and floor system. Owners want the freedom to spend as little as possible on players, and players want owners to spend as much as possible on players. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

Those are things that I didn't know about. Interesting...ugh maybe this is going to drag on forever...again...

Nah, I don't think it will be like last year. There's really no reason for the season to not start as scheduled, given that the CBA is in place and the government is allowing every other league to play too.

 

The only way I can see a delay (barring a surprise acceptance from MLBPA) is if the owners can somehow "convince" the government to deem an on time season as unsafe/hazardous, but I have a hard time believing that will happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players union playing a game of chicken they may ultimately lose on.

Edited by Soxfest
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Have you been paying attention the last few years to baseball at all? 

The overwhelming majority of baseball owners have been engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The number of owners cutting payroll is ridiculous. The Pittsburgh Pirates are a disgrace to MLB. Even the Yankees and Dodgers have been partaking in some of this behavior to a degree. 

If you think all of the owners aren't greedy, you haven't been paying attention. 

The issue with MLB vs other sports is that in the other sports, they all sacrificed multiple seasons to institute a cap/floor system. 

Neither side in baseball wants a cap and floor system. Owners want the freedom to spend as little as possible on players, and players want owners to spend as much as possible on players. 

Look, I just want to go back to the good old days when we were discussing division realignment, schedule restructuring and team expansion lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now: I'm not saying that the MLBPA is completely innocent here, as CBA negotiations get started: 

1) The MLBPA has to realize that the luxury tax as it currently exists is a de facto soft cap. They've already lost that negotiation, and there is no going back. It's time to negotiate an NBA style cap and floor system. The cat is out of the bag. 

2) This gets the owners to open their books, which the MLBPA has been trying to do since its inception. Get the owners to open their books, then decide on a revenue split and the cap will be like 70% of the ceiling. Keep the Luxury tax penalties the same as the penalty for going over the soft cap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

Look, I just want to go back to the good old days when we were discussing division realignment, schedule restructuring and team expansion lol.

I think we all do but income inequality is an issue in every aspect of life, and even though it's happening on a much larger monetary scale in sports, they aren't immune either. The averagely productive player in sports leagues are getting squeezed, too. It's all about finding the best or the cheapest, and there's no room for anything in between. The entire business model has changed at the macro level, and it's resulted in some very negative consequences.  

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flavum said:

I think they’ll be able to have a longer season. It’s about the Arizona issue and the vaccine rollout. Definitely ok with a May 1st start if they can end the season with 140+ games and fans in the stands.

C’mon man you know it has zero to do with anything covid related, last season was proof of this, baseball cannot get out of its own way when it comes to this stuff. Every other sports league seems to make it work, this is just simple bickering ahead of time in preparation for the new CBA. Going to have a really bad taste in my mouth if this is 2.0 of last season right before a potential lock out next offseason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

With an expanded postseason, owners no longer have the incentive to build 95 win teams. In that case 85 win teams are suddenly acceptable. 

big hell no to expanded postseason. Union should reject it. 

It could result in teams with 78-82 wins making the postseason with regularity. This is a salary suppressing stunt. 

I don’t agree with this at all. Expanded playoffs leads to more teams trying. With 5 in each league, there will be much more tanking. What is the incentive for anyone in the NL West to try and win if it’s 5 teams per league? Why would the Phillies or Marlins add anymore at all? People agree with you but I don’t think it makes any sense 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Well, this proposal is a win-win if you ask me. Owners get their expanded playoffs. Players play less games without a decrease in pay and DH, fans have more of a chance to go to games since the season is pushed back. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 

This is quite a concession. We are maybe six months to vaccine critical mass. Might as well have some hall games. This is not the fan's problem. Just get it done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all about money. On both sides. The owners don’t want to start the season without fans. The players aren’t doing an expanded playoffs without splitting that revenue. If they can’t agree to something, it’s different this year though. Season starts on time and they play 162 under the old rules. It’s pretty cut and dry. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoCalChiSox said:

The union would be dumb to accept this. 

The most important sword the union can wield in the CBA talks is the expanded postseason but the owners know if you have expanded postseason two years in a row and fans like it, it puts alot of pressure for the union to agree to it in the future, and at that point it becomes impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

playing 8 less games for full play in exchange for getting more playoff teams and players getting playoff shares?  This sounds like something players should jump at honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don’t agree with this at all. Expanded playoffs leads to more teams trying. With 5 in each league, there will be much more tanking. What is the incentive for anyone in the NL West to try and win if it’s 5 teams per league? Why would the Phillies or Marlins add anymore at all? People agree with you but I don’t think it makes any sense 

There is no advantage in expanded playoffs to win 95 games vs 84-88. 

Where teams become disincentivized is at the top. Teams that are already good have no reason to plug roster holes. 

Also, if you go back there are a lot of 77-80 win teams that qualify for the playoffs under this scenario. It could lead to widespread mediocrity rather than excellence from a few teams. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScooterMcGee said:

These negotiations should have started right after the world series ended.

The problem is until you have a grasp on what attendance and health situations look like, it is kind of hard to make plans for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, southsider2k5 said:

playing 8 less games for full play in exchange for getting more playoff teams and players getting playoff shares?  This sounds like something players should jump at honestly.

The MLBPA views expanded playoffs as a salary suppression maneuver, so I do not think they'll agree to it under any circumstances this year. If they do, the cat is out of the bag and the regular season becomes a glorified seeding exercise. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

I think the players union would be idiots to agree to anything that includes an expanded postseason. 10 teams is plenty. Less is more when it comes to the playoffs. Cut to the chase. 

The players care about getting paid.  This gets them paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×