Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hogan873

Will There Be a 2020 Season?

Will there be a 2020 season? And if so, what will it look like?  

147 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you THINK is going to happen?

    • Season is cancelled
      59
    • Season starts in June with all teams in AZ. No fans all season.
      10
    • Season starts in June with teams at spring training facilities. No fans all season.
      14
    • Season starts in June either in AZ or spring training sites, and limited attendance is eventually allowed by late summer
      21
    • Season starts in June/July at home parks with no fans all season
      19
    • Season starts in June/July at home parks. Limited attendance is eventually allowed by late summer.
      22
    • Another scenario...leave some comments
      2


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

That opinion requires belief that the owners are telling the truth about their finances.....I happen to believe that they're full of shit. 

If they want to have anything less than prorated salary which in and of itself is fair, they better be willing to open their books. Prove it. 

It's not difficult to figure out the financing for this year. The owners are taking a 2/3 cut in revenue. With 81 games the players only take a 50% payout. Huge advantage players with no sacrifice. For the money to have equal risks on both sides the players would need to take a 2/3 paycut as well. Guess how many games that is? 54  That is where the number of games is coming from the owners. The owners view is that if they need to take a 2/3 paycut, the players should as well.

Share this post


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

This deal however was based upon the 3xpectations of fans eventually returning and the playoffs occurring,  both of which are looking less possible. The players dont need to change but they are the ones that arent sacrificing anything else while the owners are.

They should have thought of that before they made the bad deal.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That opinion requires belief that the owners are telling the truth about their finances.....I happen to believe that they're full of shit. 

If they want to have anything less than prorated salary which in and of itself is fair, they better be willing to open their books. Prove it. 

That's a discussion for when the CBA is up and you are re-negotiating the CBA.

But for now, there's nothing to prove. Anyone who understands basic mathematics knows they are taking a massive revenue hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They should have thought of that before they made the bad deal.  

All unions renegotiate based on extreme circumstances.  Our union had long negotiations to change our agreement based on the changes in the academic year. Its bargaining in good faith when circumstances change.

Edited by ptatc
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It's not difficult to figure out the financing for this year. The owners are taking a 2/3 cut in revenue. With 81 games the players only take a 50% payout. Huge advantage players with no sacrifice. For the money to have equal risks on both sides the players would need to take a 2/3 paycut as well. Guess how many games that is? 54  That is where the number of games is coming from the owners. The owners view is that if they need to take a 2/3 paycut, the players should as well.

Nah, that's the owners saying what they want the fans to believe. Why would they tell the truth? 

Share this post


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

All unions renegotiate based on extreme circumstances.  Our union had long negotiations to change our agreement based on the changes in the academic year. Its bargaining in good faith when circumstances change.

Baseball owners and good faith.  Surely you jest.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if owners hadn't insisted on paying minor leaguers poverty wages all these years, it'd be easier to listen them to cry poor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Nah, that's the owners saying what they want the fans to believe. Why would they tell the truth? 

You dont need to listen to the owners figure it out for yourself. Revenues last year were 10 billion. Fans brought in roughly 3 billion. That leaves 6 billion from all other revenue likeTV, advertising, etc. If they play 1/2 of the games that another 3 billion loss. Hence the 2/3 loss. Its not hard.

The big wildcard is the playoffs. That's why the owners have different scenarios for if the playoffs happen or not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Baseball owners and good faith.  Surely you jest.

I was referring to the players not negotiating in good faith because they wont change the agreement. I dont know if you've ever been part of union negotiations but the owners act like any other management group. Your comment is what every union steward and negotiator says. Are reading about the nurses strike in Joliet. Same rhetoric from both sides. 

Hospital we dont have the money to sustain this

Nurses we arent getting therapy and benefits we deserve

Hospital we are losing money and need to change

Nurses you arent bargaining we call for a strike vote

Vote called and approved by 90%

Hospital we cant afford to go on like this 

 

 

The only difference with MLB is its public and everyone is passionate about it. Who cares about a hospital in joliet.

Share this post


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

It's not difficult to figure out the financing for this year. The owners are taking a 2/3 cut in revenue. With 81 games the players only take a 50% payout. Huge advantage players with no sacrifice. For the money to have equal risks on both sides the players would need to take a 2/3 paycut as well. Guess how many games that is? 54  That is where the number of games is coming from the owners. The owners view is that if they need to take a 2/3 paycut, the players should as well.

1. Given that a substantial fraction of the revenue comes from the playoffs, and the playoffs would still happen and could even be expanded, I think the first bolded item is wrong. It's probably wrong based on the Forbes numbers. But of course, more open books could prove you right, and that would make the players much more willing to make a deal. 

2. The second bolded item is missing one hugely important factor; all the other things that go into running a game don't need to happen. You're not paying extra cops to handle traffic. You're not paying security. You're not paying to clean up the ballpark every day. You don't have to bring in a huge amount of food every day. Yes that costs revenue, but the non-player expenses are dramatically lower.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

1. Given that a substantial fraction of the revenue comes from the playoffs, and the playoffs would still happen and could even be expanded, I think the first bolded item is wrong. It's probably wrong based on the Forbes numbers. But of course, more open books could prove you right, and that would make the players much more willing to make a deal. 

2. The second bolded item is missing one hugely important factor; all the other things that go into running a game don't need to happen. You're not paying extra cops to handle traffic. You're not paying security. You're not paying to clean up the ballpark every day. You don't have to bring in a huge amount of food every day. Yes that costs revenue, but the non-player expenses are dramatically lower.

Of course these are all estimates but its not going to be far off.

As for the others they are still paying for staff. They are still paying benefits to all those still employed and those people make much more than the security and such. You're talking the marketing, player development,  medical an d such. With one revenue. The food they bring in actually makes a profit so that is actually a negative. 

You are right that their costs are lower but those are insignificant compared to the players and others I mentioned. So the numbers will be in the ballpark.

Share this post


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

Of course these are all estimates but its not going to be far off.

As for the others they are still paying for staff. They are still paying benefits to all those still employed and those people make much more than the security and such. You're talking the marketing, player development,  medical an d such. With one revenue. The food they bring in actually makes a profit so that is actually a negative. 

You are right that their costs are lower but those are insignificant compared to the players and others I mentioned. So the numbers will be in the ballpark.

If you're talking about the difference in expenses between 50 and 80 games and declaring that 80 games just isn't feasible, in the ballpark isn't precise enough, you can't give me numbers that could be off by 10%. You got to 1/3 of a season, 54 games, because you were arguing that it was precisely 33%. If it's actually 45%, then the right number of games would be 73. 

This is again a great case for opening up the books a little bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Owners don't have to pay minor leaguers, which they long acted is a major expense. Hell, they've cut entire teams.

- Owners don't need to do stadium operation costs.

- Owners won't open the books

- Owners keep proposing the same offer time and time again.

They're bad faith negotiators who previously agreed to a deal. They could have possibly made profit if they started sooner, they didn't.

This all lies at the feet at the owners.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If you're talking about the difference in expenses between 50 and 80 games and declaring that 80 games just isn't feasible, in the ballpark isn't precise enough, you can't give me numbers that could be off by 10%. You got to 1/3 of a season, 54 games, because you were arguing that it was precisely 33%. If it's actually 45%, then the right number of games would be 73. 

This is again a great case for opening up the books a little bit more.

It true that opening the books would help. However, let's deal in reality. It's not going to happen. The union has some information and they arent going to share with the public either. Even if the owners opened the books to the union, the public wouldnt see it.  You can disagree all you want but we'll  never know the actual numbers. So the next best are the estimates and the numbers I gave are logical assumptions for around a 2/3 revenue decrease.

Share this post


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

- Owners don't have to pay minor leaguers, which they long acted is a major expense. Hell, they've cut entire teams.

- Owners don't need to do stadium operation costs.

- Owners won't open the books

- Owners keep proposing the same offer time and time again.

They're bad faith negotiators who previously agreed to a deal. They could have possibly made profit if they started sooner, they didn't.

This all lies at the feet at the owners.

I disagree . Both parties are acting like complete idiots allowing their on agendas to get in the way of what's good for the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ptatc said:

In retrospect from the discussion, I'm really not on the owners side. I've stated before that I can see both points of view. It's just that so many others are so anti-owner that I find myself attempting (and failing) to explain their point of view. No owners are going to run their team as a deficit for any length of time. Just not going to happen, especially with a new CBA coming up. People can talk about the billionaires should take the hit but they arent in business to lose money. Even if they sell the team and make their money the next owner will be the same.

In the end it really doesnt matter to me. I love the game and if the 2 sides are too stubborn and idiotic to come to an agreement,  I will mourn the loss of baseball this year. However, I will go back next year as I enjoy watching the game regardless of how much the player or owners make and regardless of how many other fans are there. I remember the days of the late 80s when it was just me and a friend in right field talking to ivan Calderon because there was no one else there. It was still baseball

My theory had more to do with those directly on the owners side, basically defending them against the players. One can view the reply's in all of the main tweets on this saga where there are people distinctively and aggressively supporting the owners over the players. 

I think your stance on here (from the discussion in the last page) is pretty level headed. 

I'm still 100% on the players side, but I do agree that both sides have room to improve. This debate is an interesting direct relationship to ones political beliefs from sports. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I was referring to the players not negotiating in good faith because they wont change the agreement. I dont know if you've ever been part of union negotiations but the owners act like any other management group. Your comment is what every union steward and negotiator says. Are reading about the nurses strike in Joliet. Same rhetoric from both sides. 

Hospital we dont have the money to sustain this

Nurses we arent getting therapy and benefits we deserve

Hospital we are losing money and need to change

Nurses you arent bargaining we call for a strike vote

Vote called and approved by 90%

Hospital we cant afford to go on like this 

 

 

The only difference with MLB is its public and everyone is passionate about it. Who cares about a hospital in joliet.

what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

what

Sorry rambling while trying to reply while mowing.

Essentially, you're comment is what all union stewards and hardliners say.

In this case it's the players not negotiating in good faith because they wont alter the deal due to exceptional circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Sorry rambling while trying to reply while mowing.

Essentially, you're comment is what all union stewards and hardliners say.

In this case it's the players not negotiating in good faith because they wont alter the deal due to exceptional circumstances. 

The players are under no obligation to renegotiate what has already been agreed to.  The players have negotiated plenty of bad deals and not once did the owners ever renegotiate under "good faith."  The owners made a bad deal and are now holding their breath and stomping their feet until they their way ahile the players are holding thier feet to the fire as they should and all the mathmatical gymnastics, stall tactics  or dirty negotiating in world is going to change that very simple fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The players are under no obligation to renegotiate what has already been agreed to.  The players have negotiated plenty of bad deals and not once did the owners ever renegotiate under "good faith."  The owners made a bad deal and are now holding their breath and stomping their feet until they their way ahile the players are holding thier feet to the fire as they should and all the mathmatical gymnastics, stall tactics  or dirty negotiating in world is going to change that very simple fact.

I know they are under no obligation.  But these extraordinary circumstances. Under normal circumstances I would agree with everything you said. However, as their situation has changed in the order of billions of dollars, I think they should go back to the table. We have never seen these types of of drastic changes so no previous situations apply here. Our union did the same thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ptatc said:

I know they are under no obligation.  But these extraordinary circumstances. Under normal circumstances I would agree with everything you said. However, as their situation has changed in the order of billions of dollars, I think they should go back to the table. We have never seen these types of of drastic changes so no previous situations apply here. Our union did the same thing.

If that were true you would think the owners would be more than happy to share the finacials to prove they were losing billions.  Three months later and the players are still waiting for those documents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

If that were true you would think the owners would be more than happy to share the finacials to prove they were losing billions.  Three months later and the players are still waiting for those documents.  

The owners will not share their financials. It's just not going to happen. I've been at the same university for over 20 years and we have never seen the entire financial documents. The only way this will happen is if the union is in negotiations for a salary cap.

I believe the financials to be somewhat accurate based on the boras interview where he didn't dispute the owners numbers just the fact that he doesn't think the players should bail the owners out of financial issues that they created themselves.

This is more about the philosophy of who bears the burden of financial loss more than a dispute about the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Bad timing to be crying poor.  

It is bad optics. However the counter point is that there is a chance there won't be playoffs this year so its moot.

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.

×