ptatc

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.

I know its speculation but do you think it was weeks or is it more Shirley scenario where no one picked him in the first round so that night they agreed to 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.

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.

I agree. Going to school would be the best option for the majority of the ones with any significant talent. It will be intersting to see if any of the talented seniors go back and take advantage of the extra year of eligibility to try to get into next year's draft.

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

Excellent. Thanks.

Is Vera really that good or is it more the unknown prospect status puts him there.

We've had this discussion already. We arent going to agree. They made profits but it goes back into the team and the fan experience. They can make money when they sell but the new owners will have borrow a billion to buy the team. The new owner will be in the same situation. Normally, these are valid arguments however for this season everyone knows they have only about 1/3 of their revenues but still need to pay the same debts other than salaries. As I said in another post, I do think there is a big issue with the way baseball is going and there will need to be changes. This path it is on is not sustainable. This year with minimal revenues though is different.

I do think baseball is coming to a crossroads. The are paying players like they are still America's past time and the popularity and revenues are keeping pace with that. The NFL salary cap is about 200 million. This is for 53 players. There were teams in MLB that surpassed that for 26 players and the NFL doesnt need to support a MILB system. Either the business model needs a drastic change or the salaries are going to need to come down. The owners see this coming and are starting to cut costs by trimming the costs in MILB. Baseball as it currently stands cant continue. It will be interesting to see how t unfolds.

I think it's a give and take. The players are still making money regardless of what agreement there is. They are not going to lose money. The owners in this situation could lose money and cause issues for the league going forward. The owners can certainly afford to lose some, that's why they need to negotiate it. Again if you believe the owners number of around 58 games is break even, knowing negotiations it's probably higher, if they settle on games somewhere in the 60s at full prorated rate it's a good deal. It's all for the good of the league this year. This cant happen if too many teams need to borrow money to make expenses. This will only hurt the league in the long run.

Thanks. I'll need to check this out.

I like to say I take all situations individually and see what makes the most sense. I would say I'm fiscally conservative but not in areas like education. I don't necessarily support the owners in everything but when it comes to the finances it's just common sense. If the league doesn't generate enough revenue to sustain itself, there is no league. It's pretty obvious that there is financial issues. The league will have lost at least 2/3 of its revenue. You can make a valid case that the players shouldn't help the owners. In a normal CBA negotiation that true. However, this isn't normal and financial issues are real.

Not in my case.

It's not guaranteed profits its guaranteed break even. And the risk is exactly enacts happening. The players not agreeing. The players have nothing to lose other than this years salary caused by the enforced shutdown. They have guaranteed contracts as long as they play. The owners are losing billions of revenue even if the players play. Zero risk for the players.

Maybe the group with the least amount of risk should share in the burden. (I know we wont agree). I bet you can't wait for the graduated tax vote.

Where is that stadium. I've never heard of them.

It's not in disguise. The players know the number the owners want to be at so the dont lose money. The owners are trying to find a scenario the players will like better. If the players dont like the added games, Manfred will institute the number of games at full prorated salary that meets this number it's about 58.

Yes he did in Arizona.

Correct. The only thing they are changing is offering more games and a percentage if the playoffs happen. Other than that it's the same dollar amount they have stated the entire time.

That would be the best scenario. It they way it should have been. However you can see the players wanting to make more 9f their money and the owners protecting themselves if there is no playoffs.

This is true. That's why I said may not be. It's a close timeline but he could be ready.

It's not Manfred per se. It's the owners sticking to their number. Now the question Manfred who works for the owners not the players will need to answer is what is the best for the game? Letting the players have their full prorated salary or let the owners lose money. He has said he hopes they work it out but will institute the season with a certain number of games. My guess it will about 54 , if there is no deal.

Yep. The owners have that number (valid or not) where they've said they need to be if there are playoffs. It's around 60. They are playing with all different scenarios but it all comes down to that so far.

Getting closer. That's the equivalent of about 58 games and full pro-rated pay. I read somewhere that the owners said about 60 games at full pay is their break even point with playoff money.