MLB 2020: We're Playing, but We Can't Agree on Anything

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
If the owners agree to travel on the planes, and stay at the hotels and spend time in locker rooms with the players, I'll have some sympathy for them.
And being away from their families and not having ability to amortize and depreciate and other tax games.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
The players, because of the risks of the virus, wanting a proration based on the AAV of their contracts and the owners not wanting to do so because of a significant loss of revenue are both reasonable positions and maybe there won't be a 2020 season.

However, this is not like 1994. The problem is the pandemic and neither party is at fault. The idea that the owners, because some are billionaires, should absorb all of the loss, is not how business works.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
The problem is not just the pandemic, which is one reason this is harder for MLB than the NBA or the NHL, and it’s not just a 2020 or 2021 issue. I’ve been talking about this here for years, the pandemic just pushed the time frame up from post-2021 to now.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
The problem is the pandemic and neither party is at fault. The idea that the owners, because some are billionaires, should absorb all of the loss, is not how business works.
The link below is from last November.

Rob Manfred tells MLBPA that despite record revenues, he won’t make economic concessions for players’ sake: report

Manfred told the MLB Players Union there is “not going to be a deal where we pay you in economics to get labor peace,” adding that “maybe Marvin Miller’s financial system doesn’t work anymore.”
And invoking Marvin Miller, the influential former Executive Director of the MLBPA who negotiated the first CBA deal in 1968, was an especially incendiary association for the commissioner to make. Miller is known for ushering free agency (including salary arbitration) into the league’s “financial system."

The CBA expires in 2021, and Manfred’s choice of words increased the likeliness of an eventual lockout.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Increases in revenue are not across the board. I can arrive at an Oakland A's ten minutes before starting time, spend $50 on a ticket, and be in the first 10 rows behind home plate. If the luxury tax levels are increased and/or rookies are paid at market levels, small market teams will be like Triple A teams.

I don't believe it's fair to accuse either side of acting in bad faith.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
Increases in revenue are not across the board. I can arrive at an Oakland A's ten minutes before starting time, spend $50 on a ticket, and be in the first 10 rows behind home plate. If the luxury tax levels are increased and/or rookies are paid at market levels, small market teams will be like Triple A teams.
Sure, but the last proposal from the league was to have higher paid players help out the lower paid ones by taking a bigger pay cut. It would only be fair for the higher revenue teams to help out the lower revenue ones by sending some cash their way.
 
Jul 5, 2018
430
Sure, but the last proposal from the league was to have higher paid players help out the lower paid ones by taking a bigger pay cut. It would only be fair for the higher revenue teams to help out the lower revenue ones by sending some cash their way.
I was referring to the negotiations for the CBA agreement. There is no blueprint for negotiations resulting from a pandemic. Asking the richer teams to subsidize the poorer ones is the same thing as asking the players to so. It's not appealing to either side.

My point is that it's a complex negotiation and it's not fair to say either F the rich owners or the multimillionaire players. If I was King of MLB, I would be concerned about the possibility of a 2nd wave and would strongly consider giving up on 2020.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
You know what's funny about this, if MLB was allowed to have fans in the stands, people would show up. Attendance would be way down of course but it wouldn't be completely empty.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,898
Austin, TX
Source: MLBPA delivered its proposal to the league on Sunday afternoon.
ª Schedule: 114 games, June 30-Oct. 31
• Two years of expanded playoffs
• $100 million of total deferred money
• Opt out for all players if they don’t want to play
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1267277887700377600

Edit: I missed part 2:

• Deferral would be ONLY if the postseason is canceled. Would apply to contracts of $10 million above (before being prorated). Payments would be in November 2021 and 2022.
• Either way, players would get additional salary advance during spring training camp of $100 million.
View: https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/1267278824410173443
 
Last edited:

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
The MLBPA proposal must be contemplating neutral site playoff games, right? With expanded playoffs, under this plan, the World Series could finish in December!
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
The MLBPA proposal must be contemplating neutral site playoff games, right? With expanded playoffs, under this plan, the World Series could finish in December!
Yeah, I was thinking this too, even the second half of October is often dubious weather many places.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
The players, because of the risks of the virus, wanting a proration based on the AAV of their contracts and the owners not wanting to do so because of a significant loss of revenue are both reasonable positions and maybe there won't be a 2020 season.

However, this is not like 1994. The problem is the pandemic and neither party is at fault. The idea that the owners, because some are billionaires, should absorb all of the loss, is not how business works.
All of the ownership *groups* are collectively billionaires by definition; even if not all of the 30-odd owners of the Giants are billionaires on their own, the partnership owns an asset worth $3b. The lowest team valuation rounds to one billion.

Various rent-seeking entities tell everyone else in society all the time that what justifies their excess profits is that they assume risk. Well, the risk has arrived, and now they're trying to offload their losses onto their employees. I get why they would want to do that, but I don't see why anyone else should see at as anything but weaseling out of their responsibilities.

And in any case, this isn't business in the usual sense of that word that implies, like, competition. They have an anti-trust exemption!
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
The owners said they'll lose money on every game that's played without fans and the players propose they make it up in volume? I guess it's possible they'll work something out, but it doesn't look great now.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
The owners said they'll lose money on every game that's played without fans and the players propose they make it up in volume?
They also proposed additional 2021 playoff games to try to help offset that, which I thought was fairly imaginative given how few good options there are right now.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,419
The owners said they'll lose money on every game that's played without fans and the players propose they make it up in volume? I guess it's possible they'll work something out, but it doesn't look great now.
Is it a mistake to for all parties involved (leagues, players, governments) to not explore options where fans can be in the stands? These are 30-40k capacity stadiums (often in open air) - is there no way to seat 5-10k people and maintain social distance? With limited supply, couldn't you also charge a premium for these seats? I know it would take a lot of operational planning, and it isn't risk-free, but I'm surprised this isn't a greater part of this conversation, especially since there's no guarantee we'll have a vaccine in 2021.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Is it a mistake to for all parties involved (leagues, players, governments) to not explore options where fans can be in the stands? These are 30-40k capacity stadiums (often in open air) - is there no way to seat 5-10k people and maintain social distance? With limited supply, couldn't you also charge a premium for these seats? I know it would take a lot of operational planning, and it isn't risk-free, but I'm surprised this isn't a greater part of this conversation, especially since there's no guarantee we'll have a vaccine in 2021.
Charging a premium seems crass to me; how do you explain to the average fan that the already expensive trip to the park with your family just got way more expensive? And you also can't sit anywhere near anyone else.

And call me skeptical or a curmudgeon but personally I wouldn't pay a premium to have to deal with all the added bullshit to go see a game live with only 10-20% capacity. Extra, what? 2x? 4x? so that I could put myself at risk, deal with idiots trying to move seats, ignore the distancing, argue about wearing a mask, not keep distance at the concession, extra time in and out, etc etc so I could watch a game and feel like I'm at the Trop for a Rays - Marlins game? Some would and might, but are 5K fans making a difference on the bottom line? I'd think it'd come close to almost adding to loss for owners once you factor in all the added costs.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Is it a mistake to for all parties involved (leagues, players, governments) to not explore options where fans can be in the stands? These are 30-40k capacity stadiums (often in open air) - is there no way to seat 5-10k people and maintain social distance? With limited supply, couldn't you also charge a premium for these seats? I know it would take a lot of operational planning, and it isn't risk-free, but I'm surprised this isn't a greater part of this conversation, especially since there's no guarantee we'll have a vaccine in 2021.
It’s a fair question. I tend to think it could be done, at some level (25% capacity?). Block off every other row, every other seat, deal with known congested areas/chokepoints (concessions areas would need work). Offer STHs priority in picking partial game packages. But the challenges are real (what about domed stadiums? What it fans congregate too closely during the game? Are masks required? If so, who enforces? Etc).

I also wouldn’t charge extra. Prices out average fans and benefits the already-entitled. But then does the money work for the teams?
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Is it a mistake to for all parties involved (leagues, players, governments) to not explore options where fans can be in the stands? These are 30-40k capacity stadiums (often in open air) - is there no way to seat 5-10k people and maintain social distance? With limited supply, couldn't you also charge a premium for these seats? I know it would take a lot of operational planning, and it isn't risk-free, but I'm surprised this isn't a greater part of this conversation, especially since there's no guarantee we'll have a vaccine in 2021.
Fans in the stands is politically impossible in time to save the season.

What you could do is run a shortened season at the Spring Training facilities in a couple months and hope/bribe FL and AZ let you have fans in the stands. Not sure how much $$$ you would be able to get out of that.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,419
Charging a premium seems crass to me; how do you explain to the average fan that the already expensive trip to the park with your family just got way more expensive? And you also can't sit anywhere near anyone else.

And call me skeptical or a curmudgeon but personally I wouldn't pay a premium to have to deal with all the added bullshit to go see a game live with only 10-20% capacity. Extra, what? 2x? 4x? so that I could put myself at risk, deal with idiots trying to move seats, ignore the distancing, argue about wearing a mask, not keep distance at the concession, extra time in and out, etc etc so I could watch a game and feel like I'm at the Trop for a Rays - Marlins game? Some would and might, but are 5K fans making a difference on the bottom line? I'd think it'd come close to almost adding to loss for owners once you factor in all the added costs.
Maybe a poor choice of words and, point taken, demand will obviously be depressed so owners may not have the supply/demand leverage to charge higher prices anyway. I think my point is that there would be *some* demand and, if there's demand, you can sell your product at whatever people are willing to pay. It definitely wouldn't be anything close to the experience you would have in pre-covid era, but I think some people will be eager to watch sports in person.

Another idea that would be fun to explore would be virtual tickets to watch the games from the stands using a VR headset. I think the NBA has experimented with this before though I don't know if it was successful.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Is it a mistake to for all parties involved (leagues, players, governments) to not explore options where fans can be in the stands? These are 30-40k capacity stadiums (often in open air) - is there no way to seat 5-10k people and maintain social distance? With limited supply, couldn't you also charge a premium for these seats? I know it would take a lot of operational planning, and it isn't risk-free, but I'm surprised this isn't a greater part of this conversation, especially since there's no guarantee we'll have a vaccine in 2021.
The issue isn't just spacing people out and distancing while in their seats, though. It's getting them to and from the stadium safely, not to mention in and out of the stadium in a safe fashion. It's how to handle restroom use and concessions safely. A lot of these stadiums are in downtown areas without a great deal of on-site parking. Even at reduced capacities, that's still a bunch of fans likely using mass transit, cabs, Uber, etc.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
It’s a fair question. I tend to think it could be done, at some level (25% capacity?). Block off every other row, every other seat, deal with known congested areas/chokepoints (concessions areas would need work). Offer STHs priority in picking partial game packages. But the challenges are real (what about domed stadiums? What it fans congregate too closely during the game? Are masks required? If so, who enforces? Etc).

I also wouldn’t charge extra. Prices out average fans and benefits the already-entitled. But then does the money work for the teams?
I just don't see how it's really feasible with stadium seating. How far does a cough travel when you're above everyone in front of you? You'd probably have to block out every other row entirely, at the very least. How do you get to seat inside the row without crawling over other people? And who will go to a game and not be able to sit next to the people they're coming with? Logistics would be one nightmare and then enforcement would be another. Safe concessions sounds like a financial loser - you'd only open a few concession stands if you're at 10-20% capacity, but then guess where everyone has to go? Or open the normal amount to make it safe, but then be prepared for cost to skyrocket because of all the extra employees and product that will get wasted. You'd probably need the normal level of ushers and security just to explain and enforce rules around masks/seating/crowding. Especially given that somechunk of the people that would even show up are the people who think none of this is real and would have no problem flagrantly breaking those rules.

On a slightly separate note, if they did allow spectators could you imagine what it would look like at, say, a Tigers or Orioles game in late October? How many people are going to sit out in 40 degree weather, risking the virus, to watch a .350 team get its teeth kicked in? We're talking hundreds, not thousands, at that point, right?
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,419
Fans in the stands is politically impossible in time to save the season.

What you could do is run a shortened season at the Spring Training facilities in a couple months and hope/bribe FL and AZ let you have fans in the stands. Not sure how much $$$ you would be able to get out of that.
If there's a regular-season running through 10/31 and playoffs going even further than that, that's a lot of time to come up with politically/operationally viable solutions. I agree that it would be hard to figure things out by July 4th, or whatever date they're targeting, but could you get something together by 9/1? In time for the playoffs? Whatever the case, I think it would be smart to explore these options and include some language that allows for this in any agreement MLB and MLBPA have for 2020.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
709
Melrose MA
I'm sure Manfred and the owners will do everything within their power to get people into the stands at some point if there are games, but the current "negotiations" about whether or not to have a season will not in any way succeed or fail based on the idea of getting fans to come to the games. Currently the majority of people in this area, if not the country as a whole, are expressing a lot of hesitation about even going to an indoor restaurant at 25-50% capacity. Any decision to allow fans in the stands at a baseball stadium or any other sports venue is a while in the future.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
So players propose having over 100 games and the owners come back with less than what they proposed initially? At that is a win?

I am confused.
The owners at this point are trying to play a "full" season while paying the players as little as possible. So fewer games is a win. Without fans in the stands, the owners apparently see non-playoff games as a net money loser.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
34,372
In The Quivering Forest
The owners at this point are trying to play a "full" season while paying the players as little as possible. So fewer games is a win. Without fans in the stands, the owners apparently see non-playoff games as a net money loser.
But the players can easily say, "heck no" right, they want 114 games at the pro-rated rate. Why would they agree to this? I mean maybe they just ultimately land in the middle at 81 games at a pro-rated rate.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
It's a win because it is the first time owners have agreed to pay a pro-rated rate per game, so now they just need to decide on the number of games (and maybe the players back down slightly from pro-rated in exchange for more games).
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
I'm curious how hard it's actually going to be for the owners to get fans in the stands. Outside of the California, NY, Chicago and Boston parks, I suspect that outdoor parks will be able to have fans in the stands at AT LEAST 33-50% capacity by August. Concessions will be limited, you'll need to have markings to keep people 6 feet away from each other in restroom and concessions lines, etc., but it'll be doable. I don't know what volume of attendance is needed to account for the costs of having a skeleton crew of ballpark staff present.

I say that because I suspect the owners are representing that the whole season will have to be played without fans when, in fact, a number of parks will have some fans in the stands for at least the last 2 months of the season. I think the folks on this site vastly underestimate how many people don't take COVID seriously (or now consider it a political issue and refuse to take it seriously) and would go to a ballgame if given the chance.

Edited to add:

View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1267570897650581506?s=19


Looks like the owners think they can force the players to play a shortened, prorated-pay season if they don't work out another arrangement.
 
Last edited:

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,898
Austin, TX
Why is 60 games the number baseball needs to have a full postseason?

I understand why the players would want more (and I hope they get it), but a 50-game season at a pro-rated salary is better than a 0 game season, no? Seems like we're getting close to proposals that both sides could live with.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I don’t see how any analysis of the probability of baseball starting doesn’t take into account what’s happening in the country right now. I can’t imagine anybody is going to be able to predict what things will look like in two weeks.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Why is 60 games the number baseball needs to have a full postseason?

I understand why the players would want more (and I hope they get it), but a 50-game season at a pro-rated salary is better than a 0 game season, no? Seems like we're getting close to proposals that both sides could live with.
Is it better for the players? I don't see it. Same risks, in a slightly* shorter window for less money? It also ignores sample size for any kind of playoff that wouldn't just be gratuitous. At the 50 game mark last season, the Nationals had the second worst record in baseball. Even 60 seems silly.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
The owners are testing the waters on 60-ish games by leaking it to the media. I'm sure they want to see what the minimum amount of regular season games the players union would bite at. I'm gonna take a big guess that it's neither going to be 60 games like the owners want nor the 100+ the players want.

There has been give on both sides predictably near the artificial deadline. I'd be surprised if something doesn't get worked out now.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
Why is 60 games the number baseball needs to have a full postseason?

I understand why the players would want more (and I hope they get it), but a 50-game season at a pro-rated salary is better than a 0 game season, no? Seems like we're getting close to proposals that both sides could live with.
Somebody speculated it's related to the TV contracts, ie: 50 is the min for the TV contract to kick in or something like that.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
At this point 100+ games can't happen without playoffs extending into Thanksgiving. But even 81 games isn't really a full season and shouldn't be treated as such. Whatever ends up happening, whoever wins the playoffs should be considered the champion of 2020, but not a World Series winner. I completely understand it's a silly semantic thing and does not matter at all in the big picture. It would just feel wrong to me to see the Rangers hoisting the trophy for winning a 60 game season with 50 man rosters.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
At this point 100+ games can't happen without playoffs extending into Thanksgiving. But even 81 games isn't really a full season and shouldn't be treated as such. Whatever ends up happening, whoever wins the playoffs should be considered the champion of 2020, but not a World Series winner. I completely understand it's a silly semantic thing and does not matter at all in the big picture. It would just feel wrong to me to see the Rangers hoisting the trophy for winning a 60 game season with 50 man rosters.
My calendar says 100 games starting July 4 can end 10/15, and 3 rounds of postseason would be done by 11/15.
And that is a "loose" schedule
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Fans in the stands is politically impossible in time to save the season.

What you could do is run a shortened season at the Spring Training facilities in a couple months and hope/bribe FL and AZ let you have fans in the stands. Not sure how much $$$ you would be able to get out of that.
Arizona is fvcking HOT in August.

KC in the summer was famously described as “two rats fvcking in a wool sock,” and AZ is hotter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Same.

People here seem to be eager to find reasons why things simply can't work out and the season is already gone.
I don't see it happening, though (that is, I would imagine that some MLB games are played this year).
Eager? I don't think that's accurate. Some people just think it's a lot harder to do than others think it would be and also that it may not just be a bargaining position for the players, in that they do actually fear catching it, passing it on or being quarantined form their families for that long.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
I don't think being quarantined away from their families is on the table anymore, and also reports are that MLB and the MLBPA have basically agreed on the health/safety aspects of the proposed return.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
Eager? I don't think that's accurate. Some people just think it's a lot harder to do than others think it would be
I mean...

I completely understand it's a silly semantic thing and does not matter at all in the big picture. It would just feel wrong to me to see the Rangers hoisting the trophy for winning a 60 game season with 50 man rosters.