I definitely agree that Snell didn't do himself many favors. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with Scherzer's "open up the books" argument. I think for guys like Snell, they are probably trying to be a normal 20 something dude on Twitch locked down in quarantine, but doesnt realize everything he says will be amplified.
I mean, he is 27 years old, he won a Cy Young while being paid close to a minimum salary, and now finally this year he is starting to get paid closer to what he is worth and the owners propose to take a lot of that away claiming poverty. It's got to be pretty freaking frustrating. He does have a bit of Papelbon in him but still, has to be so frustrating to be one of the few best in the world at what you do in a multi-billion dollar sport, know that your arm could snap at any moment, and you have such a small window to get paid the salary that you deserve.
Just interested, what makes you say this?
Yeah ... I think the concept of 10 days off over four months really works for for those who does have to live with that schedule
Agree with this. Baseball is the one sport where the ball goes into the stands on more than a very rare occasion.
I'm probably a bit closer to the owner side of the spectrum than many on this board but I am starting to lean to the idea that this is a pretty good time for the players to make a stand and get busy with the idea of burning this thing down so we can build it back up correctly in a sustainable way. It's a hard pill to swallow, but things are unsustainable right now. There is no doubt that the pandemic is exacerbating things, but I'm getting to the point where I worry that finding a band aid to try to get some games in this year while hoping that a second wave won't eliminate it all anyway might do more long term harm then good. I want there to be games. And if all it does is postpone the day of reckoning, great. But I fear that it is going to do much worse. The situation seems very fucked up right now.
Well, I'm sure we might all have different personal answers for what they miss about baseball. However, I see sports as a unifying force in America and something that brings us a big step back to normalcy.
Can you fix this so I can respond? If you’re saying what I think, 50 man rosters would seem to give everyone who wanted/needed it plenty of games off.
I agree. That would be awesome for fans.
Few business owners are going to open up the books and let people tell them how to spend their money and if their net cash flow is x or y, doesn't mean they should agree to something they don't believe is fair. It would be no different than saying Albert Pujos, because he has already received $285M and sucks, should be willing to accept a reduction of more than a proration of his full salary.
A game off is not a day off ... away from the park, spending time with family or just relaxing. And I doubt managers, coaching staffs and auxiliary game day personnel will be getting those games off, either
Who am I to complain, but only 50 games seems like not enough for a sport like baseball. Certainly better than zero though!
I will say what I said on the main board. Why would the players accept this when they just proposed a 114 game season?
If you start in July, why only 50 games? July thru September is 90 days, you should be able to play 80 games. Or 81, for "tradition"
Owners are worried about a second round of the virus which would force them to cancel the postseason and they'd lose those revenues, so this would give them a better chance to get it all in.
Less regular season games they play, less the owners lose. Can't see the players agreeing to that, and frankly 50 games would be a sham.
Ding Ding Ding. Of course this is hardball negotiation. What the players really care about is maximizing their overall salary this year. After all, they only get so many seasons in their career and on their current contracts (which is all they're guaranteed at this time). Full per game salary at less than half the number of games as compared with the MLBPA proposal doesn't help them in that regard.
| Yankees | Indians | Athletics |
| Orioles | Royals | Mariners |
| Rays | Twins | Angels |
| Red Sox | White Sox | Astros |
| Blue Jays | Tigers | Rangers |
| Braves | Brewers | Dodgers |
| Nationals | Reds | Giants |
| Marlins | Cardinals | Rockies |
| Mets | Cubs | D-Backs |
| Phillies | Pirates | Padres |
I'm quoting this to then refer to the above post - (rightly) no-one is going to take the 2020 season result seriously
Since the first time players struck in the 1970’s, I cannot remember a time when they came off any other way. They never worried about PR battles, but focused on winning the CBA.
In the immortal words of Joshua Beckett: “My day off is my day off.”
yeah, I kinda thought about this more after posting it and no 2020 season is going to feel like a "proper" champion.
Context is everything.
The bolded means that you are absolutely rooting for one side, because when players make business decisions we (collectively) have a tendency to rain contempt down on them.
I'm not sure how you're defining a business decision, but the MLBPA has requested a 114 game schedule with a proration based on a full salaries which would result in receiving 70% of their contracted salaries. The owners countered with a 50 game schedule which would result in 31%, meaning there is currently a huge divide.
Since the late 80’s and into the 90’s, when most of the teams (owned by zillionaires) came with outstretched arms to the taxpayers begging for help building their new pleasure palaces, I am aware of exactly one team that was willing to open its books to prove it was as in dire need of financial assistance as it claimed: the Seattle Mariners.
I do remember back in the early 90s that the finances of the Philadelphia Eagles were revealed during the trial of the antitrust lawsuit between the NFLPA and the NFL. And it showed that then-Eagles owner Norman Braman paid himself an outlandish salary ($7.5 million for 1989, which represented almost 20% of team revenues) in an effort to depress the profitability of the team.
The problem is probably not league wide. A high payroll team like the Red Sox depends much more on the gate than say the Marlins. And since all the contracts are guaranteed, it's not like the Red Sox could slash payroll for this one year.
Obviously the owners won't say how much they would lose; only they would lose less by not playing.
No, they have cited specific numbers, I just don't believe them and neither does the MLBPA which is why they asked to open the books.
Oh interesting, hadn't seen that. Don't know if I really trust those numbers but maybe 650k makes sense? Like the Red Sox... just the gate would have been like 1.2 million (30,000 people * 40 bucks average ticket price). Add in people buying food, minus the employee costs....
Um...what? You shouldn't be expected to use the cash reserves you have piled up from the past to make today's games a go?
Of course the teams don't have cash reserves laying around. Any surplus we take it all out as profit!
Dear Tom, there are these things called banks. They like loaning money, especially when you can offer a billion dollar piece of collateral. Rates are low.
Even better. It just goes to show how important the gate is.
In the best of times Selig, who was one of their own, could barely achieve consensus among the owners. Manfred has no such ability and the crazy with the old 'plantation owner mentality' has in part been replaced by new owners who are seriously leveraged and much more desperate to recoup their investment asap.
