Covid-19 has largely spared the baseball world
https://www.unz.com/isteve/only-0-72-of ... ntibodies/
https://www.unz.com/isteve/only-0-72-of ... ntibodies/
Yes, the article pretty much said that...but a no vote is hardly the end of it.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑May 11, 2020Players union is most likely going to vote no tomorrow.urbanitas wrote: ↑May 11, 2020ESPN - Owners approve MLB season proposal
82 game season starting July 4th with a 2 week spring training in mid-June at the team's home stadium, sans pre-season games. The players association still must vote. Games will be held at alternate or neutral sites for teams whose home municipalities can't or won't allow games. No mention of what the requirements are for alternative sites other than Toronto will play in their Florida facility. Maybe the Cards can play in Royals stadium...
Compensation / revenue sharing and logistics seem to be the biggest points of contention.
Because MLB is the lone uncapped team sport in the United States, never has a straight revenue split been part of the game's finances. The MLBPA is almost certain to reject that element of the proposal and counter that a March agreement between the parties guaranteed players a prorated portion of their salaries, depending on the number of games played. The ability to strike a financial deal could mean the difference between a baseball season and one that is canceled.
MLB projects $640K per game loss with no fans
STL -136,000.000
https://apnews.com/75087708a030c20637c5ea25b5c99c40
STL -136,000.000
https://apnews.com/75087708a030c20637c5ea25b5c99c40
Not particularly related to the Cardinals but with no baseball MLB is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for content and this is actually kind of interesting.
For those that don't know, the St. Louis Browns were one day away from being approved to move to Los Angeles. The ownership vote was scheduled for the morning of December 8th, 1941 in Chicago. That morning news rolled in from the attack on Pearl Harbor and every team, the Browns included, voted against the move. This MLB writer breaks down what the league might look like today had the Browns ended up in LA for the 1942 season.
https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/the-s ... ll-forever
For those that don't know, the St. Louis Browns were one day away from being approved to move to Los Angeles. The ownership vote was scheduled for the morning of December 8th, 1941 in Chicago. That morning news rolled in from the attack on Pearl Harbor and every team, the Browns included, voted against the move. This MLB writer breaks down what the league might look like today had the Browns ended up in LA for the 1942 season.
https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/the-s ... ll-forever
Let's play ball!!
Anyone have thoughts on the latest owners proposal and why players shot it down? Devil in the details but personally think that an offer of 76 game (or maybe it was 72 games, not sure) season with players getter 75% pro rated salary as not a bad deal all around for owners, players and fans. Essentially play the 2nd half season after all star break. You get a pretty good competitive run at playoffs from game one to September with some October ball for those who came ready to play..
Anyone have thoughts on the latest owners proposal and why players shot it down? Devil in the details but personally think that an offer of 76 game (or maybe it was 72 games, not sure) season with players getter 75% pro rated salary as not a bad deal all around for owners, players and fans. Essentially play the 2nd half season after all star break. You get a pretty good competitive run at playoffs from game one to September with some October ball for those who came ready to play..
- 1,864
That 75% prorated salary would have been on top of the decreases the players already agreed to, so they'd only receive about 35% of their 2020 pay. And it included non-guaranteed revenue if the post season didn't happen as intended. Basically the owners have just been repackaging the same offer of paying players 1/3 of their salaries but in different variations.
Thanks some of the details. I thought their was kind of guaranteed revenue split in the deal as well but of course that depends if season would actually be a success and some honest accounting.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jun 11, 2020That 75% prorated salary would have been on top of the decreases the players already agreed to, so they'd only receive about 35% of their 2020 pay. And it included non-guaranteed revenue if the post season didn't happen as intended. Basically the owners have just been repackaging the same offer of paying players 1/3 of their salaries but in different variations.
Wall Street Journal has a MLB article calling the season a big whiff. Behind paywall but curious if anyone might have read it. Sometimes WSJ sport articles are a good read and different twist then typical sports page or blogs
- 1,864
Nope. The owners have been good at formulating offers that look good to the general public at face value, but that really aren't even starting points for the players. This is all just positioning to gain leverage during the CBA negotiation next year. Even the recent statements be DeWitt and other owners about baseball not being really profitable is just positioning.
If it gets to the point where the owners just enact a 50 game schedule, at full prorated per game pay, it will be interesting to see is the players strike or play.
Personally, I don't think the last 75% deal is bad. The original March amendment said if fans are in the stands, so a 25% cut due to no fans doesn't seem that far out of line.
Personally, I don't think the last 75% deal is bad. The original March amendment said if fans are in the stands, so a 25% cut due to no fans doesn't seem that far out of line.
The first offer a few weeks ago by the owners was a revenue share. The players shot that down unless the got a look at the books.dredger wrote: ↑Jun 11, 2020I thought their was kind of guaranteed revenue split in the deal as well but of course that depends if season would actually be a success and some honest accounting.
Next was 100% pay per game for 50ish games.
The latest offer was 75% of pay per game for 80ish games.
- 1,864
But keep in mind that 75% of pay for 76 games is 75% of less than half a season's pay. So if Player A has a $10M full season salary, they'd only make $3.5M under that owners proposal. The math isn't that far off if the owners enact a 50 game season. Player A, with a $10M full season salary would make $3.01M. The owners basically want to see players make 1/3 of their full salaries regardless of how many games are played.
I understand the math. Getting paid for the amount of games you play make sense to me. Cutting 25% off that number because there are no ticket and concessions sales doesn’t seem unreasonable to me either.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020But keep in mind that 75% of pay for 76 games is 75% of less than half a season's pay. So if Player A has a $10M full season salary, they'd only make $3.5M under that owners proposal. The math isn't that far off if the owners enact a 50 game season. Player A, with a $10M full season salary would make $3.01M. The owners basically want to see players make 1/3 of their full salaries regardless of how many games are played.
Any game that has fans then should prorate that 25% back in based on how many fans are allowed. So, If its 50% capacity they should get 12.5% added back in to their game check for those games.
- 1,864
You're just opening up the door for owners to introduce that type of sliding pay scale during non-coronavirus years. Could you imagine if the Miami Marlins or any other team that purposefully tanks tried to claim players should only receive a portion of their salaries because fans weren't showing up to watch games? Owners are pocketing all the TV revenue without sharing that with the players, as well as the increased franchise valuations. Why should the player subsidize the owners' losses this year when the owners haven't shared the wealth for the last century?
The owners are literally a group of billionaires who are trying to force players, many of whom are making the league minimum, to take additional massive pay cuts. I don't understand how so many people think that it's the player who are being unreasonable.
The owners are literally a group of billionaires who are trying to force players, many of whom are making the league minimum, to take additional massive pay cuts. I don't understand how so many people think that it's the player who are being unreasonable.
My scale has nothing to do with how many fans show up. It’s by the percentage of capacity the city/state government says can show up. If the government says 50% capacity and only 3 fans show up the players still get 50% of the cut back. So having a bad team with no fans doesn’t fall into this equation.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020You're just opening up the door for owners to introduce that type of sliding pay scale during non-coronavirus years. Could you imagine if the Miami Marlins or any other team that purposefully tanks tried to claim players should only receive a portion of their salaries because fans weren't showing up to watch games? Owners are pocketing all the TV revenue without sharing that with the players, as well as the increased franchise valuations. Why should the player subsidize the owners' losses this year when the owners haven't shared the wealth for the last century?
The owners are literally a group of billionaires who are trying to force players, many of whom are making the league minimum, to take additional massive pay cuts. I don't understand how so many people think that it's the player who are being unreasonable.
If they players don’t want to accept the deal the owners want to give that’s fine. Hold out the entire year. I just don’t think it’s that bad of a deal if you take the 75% for more games and then work in extra money for fans being allowed.
You also have players who are going to get a full year of service time and closer to free agency for playing a fraction of games. So I’m not going to feel bad for either side in this. A fraction of MLB minimum salary to play a partial season is still a pretty good payday. If they prefer to not play and skip the season for no money I won’t hold it against them.
Minor leaguers get the shaft. They are the only ones I feel bad for.
- 1,290
Seems like a bit of a dick move on the owners' part to force a pay cut onto the players for the simple reason that the players decided to base salaries on the market on not via revenue, which typically is a good thing for the owners, but the one time it's in the player's favor, MLB is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
- 1,610
With the NBA, NHL & MLS resumptions already agreed upon & getting their seasons/playoffs started soon, seems like a lost season all together for MLB. By the time those 3 other leagues are wrapping up, the PGA Tour will be ramping up to the meatiest part of its schedule, including this year's 3 Majors. Then it's suddenly football season. I'd cut losses, stop the owner/player fighting and just shoot for a successful 2021.
- 2,053
From an ownership perspective, its kind of mind-blowing they didn't at least try for first out of the gate (maybe easier said than done?)... with the entire country begging for sports, they really missed a rare market share grab by slowing this process down. Just thinking of having the undivided attention of every sports and news channel in the country and possible additional games by having it done quickly... again, I guess that's easier said than done.
- 9,539
Bill Dewitt is really crying poor? Buys the team & garages for $150,000,000. Sells garages for $90,000,000 .....25 years later the team is work north of $2,000,000,000....
- 1,610
Just because it's valued at 2bil doesn't mean he HAS 2bildbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020Bill Dewitt is really crying poor? Buys the team & garages for $150,000,000. Sells garages for $90,000,000 .....25 years later the team is work north of $2,000,000,000....
- 9,539
Yes I know how it works. He can sell shares and get money if he is in a pinch. Which he isn’t. His networth is over $4b
- 805
Old shot of Sportsman’s Park from ‘65
![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 85
Here's a look at the new sign for Big Mac Land, which has been expanded to the left.
There's no way MLB is going to allow some teams to open up their stadiums to fan attendance until EVERY team is able to do so. The attendance policy for MLB games this year is going to be whatever the restrictions are in the market with the strictest COVID-19 rules still in place. If NYC never allows fans to attend games at any point this season, no other team will be allowed to have fans in attendance, even if the local restrictions in their respective markets ease up enough to allow it. It's the only way to ensure all teams are on a level playing field in terms of their ability to generate revenue.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020My scale has nothing to do with how many fans show up. It’s by the percentage of capacity the city/state government says can show up. If the government says 50% capacity and only 3 fans show up the players still get 50% of the cut back. So having a bad team with no fans doesn’t fall into this equation.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020You're just opening up the door for owners to introduce that type of sliding pay scale during non-coronavirus years. Could you imagine if the Miami Marlins or any other team that purposefully tanks tried to claim players should only receive a portion of their salaries because fans weren't showing up to watch games? Owners are pocketing all the TV revenue without sharing that with the players, as well as the increased franchise valuations. Why should the player subsidize the owners' losses this year when the owners haven't shared the wealth for the last century?
The owners are literally a group of billionaires who are trying to force players, many of whom are making the league minimum, to take additional massive pay cuts. I don't understand how so many people think that it's the player who are being unreasonable.
- 9,539
DTGstl314 wrote: ↑Jun 23, 2020There's no way MLB is going to allow some teams to open up their stadiums to fan attendance until EVERY team is able to do so. The attendance policy for MLB games this year is going to be whatever the restrictions are in the market with the strictest COVID-19 rules still in place. If NYC never allows fans to attend games at any point this season, no other team will be allowed to have fans in attendance, even if the local restrictions in their respective markets ease up enough to allow it. It's the only way to ensure all teams are on a level playing field in terms of their ability to generate revenue.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020My scale has nothing to do with how many fans show up. It’s by the percentage of capacity the city/state government says can show up. If the government says 50% capacity and only 3 fans show up the players still get 50% of the cut back. So having a bad team with no fans doesn’t fall into this equation.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jun 12, 2020You're just opening up the door for owners to introduce that type of sliding pay scale during non-coronavirus years. Could you imagine if the Miami Marlins or any other team that purposefully tanks tried to claim players should only receive a portion of their salaries because fans weren't showing up to watch games? Owners are pocketing all the TV revenue without sharing that with the players, as well as the increased franchise valuations. Why should the player subsidize the owners' losses this year when the owners haven't shared the wealth for the last century?
The owners are literally a group of billionaires who are trying to force players, many of whom are making the league minimum, to take additional massive pay cuts. I don't understand how so many people think that it's the player who are being unreasonable.
Why not share the revenue for 2020 from gate? Like if 12 teams can have fans, let’s say at 10,000 per game for the 30 home games each that’s 3,600,000 fans. If each spends $100 on ticket, food, drinks etc that’s $360,000,000 left on the table. They can also sell suits to family units that would have no contact with anyone else.