Baseball

[MDC 7,423]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Back in March, the owners were thinking they'd be able to get in about 120+ games, that's why their position changed.  Also, they're not renegging on the original deal, they want to update and amend it.  It's obvious they're getting 80 games max... most likely less.  It's common sense that money is impacted by that and things world need to be altered.  I think the players are just as bad. Entitled millennial's.  All of them.

That’s not what the owners are saying. Their line is that back in March they thought they’d be playing games with fans in the stands.

If that’s true,   

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

fock you all MLB

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

That’s not what the owners are saying. Their line is that back in March they thought they’d be playing games with fans in the stands.

If that’s true,   

Sure, that's common sense.  The players not knowing/assuming that is their fault.  EVERYONE involved in the sport knows the impact that attendance has on finances.  Like I said, it's about  30% of the league revenue (the average anyway... might be higher).  I remember the very initial discussion back in Spring Training where the league said they hope to have a normal season... meaning 162 games with fans.  That's why they were fine with making an agreement that if they played less games, they'd just prorate the money.  It's because they expected fans.  Here's an article from back in April that discusses the importance of fans on the finances of the league.  Here's another article from earlier in April discussing scenarios of no fans, division realignment.  It's not a shock or a surprise that owners were hoping for fans back in March when they talked about pro-rated salaries and why they want to readdress this now with the probably of no fans.

Let me ask you this.  Do you know if the NFL owners are expecting fans?  I know I do.  Come August, if the NFL owners want players to take some pay cuts if they're not allowed to have fans, are you going to be shocked?  I'm not.  Pretty sure this is common sense.  When any business has 30%+ of their revenue removed before they open, you don't think pay cuts are a given?  In the real world, we saw businesses lay people off because they knew sales were going to be down.  My office laid off 5 (of 30), employees.  Businesses, laid people off... sports can't do that.  The ONLY way to adjust for that, is to reduce salaries.

[MDC 7,423]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Sure, that's common sense.  The players not knowing/assuming that is their fault.  EVERYONE involved in the sport knows the impact that attendance has on finances.  Like I said, it's about  30% of the league revenue (the average anyway... might be higher).  I remember the very initial discussion back in Spring Training where the league said they hope to have a normal season... meaning 162 games with fans.  That's why they were fine with making an agreement that if they played less games, they'd just prorate the money.  It's because they expected fans.  Here's an article from back in April that discusses the importance of fans on the finances of the league.  Here's another article from earlier in April discussing scenarios of no fans, division realignment.  It's not a shock or a surprise that owners were hoping for fans back in March when they talked about pro-rated salaries and why they want to readdress this now with the probably of no fans.

Let me ask you this.  Do you know if the NFL owners are expecting fans?  I know I do.  Come August, if the NFL owners want players to take some pay cuts if they're not allowed to have fans, are you going to be shocked?  I'm not.  Pretty sure this is common sense.  When any business has 30%+ of their revenue removed before they open, you don't think pay cuts are a given?  In the real world, we saw businesses lay people off because they knew sales were going to be down.  My office laid off 5 (of 30), employees.  Businesses, laid people off... sports can't do that.  The ONLY way to adjust for that, is to reduce salaries.

I won’t be shocked if the NFL asks. But in the end I will be shocked if the players union agrees to cuts. As a player, you’re already losing $ by playing fewer games. Now you’re expected to quarantine yourself from friends / family and play fewer games for less money per? Nope.

The difference between your job and MLB is that you’re replaceable. The MLB players are the product. Nobody pays to watch owners do the books.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,429]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Sure, that's common sense.  The players not knowing/assuming that is their fault.  EVERYONE involved in the sport knows the impact that attendance has on finances.  Like I said, it's about  30% of the league revenue (the average anyway... might be higher).  I remember the very initial discussion back in Spring Training where the league said they hope to have a normal season... meaning 162 games with fans.  That's why they were fine with making an agreement that if they played less games, they'd just prorate the money.  It's because they expected fans.  Here's an article from back in April that discusses the importance of fans on the finances of the league.  Here's another article from earlier in April discussing scenarios of no fans, division realignment.  It's not a shock or a surprise that owners were hoping for fans back in March when they talked about pro-rated salaries and why they want to readdress this now with the probably of no fans.

Let me ask you this.  Do you know if the NFL owners are expecting fans?  I know I do.  Come August, if the NFL owners want players to take some pay cuts if they're not allowed to have fans, are you going to be shocked?  I'm not.  Pretty sure this is common sense.  When any business has 30%+ of their revenue removed before they open, you don't think pay cuts are a given?  In the real world, we saw businesses lay people off because they knew sales were going to be down.  My office laid off 5 (of 30), employees.  Businesses, laid people off... sports can't do that.  The ONLY way to adjust for that, is to reduce salaries.

The NFL has a hard cap, based on revenues. The cap is based on the prior years revenues.  The NFL will have to pay this year, no getting around that. But the cap will be reduced next year if the revenues decrease. That’s a given at this point. The NFL won’t have to ask for anything next year.  The players agreed to it. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

23 minutes ago, MDC said:

I won’t be shocked if the NFL asks. But in the end I will be shocked if the players union agrees to cuts. As a player, you’re already losing $ by playing fewer games. Now you’re expected to quarantine yourself from friends / family and play fewer games for less money per? Nope.

The difference between your job and MLB is that you’re replaceable. The MLB players are the product. Nobody pays to watch owners do the books.

How are the players the product? They are only a piece of the product. If there was not an organization behind the league to be able to provde the building of stadiums, accomodate vendors to provide food, drink, side entertainment, provide parking lots, do the promoting of the sport, announcers, television contracts, grounds keepers, equipment, safety measures, rules enforcement, etc. etc. etc., watching baseball would be like going to a kids peewee game at the local park. And there would be no money for the players so noone would play it and no one would watch it if they did. 

[nospk 230]

Shouldn’t they have been able to start training with their teammates already? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

I won’t be shocked if the NFL asks. But in the end I will be shocked if the players union agrees to cuts. As a player, you’re already losing $ by playing fewer games. Now you’re expected to quarantine yourself from friends / family and play fewer games for less money per? Nope.

The difference between your job and MLB is that you’re replaceable. The MLB players are the product. Nobody pays to watch owners do the books.

As the team owner, you're already losing money from the tv contracts, now they're going to lose money from tickets sale, concessions, and souvenirs.  They're also going to lose out on marketing events as well.  I don't feel bad for players only losing a few extra dollars.  A player who makes $1M for 162 games is going to make $500k for playing 81.  He's not LOSING money.  Meaning, he's getting paid for how much he's working.  He's worthy of your sympathy because he refuses to take $400k, (a real loss of money), but the owner who might actually lose MILLIONS of dollars, gets none at all?  As I said earlier, I have no sympathy for either.

MLB players are easily replaceable... about 70% of them are.  Outside of 4 or 5 guys on the big market teams and 1 to 3 on small market teams, the rest are very easily replaceable on a yearly basis.  Every year a team turns over at least 20% of their rosters for new/younger players.  Every team brings up at at least 3 to as many 7 players every year.  For a 25-man roster, that's a range of about 10-30% per team.  My office DOES NOT have a turnover rate that high.  The fact that you think they're NOT replaceable is a faulty starting point.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

51 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The NFL has a hard cap, based on revenues. The cap is based on the prior years revenues.  The NFL will have to pay this year, no getting around that. But the cap will be reduced next year if the revenues decrease. That’s a given at this point. The NFL won’t have to ask for anything next year.  The players agreed to it. 

It was just an example.  The NFL could ask players to take a pay cut this year or defer money for next year in lieu of the cap dropping next year.  Not the same thing, but similar.  It's asking players to give up something (either this year or next), that hasn't already been decided, based on less revenue coming in than expected.

[MDC 7,423]

46 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

How are the players the product? They are only a piece of the product. If there was not an organization behind the league to be able to provde the building of stadiums, accomodate vendors to provide food, drink, side entertainment, provide parking lots, do the promoting of the sport, announcers, television contracts, grounds keepers, equipment, safety measures, rules enforcement, etc. etc. etc., watching baseball would be like going to a kids peewee game at the local park. And there would be no money for the players so noone would play it and no one would watch it if they did. 

Every one of the things you mentioned is replaceable. The one thing that isn’t replaceable is the talent on the field. I’d MLB teams started playing on little league fields with no fans tomorrow it would be the most watched thing on TV.

[MDC 7,423]

12 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

As the team owner, you're already losing money from the tv contracts, now they're going to lose money from tickets sale, concessions, and souvenirs.  They're also going to lose out on marketing events as well.  I don't feel bad for players only losing a few extra dollars.  A player who makes $1M for 162 games is going to make $500k for playing 81.  He's not LOSING money.  Meaning, he's getting paid for how much he's working.  He's worthy of your sympathy because he refuses to take $400k, (a real loss of money), but the owner who might actually lose MILLIONS of dollars, gets none at all?  As I said earlier, I have no sympathy for either.

MLB players are easily replaceable... about 70% of them are.  Outside of 4 or 5 guys on the big market teams and 1 to 3 on small market teams, the rest are very easily replaceable on a yearly basis.  Every year a team turns over at least 20% of their rosters for new/younger players.  Every team brings up at at least 3 to as many 7 players every year.  For a 25-man roster, that's a range of about 10-30% per team.  My office DOES NOT have a turnover rate that high.  The fact that you think they're NOT replaceable is a faulty starting point.

The low end of the roster sure. Most of the roster? No, they aren’t replaceable. The turnover rate you cite is mostly due to retirements or free agents changing teams. A much smaller % just wash out of the league.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Every one of the things you mentioned is replaceable. The one thing that isn’t replaceable is the talent on the field. I’d MLB teams started playing on little league fields with no fans tomorrow it would be the most watched thing on TV.

It's funny how players get replaced year after year after year in baseball. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

The low end of the roster sure. Most of the roster? No, they aren’t replaceable. The turnover rate you cite is mostly due to retirements or free agents changing teams. A much smaller % just wash out of the league.

Turnover is turnover, just like in my office.  People retire... people leave.  Also, just like my office, the people who have been there for a while are still there.  It's the new people who wash out (or go elsewhere), or old people who retire.  In the end, it's a lower % than all of the professional sports.  Though, I'm not sure the NBA is a fair comparison, they only have what 14 players?

[MDC 7,423]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Turnover is turnover, just like in my office.  People retire... people leave.  Just like my office, the people who have been there for a while are still there.  It's the new people who wash out (or go elsewhere), or old people who retire.  In the end, it's a lower % than all of the professional sports.  Though, I'm not sure the NBA is a fair comparison, they only have what 14 players?

I think it would be fairer to compare overall league turnover to your company vs. turnover by team. Most players who leave a team in any given year are playing elsewhere in the league. Even then, it would be artificially high since MLB players retire so much earlier.

I can’t wait for basketball to come back. Right now it’s the best league. I love baseball as a sport but MLB as an institution is a clown show.

[vuduchile 1,945]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

 

The difference between your job and MLB is that you’re replaceable. The MLB players are the product. Nobody pays to watch owners do the books.

There are hundreds of minor league players who could step in and contribute right now.  

The true superstars would be missed, but half the rosters could be replaced without skipping a beat.   

Look at what the Yankees did last year with their scrubs.   
 

 

[posty 2,699]

Man all of these suck...

"The proposal adds the designated hitter position to the NL in 2020 and ’21, Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tweets."

"Teams, meanwhile, would be able to sell advertisements on uniforms in 2020 and ’21 in order to increase their revenues, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post."

"The postseason would expand to sixteen teams, per Bob Nightengale of USA Today (via Twitter)."

[Hardcore troubadour 15,429]

16 teams in the playoffs all but assures the best team will not win. The least injured will. 

[vuduchile 1,945]

1 hour ago, posty said:

Man all of these suck...

"The proposal adds the designated hitter position to the NL in 2020 and ’21, Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tweets."

"Teams, meanwhile, would be able to sell advertisements on uniforms in 2020 and ’21 in order to increase their revenues, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post."

"The postseason would expand to sixteen teams, per Bob Nightengale of USA Today (via Twitter)."

 

21 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

16 teams in the playoffs all but assures the best team will not win. The least injured will. 

This is a unique situation.   I’m fine with all of it.   

[lod001 1,344]

On 6/15/2020 at 6:16 PM, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

fock you all MLB

 

This.