re: MLB rejects Union proposal, no counter

AT this point the season would need an asterisk

wouldn't be long enough to even out everyone's schedules unless they completely change the structure

Even if they do that it won't balance everybody catching the front or back of different teams' rotations.

hence, asterisk

quote:

---

But hey, what a great union - looking out for all of their members...

---

Would they be a great union if they took pennies on the dollar now, and also gave up ground for the next round of CBA talks?

Are great unions that look out for all their members really short sighted?

Players are getting credit for this year no matter what happens

quote:

---

.

First, we must start with two true premises.

1. MLB is willing to pay players a full prorated share of their salaries over a 48-game season.

2. The MLBPA is willing to play an 82-game season at a full prorated share of players' salaries.

Each of these is important to establish the parameters in place. While MLB has yet to propose a schedule, multiple sources told ESPN that the league's discussions with owners about the implementation of a short season have focused on 48 games. The union, on the other hand, has shown a willingness to accept an 82-game schedule that would pay players full pro rata -- slightly more than half of their contracted salaries -- according to sources. Though the March agreement between the parties established that players would be paid full prorated salaries, MLB believes language in the deal allows for an adjustment if games are played in empty stadiums.

Three other points are vital to explain how a deal can come together.

1. If teams were to pay players a full prorated portion of their salaries, it would cost around $1,674,800 per game. The union and league both accept this figure.

2. In a financial statement MLB provided to the union, the league suggested every game played would generate $980,000 in local television revenue. Over the course of a 162-game season, that would total $2,381,400,000. In a 48-game season, that amounts to $705,600,000 in local TV revenue. For 82 games, it would be $1,205,400,000. While the union disputes MLB's accounting in a number of areas -- and rightly points out that the local TV revenue numbers do not include teams' valuable ownership stakes in their regional sports networks -- it is generally believed that actual local TV revenue is in the $2.4 billion range.

3. The league in its financial statement said that for every game played in 2020, teams would combine to lose $640,000. The union has not validated this claim and has requested documentation from MLB to verify it. A simple equation -- full pro rata salary minus local TV revenue -- leaves a loss of $694,800 per game. Considering teams could generate a combined $54,800 per game in other revenues to bridge the gap between the difference, both will be considered going forward.

---

quote:

---

Still, a 48-games-per-team schedule would leave a 720-game season. At MLB's self-reported loss of $640,000 per game, a 48-game season means the league would be willing to lose $460,800,000.

---

quote:

---

Accordingly, between the time it might take to settle on a deal and the September cutoff, an 82-game season might be the most players can hope for. Seeing as they would settle for a full pro rata at 1,230 total games, the projected losses from owners based on the $640,000-per-game figure is crucial for this exercise: $787,200,000. Compared to the projected losses owners would face in the 48-game season they're ready to rubber-stamp, playing an 82-game season would cost $326,400,000 more.

And there you have it. Distilled to the simplest form, Major League Baseball is in crisis because of a $326 million problem.

---

quote:

---

It's all obscuring the simple reality of this being a $326 million problem. One source said it was more like a $500 million problem, since the difference in local TV revenue between 48 and 82 games is $499,800,000, and the owners would want a cut of that gain for the extra games played. This is the fight. This is always the fight. 

---

quote:

---

So here it is, right in between the $460.8 million in losses for the full pro rata at 48 games and the $787.2 million at 82 games: $624,000,000. The players can have a choice: They can get full pro rata at 65 games and make $1,632,930,000 in total salary or they can take an 8.6% pay cut off full pro rata at 82 games and make $1,882,830,000. If the full pro rata is really important enough to the players that they would literally leave $250 million on the table just to make a point, hey, more power to them. Principle, right?

Both options leave the league $624 million in the red on game days.

---

ESPN

Better something rather than nothing.

For the good of Baseball itself, the union needs to take a loss.

The union is going to strangle the league to death.
Just like the unions in the midwestern factories.

quote:

---

Players are getting credit for this year no matter what happens

---

Not if Manfred drops a 50 game nuke and they refuse to play they don’t.

Ehhh. Not sure it’d be as wide as you think.

1. There’s no set agreement on handling the player & family member underlying condition language. Players should be fairly straight forward. But I don’t think owners are going to let half the league walk with service time because they all have grannies with bronchitis without proving it in arbitration.

2. There last proposal had no chance of being taken as serious. Just my opinion but I’d think including terms to let players opt out and still accrue time suggest the league has the upper hand there.

quote:

---

Lock out all the players that anyone wants to see and replace them with players that no one wants to see? Bold strategy

---

this is not the NBA

So theres a chance at a full refund from the Padres

This is me