80 game season with expanded playoffs, starting in July

[OleMissCub]

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-plan-for-2020-season-to-include-approximately-80-games-and-expanded-playoffs-report-says/

 

A truncated season of 80 or so games beginning in early July. Teams would only face division rivals and the same geographic division in the other league to keep games regional.

 

Teams would open the season in as many home parks as possible. That will cut down on travel and allow players and personnel to easily isolate at home with their families.

 

An expanded postseason format would send seven teams to the playoffs per league. The plan would be similar to an idea floated back during the offseason.

[UMFan83]

Just have to hope the MLBPA can come to an agreement on reduced salary. I can already see them digging on their heels after already making an agreement a month ago

[Andy]

Just have to hope the MLBPA can come to an agreement on reduced salary. I can already see them digging on their heels after already making an agreement a month ago

I don't want the PA to give an inch on further salary reductions. Like Andrew Miller said in that story, player salaries have never been adjusted either way by attendance before and there's no good reason it should start now.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Just have to hope the MLBPA can come to an agreement on reduced salary. I can already see them digging on their heels after already making an agreement a month ago

I don't want the PA to give an inch on further salary reductions. Like Andrew Miller said in that story, player salaries have never been adjusted either way by attendance before and there's no good reason it should start now.

Seriously. I hope they ask for hazard pay.

[Regular Show]

Just have to hope the MLBPA can come to an agreement on reduced salary. I can already see them digging on their heels after already making an agreement a month ago

I don't want the PA to give an inch on further salary reductions. Like Andrew Miller said in that story, player salaries have never been adjusted either way by attendance before and there's no good reason it should start now.

 

We'll see what happens.

 

The proposal will be reviewed and discussed this week. A lot of players are angry about reducing their pay, but the optics will just look really bad for them if they refuse to accommodate MLB here.

 

It's a lose-lose situation.

[Cubswin11]

Players stop getting paid in ~3 weeks. I’m guessing they’ll fold soon after the paychecks stop, if not before, and agree to reduced pay for whatever type of season we end up having.

[ChiCubsFan]

What was the original agreement? I missed that. But why shouldn’t they have their pay reduced at a proportion equal to the amount of time they are working? People all over the country are being furloughed, hours cut, laid off, etc. And hazard pay? Most Healthcare workers and first responders who have been working during the worst of it aren’t getting hazard pay.

[Cubswin11]

What was the original agreement? I missed that. But why shouldn’t they have their pay reduced at a proportion equal to the amount of time they are working? People all over the country are being furloughed, hours cut, laid off, etc. And hazard pay? Most Healthcare workers and first responders who have been working during the worst of it aren’t getting hazard pay.

The original agreement when they shut down was MLB/owners agreed to pay the players as if it was business as usual through end of May. So they will have gotten about 1/3 of their total salary for the year by end of this month. After that there was no guarantee or agreement on future salary payments for the year because of force majeure language in contracts allows teams not to pay (they technically didn’t have to even do the payments of salary March-May). They also negotiated that this year counts as a year of service time too regardless of any games being played.

 

Payment reduced on a pro-rated basis makes sense to me (simple math, if they play 81 games they should get 50% of their salary). I think people in here think and are upset MLB/Owners are going to ask/force a larger reduction of pay though.

[ChiCubsFan]

Yeah, thanks. I became unlazy and just read it myself too. Agree with the people then. Is there talk the owners want it reduced further if no fans in the stands?

[Cubswin11]

Yeah, thanks. I became unlazy and just read it myself too. Agree with the people then. Is there talk the owners want it reduced further if no fans in the stands?

I don’t think there’s been any official report they’re going to want further salary reductions than just a pro-rated set up. Think it’s all been speculation on how everyone expects the owners to act.

 

Silver/NBA had a conference call last week and he hinted/implied NBA players will probably have to take a a pretty big pay cut because of lost revenues. But they have a different set up with a salary cap and that moves directly with revenue.

[Andy]

Yeah, thanks. I became unlazy and just read it myself too. Agree with the people then. Is there talk the owners want it reduced further if no fans in the stands?

I don’t think there’s been any official report they’re going to want further salary reductions than just a pro-rated set up. Think it’s all been speculation on how everyone expects the owners to act.

 

Silver/NBA had a conference call last week and he hinted/implied NBA players will probably have to take a a pretty big pay cut because of lost revenues. But they have a different set up with a salary cap and that moves directly with revenue.

Rosenthal has reported the players are expected to be asked to take a further pay cut. This is not just speculation.

[Cubswin11]

Yeah, thanks. I became unlazy and just read it myself too. Agree with the people then. Is there talk the owners want it reduced further if no fans in the stands?

I don’t think there’s been any official report they’re going to want further salary reductions than just a pro-rated set up. Think it’s all been speculation on how everyone expects the owners to act.

 

Silver/NBA had a conference call last week and he hinted/implied NBA players will probably have to take a a pretty big pay cut because of lost revenues. But they have a different set up with a salary cap and that moves directly with revenue.

Rosenthal has reported the players are expected to be asked to take a further pay cut. This is not just speculation.

Got it. Missed that/my Athletic subscription expired a few months ago and I let it run out, didn’t feel it was worth it much anymore. All the Cubs guys report stuff that can be found anywhere else.

[Bertz]

In a world where the owners had been acting in good faith the last few years, I think just settling for a 50/50 split this year due to all the uncertainty makes plenty of sense.

 

But, we don't live in that world. You can't nickel and dime the players for years when things are good and then play the "we're in this together" card as soon as they get bad.

[Andy]

 

No details yet.

[Cubswin11]

[Cubswin11]

[Cubswin11]

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something or have missed something..... Everyone seems mostly good with the pro-rated plan to pay players, the league and players even seemed to have agreed to it already. At end of May, which is already agreed to, the teams will have played players approximately 1/3rd of their salaries for the year. So let's say teams owe roughly 20% of payroll yet (82 game schedule is roughly 50% and let's put some fluff in the numbers 33%+20%=53%). According to spotrac the average team payroll for 2020 is $133,276,460, so that means there's roughly $4 billion owed to players this year. That means the 20% owed yet under the pro-rated plan is a shade under $800 million, about $26 mil per team. Cubs owe about $37 mil yet under the 20% thinking, the Marlins about $9.5 million as team specific examples. That's really not that much money for teams and is such a small amount to be willing to throw away a season, especially because they know they have to pay them something under the revenue split proposal. It's not like they think they can get away with paying nothing if there's a season, so they'd really be potentially willing to throw away a season for a few million to like $10 million per team.

[Clem Fandango]

Confessing my ignorance on the business of baseball here, but why do the players oppose a revenue-sharing situation? How does that affect the players? I don't quite get it. I'd understand if teams wanted to negotiate a reduced contract rate for players, but if the players wind up getting paid what their contracts dictate why would they oppose all teams sharing profits? Isn't it meant to allow small-market teams extra money to help compete against larger markets?

[jersey cubs fan]

Confessing my ignorance on the business of baseball here, but why do the players oppose a revenue-sharing situation? How does that affect the players? I don't quite get it. I'd understand if teams wanted to negotiate a reduced contract rate for players, but if the players wind up getting paid what their contracts dictate why would they oppose all teams sharing profits? Isn't it meant to allow small-market teams extra money to help compete against larger markets?

revenue share = salary cap = artificial ceiling on salaries

[CubColtPacer]

Confessing my ignorance on the business of baseball here, but why do the players oppose a revenue-sharing situation? How does that affect the players? I don't quite get it. I'd understand if teams wanted to negotiate a reduced contract rate for players, but if the players wind up getting paid what their contracts dictate why would they oppose all teams sharing profits? Isn't it meant to allow small-market teams extra money to help compete against larger markets?

 

It's not about the owners revenue sharing with each other. It's about the owners revenue sharing with players that they oppose. The owners want to potentially reduce contracts because less revenues are coming in than was expected when they signed the deal, and the players want no part of that.

[Bertz]

Confessing my ignorance on the business of baseball here, but why do the players oppose a revenue-sharing situation? How does that affect the players? I don't quite get it. I'd understand if teams wanted to negotiate a reduced contract rate for players, but if the players wind up getting paid what their contracts dictate why would they oppose all teams sharing profits? Isn't it meant to allow small-market teams extra money to help compete against larger markets?

 

Jeff Passan as usual put it really well in his article today:

 

 

tl;dr Is that there's two issues. First, revenue sharing is a slippery slope to a salary cap. Second is that if everything goes right, players likely stand to make a little bit more than in the current setup. But if the playoffs get altered by a second wave they're losing A LOT of additional money.

[Cubswin11]

Don’t listen to Passan on Woj’s or Russillo’s most recent pods if you want hope of a season being played. Sounds like it’s just a complete horsefeathers show and no serious talks have even started yet. A few highlights (or lowlights);

 

- “There definitely are over leveraged teams out there looking at potential bankruptcy.” -Russillo pod around the 25:30 mark

 

- MLBPA always use to win negotiations and have the smartest guy in the room, now they don’t. Basically calling the players and Clark horsefeathering morons without saying it.

 

- MLBPA just sounds really disorganized and doesn’t have a unified front. NBA has a few stars that have the respect of the league and can be their voice like Lebron and Chris Paul right now being involved in talks to figure things out, MLB does not have that and it’s all over the place.

 

- Players continually get stuck on non money issues, like the last CBA focusing on amenities over the LT and money issues. Hears their big point of contention right now is players want to be able to dress and shower in locker rooms before/after games (MLB proposed plan called for dressing at home/hotel before game, showers at home/hotel only).

 

- Overall just seems like both sides have gotten petty and don’t trust each other at all. Owners basically greedy assholes and the players are dumb and unorganized.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why in the world would the players association get stuck on, of all things, community dressing rooms and showers. It sounds engineered to be the dumbest hangup they could possibly choose.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Do you even shower with your friends, bro?

[Cubswin11]

So either MLB is flat out lying or the players didn’t read or didn’t understand the prorating language/section in the agreement/had it explained to them poorly. Idk if MLBPA/Clark deserve the benefit of doubt they have an air tight agreement that didn’t allow for any sort of exclusions/conditions with prorating.