MLB 2020: We're Playing, but We Can't Agree on Anything

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
Regardless, their first big mistake was the deal in March that they never should have agreed to. As soon as that became the baseline for more concessions, they regretted it. Much like the current CBA. Tony Clarke strikes again. Stop making agreements you're gonna regret later. Later was like 2 weeks in this case.
I don't agree with this at all, the March agreement locked in the pro rata rate otherwise they'd probably be at 48 games at 75 percent pay.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
I don't agree with this at all, the March agreement locked in the pro rata rate otherwise they'd probably be at 48 games at 75 percent pay.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have agreed to any March deal. I'm saying that they should have negotiated a smarter one with some idea about what would happen with no fans. Clearly, the owners thought that portion through and fooled the players into a handshake with fine print. If the players had some clue what they were doing, they would have realized during the initial negotiation that they needed some protection for re-opening with no fans. They led themselves here.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
709
Melrose MA
Some places are likely to allow fans. The Texas governor has already said he would allow 50% of stadium capacity. Florida is allowing the Republican convention in Jacksonville, that's likely more people than attend a Tampa or Miami game anyway so no reason for the governor not to allow fans to attend there. So some owners will make money from fan attendance and the amount they make per game may not be that different from during a normal season.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
To me, this was just a poor showing by the players all around who have every reason to be pissed but should only blame themselves.
The players only leverage is expanding playoffs. I agree the players did not negotiate well. The players know at the end of the day the owners can impose a 50-ish game schedule. IMO, even if they don't agree as to how much or whether the owners will lose $ playing games with no fans, they have to work within that framework unless they say from the start that they aren't going to play without seeing books (which would a horrible position to take right now IMO).
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,881
Twin Bridges, Mt.
What seems nuts to me is that baseball is the most socially distant of the 4 major sports. If they had any sense they'd be in a modified ST now and be preparing to play real games.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
The biggest thing players got in March was not pro-rata...it was the cash payment then. Likely there was pressure on mlbpa to ensure some income for players (the majority of which don’t have a ton of savings)

The big negotiation challenge was agreeing to a financial model when players have decided anything that references revenues is a “salary cap” that they won’t agree to. If you can’t have a model which adjusts based on the revenue given all the potential variables as of March what could you really agree to? Players position on this issue is silly.

Now, the owners have made their own bed here-literally generations of bad behavior create a total lack of trust. I also think they should have realized the mess they were creating with the March deal and been explicit about the “known unknown” uncertainties. But they weren’t

A bad job all around. To manage the complexity known in March you needed a flexible model and good Will and communication between parties. None of that existed here.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,370
Calcaterra's latest:
So let’s talk about what the March Agreement actually says, not what MLB’s press release implies that it says.

It has been widely reported and confirmed by the parties on multiple occasions that the March agreement between owners and players gives players the right to receive prorated pay on a per-game basis for any season played. The owners, meanwhile, have the right to set the length of any season played. It also specified that “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”

Given that the sides could have, but did not, specifically state in the March Agreement that players must make salary concessions if there were no fans, what then are the discussions of “economic feasibility” it refers to?

I would argue that that means the two sides would discuss what could be done to make fan-free games a more financially viable proposition. Things like adding additional rounds of playoffs, which the players have proposed, or changing things on the field such as having players wear microphones of the creation of different in-game revenue or marketing initiatives. Advertisements on uniforms, perhaps. Different rules regarding off-field expenses for lodging or travel, perhaps. Anything besides the one specifically set term, which is salary.

The kicker here is that MLB has admitted as much. While it can say what it wants in a press release, in at least two formal letters sent to the MLBPA during negotiations, MLB’s chief negotiator Dan Halem and legal counsel Pat Houlihan have admitted that salaries are a settled term. Specifically, in a May 18 letter to Tony Clark:, Halem said “[MLBPA] is free to take the position that players are unwilling to accept further reductions.” In a May 22 letter Houlihan said “We agree with the [MLBPA] that, under the Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated salary.”
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
That’s insanely biased analysis—Calcaterra should know better.

The very fact they said they would “in good faith discuss the economic feasibility” means they would discuss the economic feasibility. Which they are, poor in quality as the discussion may be. It does not limit the terms of that discussion—much as he seems to wish it did, the parties simply did not actually choose to do so.

The argument he makes that they could have said (but didn’t) “including reducing pay” In the agreement is precisely as valid as the opposite conclusion that they could have said (but didn’t) in the agreement “excluding reducing pay”. So, it is not reasonable to assume they meant either.

What they did was intentionally leave the question of what constitutes “discussing economic feasibility” open, and they each recognize the other can walk away. That is the legal and logical conclusion of the items he quotes from the letters. They are each making offers to avoid the walkaway positions in the agreement...but that does not prove any particular interpretation of what “discussion economic feasibility” meant.

His is neither quality legal analysis nor quality journalism. And again, I say that as someone with little respect for how the owners conduct themselves around these negotiations
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Yeah, that's really f'ng stupid. PKB says most of it but I will add on that his last point is complete nonsense. Yes, the players can stick to their guns and receive full pro rated salaries but that also means the Commissioner can set the number of games. But that does not mean that discussions of economic feasibility aren't supposed to be made in good faith.

One other thing. There are a ton of components that go into the economic feasibility of games without fans. The sides absolutely punted those discussions. But as PKB notes, just because it didn't specifically mention salaries, that doesn't mean that topic is excluded.

Since the players have walked away from the table, now the real issue is this: what happens when both sides say the other side did not negotiate in good faith?
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,660
The cradle of the game.
Since the players have walked away from the table, now the real issue is this: what happens when both sides say the other side did not negotiate in good faith?
Assume grievances are filed with the NLRB, a mediator is assigned, and the 3 parties work it out. But since the March Agreement applies only to the 2020 season, it will expire before any such negotiations will happen anyway.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,502
Assume grievances are filed with the NLRB, a mediator is assigned, and the 3 parties work it out. But since the March Agreement applies only to the 2020 season, it will expire before any such negotiations will happen anyway.
I doubt any mediator is going to be able to work out the grievance. Also, if one side or another is found not to have bargained in good faith, the other party is going to claim a tremendous amount damages. This article - https://wtop.com/mlb/2020/06/baseball-players-say-talks-futile-tell-mlb-to-order-return/ - speculates that the players could claim a billion dollars of damages if they were to prevail.

That's not going to expire with the 2020 Agreement.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
If I were to summarize what I've seen about all this it would be two things:

1. The owners---building on a decades long legacy of disingenous and unfair negotiations---failed to clarify that this was all really still very open in their minds. They probably realized this, and should have been more clear about what was and was not settled. Playing games with interpretation is not how you work with a long-standing business partner you are (for better or worse) essentially married to indefinitely.
2. Tony Clark, who seems roughly as in over his head in this as Craig Grebeck does trying to hit, seemed to genuinely not understand any of the details or variables in the March agreement and is now indignant about what he perceives as yet another shady move by a proven bad actor. But that's emotion, not practicality, driving things.

Ken Rosenthal asks an important (and related) question on the Athletic today (paywall): what precisely is MLBPA's strategy here, either in 2020 or to set up the dynamics for the next CBA?

I do not blame the players for objecting to cuts or taking a stand in response to years of perceived slights by Major League Baseball and its clubs. If commissioner Rob Manfred imposes a season of 50-odd games, that decision will reflect poorly on him and his owners. But still it’s fair to wonder: Where exactly is the Players Association going with this?
Robothal

To me, it's not clear they know where they are going or how their approach to the 2020 negotiations will help them get there. Am I missing what the angle is for the union? Maybe they really are just playing for a mediator to give them a billion-dollar windfall to fuel the strike fund in 2021? I don't buy that is highly probable, or that the timing will be fast enough to matter. I just think they are fighting to fight and that's a losing strategy when the other guy can absorb pain longer.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I think it's becoming abundantly clear that the players were incredibly short-sighted, not just of the owners' penchant for trying to not have to pay them, but of the impact of the virus on the viability of playing the season. They either didn't foresee or didn't accept the reality that the virus was never going to just go away after a couple weeks/months and allow for anything close to a full season. They got short term concessions in the upfront money that basically covered them for the first month or so, and then must have figured that the season would be re-started in time for them to not lose out on much more. It's like they assumed that they'd still get to play 120-130 games this year when after about two weeks of shutdown, it was painfully clear that they were going to lose at least half the season.

The owners have them over a barrel and it's as much their own doing as the owners who suckered them into a bad deal.
 

EnochRoot

New Member
Feb 7, 2020
90
Baltimore, MD
I really don't understand the "tainted title" argument. They've had shortened seasons before that resulted in champions, and those were shortened by their own doing (strikes, lockouts). This season is shorter for reasons beyond anyone's control. I see no reason to not recognize the last team standing this year as the 2020 World Series champion, same as the Dodgers were 1981 World champs and the 1918 Red Sox were World Champs. Whether the regular season was 50 games, 100 games, 154 games or 162 games, what difference does it make?
The '81 WS Title is most certainly asterisked. Hell, some of the best teams in the sport weren't allowed to make the post season because of the arbitrary rules they put into place.

ETA: I see that this has been pointed out by others.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
What is considered good faith in this mess?
When contrasted with the player’s understanding of the tentative agreement back in March, the fact that the revenue owners have offered to the players is essentially identical under every scenario is fairly good evidence.

That doesn’t excuse the stupidity of Tony Clark and his minions - and that stupidity may very well undermine their eventual grievance - but the “bad faith” argument seems pretty clear.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
When contrasted with the player’s understanding of the tentative agreement back in March, the fact that the revenue owners have offered to the players is essentially identical under every scenario is fairly good evidence.
It was technically higher. The better way to say is that the owners never offered anything that was realistic to think the players would accept.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,823
I can’t think of a scenario where “bad faith” would be implied in this scenario given the unforeseen circumstances and material change in circumstances with no fans - especially considering the significant Covid restrictions that still exist today.

They are essentially negotiating money from 2 different positions based on games to be played and revenue projections. I’m sure the players will dress it up for PR purposes but I don’t see a legal basis for bad faith claims.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
I can’t think of a scenario where “bad faith” would be implied in this scenario given the unforeseen circumstances and material change in circumstances with no fans - especially considering the significant Covid restrictions that still exist today.

They are essentially negotiating money from 2 different positions based on games to be played and revenue projections. I’m sure the players will dress it up for PR purposes but I don’t see a legal basis for bad faith claims.
I don't think the players really think they will get anything of consequence financially by filing the grievance but it's worth a shot to see if they can get access to the books.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
There's something gnawing at me. We all think the owners are lying about profitability. Pretty much universally, right?

If the owners are lying about profitability, then why wouldn't they want more games? Saying they are greedy (they are) creates a conflict with the idea that they aren't losing money on a per game basis.

In other words, I would argue that the owners do stand to lose money on a per game basis when no fans are present but overall are still profitable. The latter point is where it gets hairy.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,126
If the owners are lying about profitability, then why wouldn't they want more games?
They are also concerned about a second wave and the playoffs being cancelled. If they do start the 50 game season on July 10th or therebouts, the regular season would end earlier than it would in normal seasons.
 

Pitt the Elder

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 7, 2013
4,419
There's something gnawing at me. We all think the owners are lying about profitability. Pretty much universally, right?

If the owners are lying about profitability, then why wouldn't they want more games? Saying they are greedy (they are) creates a conflict with the idea that they aren't losing money on a per game basis.

In other words, I would argue that the owners do stand to lose money on a per game basis when no fans are present but overall are still profitable. The latter point is where it gets hairy.
They're profitable because of the TV contracts, right, but those aren't on a per game basis, are they? My sense of that they need to satisfy some minimum number of games but I don't know if they make more money by playing more games from TV.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,183
Washington
I'd guess that the per game profitability varies from team to team and that some teams really will lose money the more regular season games they play. Others probably won't. I'd also guess that MLB negotiation red lines are based on the concerns of the financially weakest teams.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
I can’t think of a scenario where “bad faith” would be implied in this scenario given the unforeseen circumstances and material change in circumstances with no fans - especially considering the significant Covid restrictions that still exist today.

They are essentially negotiating money from 2 different positions based on games to be played and revenue projections. I’m sure the players will dress it up for PR purposes but I don’t see a legal basis for bad faith claims.
Agreed, I think collectively people should be a lot more rigorous in separating out who you agree with/like and the process to date.

I think it's really, really hard to argue that the owners position is more 'bad faith' than the initial player offer, which was to me a total joke. Now, I'm sympathetic to the player's problem and goals here but if you're going to analyze the process moves I think you have to be honest about it in both directions.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,480
Garden City
I'd guess that the per game profitability varies from team to team and that some teams really will lose money the more regular season games they play. Others probably won't. I'd also guess that MLB negotiation red lines are based on the concerns of the financially weakest teams.
That's fair but with no fans in attendance, the biggest markets with the largest payrolls would stand to lose more too. Not only the less valuable teams.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
I'd guess that the per game profitability varies from team to team and that some teams really will lose money the more regular season games they play. Others probably won't. I'd also guess that MLB negotiation red lines are based on the concerns of the financially weakest teams.
I would guess for this particular year MLB as a whole is losing money on all non-playoff games and thus wants the ratio of regular season games to playoff games to be as low as possible. That is consistent with their offer, and with the idea that ratings for playoffs generate big money for networks while RSN fees make some bigger market teams profitable at any length of season but lack of fans and concession/parking/suite dollars hit others every regular season game. So I think one of the complexities is that beneath the headline teams vary likely a lot.

This is, as an aside, where I think the credibility of the owner's economic assumptions comes into play. The players, backed by decades of management shenanigans on finances, simply don't believe the above.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,047
South Carolina via Dorchestah
60 sounds about right.
I'm down with this.

"Asterisk" and/or "tainted" seasons are in the eye of the beholder. Every pre-1947 championship is tainted by having all-white rosters. the 42-43-44-and 45 championship should be "asterisked' because of WWII (Sorry Cardinal fans*).

The college baseball seasons runs about 50 games and then there are conference tournaments, regionals, super regionals, and the CWS, so some teams might get up to 60ish games. It's fun, and it will be interesting see MLB managers adapt to the format.

For example, college pitching rotations go #1 (Friday night), #2 (Saturday), #3 (Sunday) over a weekend series, and then a spot starter for the midweek game. The midweek starter is often a younger thrower who needs lower-leverage innings. And that midweek starter goes into the bullpen for the weekend. So in a 60 game MLB sprint, can a team try a three man rotation with every fourth game being a bullpen game?











*BWAHAHAHAH F*ck the Cardinals anyway.
 

Marbleheader

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2004
11,726
I look forward to telling my grandchildren what it was like growing up watching baseball and listening to rock n' roll. It's going to be strange and wondrous to them.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
For example, college pitching rotations go #1 (Friday night), #2 (Saturday), #3 (Sunday) over a weekend series, and then a spot starter for the midweek game. The midweek starter is often a younger thrower who needs lower-leverage innings. And that midweek starter goes into the bullpen for the weekend. So in a 60 game MLB sprint, can a team try a three man rotation with every fourth game being a bullpen game?
I'm going to say no because they're still going to be playing 6 games a week on average, as opposed to the four that they play in college.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,299
deep inside Guido territory
Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred told ESPN on Monday he's "not confident" there will be a 2020 baseball season and that "as long as there's no dialogue" with the MLB Players Association, "that real risk is going to continue."

In a conversation with Mike Greenberg for ESPN's "The Return of Sports" special, Manfred walked back comments made to ESPN last week, when he said "unequivocally we are going to play Major League Baseball this year" and pegged the likelihood at "100%."

"I'm not confident. I think there's real risk; and as long as there's no dialogue, that real risk is gonna continue," Manfred said when asked if he was confident there would be a season.
"It's just a disaster for our game, absolutely no question about it. It shouldn't be happening, and it's important that we find a way to get past it and get the game back on the field for the benefit of our fans," he said.

Manfred said the MLBPA's "decision to end good-faith negotiations" and the need for an agreement with the union on health-and-safety protocols "were really negative in terms of our efforts."

"The owners are a hundred percent committed to getting baseball back on the field," Manfred said. "Unfortunately, I can't tell you that I'm a hundred percent certain that's gonna happen."
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,731
If there was only someone in charge of everything who could step in and settle things, maybe he could have a job name like 'commissioner'.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
If there was only someone in charge of everything who could step in and settle things, maybe he could have a job name like 'commissioner'.
I have not been following negotiations super closely because, well, it's a major drag, but is there any reason that Manfred should not immediately resign if there is no baseball this season?
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
I have not been following negotiations super closely because, well, it's a major drag, but is there any reason that Manfred should not immediately resign if there is no baseball this season?
Because he works for the owners, and the owners don't want to play this year except under financial terms that significantly favor them?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Because he works for the owners, and the owners don't want to play this year except under financial terms that significantly favor them?
Has anyone calculated how much money owners saved with a 5-round draft?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,484
Rogers Park
Seems clear to me that owners are incredibly spooked about a second wave in the fall and don’t want a season.
That's not what they're saying. They're saying they want to be absolved of future liability if their employees are exposed on the job to a disease with a literally unknown long-term prognosis. edit: In other words, they have the same position as all employers in the United States. They don't care about anyone's health, but they sure care about their potential liability.

Surely no one would say that the union could accept such terms.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,808
The back of your computer
Has anyone calculated how much money owners saved with a 5-round draft?
In 2018, the industry spent a record $294,648,102 on Draft bonuses, including $49,818,165 after the 10th round.
In 2019, the industry spent a record $316,560,984 on Draft bonuses, including $55,896,284 after the 10th round.

The 2020 draft pools for all 30 teams total $235,906,800 (excludes $20k/FA signee). (note: all amounts reported by mlb.com)

In other words, they saved a lot, unless they plan on signing 4,000 FAs at $20k a pop.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,435
But I thought they were "100% going to play", Rob? This is such a major, major shitshow on both sides.
Not both sides. The owners signed an agreement that said the players would be paid their full pro-rata salaries for all games played. Then they decided that was a bad deal and have been trying to renegotiate that signed deal ever since with zero leverage to do so. This is 100% on the owners.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
That's not what they're saying. They're saying they want to be absolved of future liability if their employees are exposed on the job to a disease with a literally unknown long-term prognosis. edit: In other words, they have the same position as all employers in the United States. They don't care about anyone's health, but they sure care about their potential liability.

Surely no one would say that the union could accept such terms.
I’m talking beyond this specific item. The owners have been negotiating in bad faith the entire time, IMO.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
Passan had an interesting nugget in his column today I think really captures why I would not trust anything the owners say about profitability if I was the MLBPA:

"In 2018, the Braves reported an operating profit before depreciation and amortization of $94 million. Last year, it was $54 million -- though after depreciation and amortization, plus stock compensation, the team showed a paper loss of $32 million.

During a presentation to the union early in negotiations, MLB said its teams collectively have not earned before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization more than $250 million in a single year over the past decade. "And we're supposed to believe the Braves, the only team whose financials we see, accounted for 40% of that two years ago?" a union official asked."

Add in the massive increases in franchise value and it's just really hard to feel like the owners shouldn't be the ones to take the hit here.