2019-2020 Official Regular Season Thread

[dtgold88]

Yeah, I don't know if you saw, but I said that the time, that could come back to bite them as far as who the fans blame.

I agree with Matt Joyce, don't all of the sudden come to the table with revenue sharing when you've never wanted it before and now have suddenly decided that it's advantageous to you for this one season.

Why do you and thunder think this is the case? Most owners would love revenue sharing like NBA and NFL has. They would want it every year. That's the problem.....MLB players think this could lead to revenue sharing every year which they don't ever want.

 

[dtgold88]

Ok.

Forget about the actual $ numbers involved for a minute.

If your employer asked you to take a fraction of your normal salary to work in more hazardous conditions, how would you react?

If the alternative is lose my job and get nothing?

 

[dtgold88]

Really? If so now I really want MLB to get the season going. Fuck those greedy billionaire owners.

I think you'll see it if the greedy millionaire players do their part.

 

[dtgold88]

No. Salaries were already going to be prorated. Then the owners want to take a big chunk out of what is left.

correct.....and if no season all the players would still have received service time for the season.

 

[dtgold88]

Doesn’t matter.

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You would be pissed too.

Pissed? Nope. But I'd want to negotiate and be willing to do what is fair for both sides.

 

[dtgold88]

Maybe not.

But maybe they infect a family member who ends up dying.

And your assumptions that young people can’t get sick from this are flat out wrong.

Well of course they can get sick. They can also get very hurt by playing.

I do agree there is some risk but it's risk they can control. As likely they go to the store and pick it up (and infect family member) as it would be playing baseball.

 

[dtgold88]

I am not changing the calculus.

Owners are expecting the players to bail them out. This isn’t what the two sides agreed upon when this whole thing first started and the players absolutely should be upset.

Most people can’t get past the $ figure, but the reality is anyone would be justifiably angry if or in the same position.

You keep saying anyone would be angry and that's not the case...the rational thing to do is try and come up with something agreeable to both parties. You know, like they do when they aren't in a world pandemic.

 

[dtgold88]

But this is the crux of every labor dispute.

Why should the players give up salary so the owners can turn a profit? Why can’t the owners just accept losses for the year?

They will argue about their millions of dollars and both sides will end up looking bad. And the general public will always take the side of the owners which is wrong in my opinion.

agree it's wrong to always take the side of the owners. Also wrong to dismiss their side and take the side of the players as you want to do here.

 

[dtgold88]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm on the players side.

But @msgkings322 is right. You're trying to compare a regular person with a regular job to someone who makes millions for playing a game 6 months out of the year.

That's never going to work.

The problem for the players and the reason the fans will side with the owners is because the players don't know how to keep their mouths shut. While you hear very little, if anything, out of the owners.

So, the players come off as whiny and entitled because they're millionaires crying about not having enough money.

Meanwhile, it's the billionaires that are the actual problem.

In some cases, sure, but don't agree they are here. Needs to be give and take on both sides.

 

[dtgold88]

That is easy to say from the outside looking in.

If you were contracted to make $10 million and you only got paid $2 million, I doubt you would be grateful. Especially if you thought the owners were taking money from you so they could line their own pockets.

You were doing well until the last sentence. seems like owners make less in a season with no fans just just scrapping the season. They would like to mitigate this which seems fair.

 

[dtgold88]

If the owners were sticking to the original deal, there would be no issue.

But under the original deal if there are no fans the owners lose more playing than not playing.

Now I agree with players I'd want to see the books to prove that.

 

[DJ]

That is easy to say from the outside looking in.

If you were contracted to make $10 million and you only got paid $2 million, I doubt you would be grateful. Especially if you thought the owners were taking money from you so they could line their own pockets.

You completely overlooked comment 20,559.....that's why most MLB players won't sit out.

 

[trojanfan12]

MLB not the NFL......their money comes from fans in stands far more than it does in the NFL. Many reports out there saying owners will lose more playing a season without fans as opposed to no season. Especially if the season starts and they cannot finish as playoffs is their big moneymaker.

Really? That surprises me a little.

But thinking about it, I guess I could see that. It's only the 3rd most popular professional sport, so they likely don't have the tv deals that the NFL and NBA have.

Also, the one thing that baseball does have over the NFL and NBA is that it's slower pace is perfect for spending a summer day at the ballpark kind of hanging out and having some hot dogs and beer. You can run up a decent tab over a 9 inning game.

I know I'll even go to local minor league games around my area just because I enjoy being at the ballpark in the summer. Don't even know who any of the players are and don't like the big league team they're affiliated with, but I go to several games a year anyway. lol

 

[thunderc]

Huh? Most owners would love to have salaries tied to revenue sharing like NBA and NFL. It's the players who are against it.

juat saying what Matt Joyce said, he mentioned the owners had done really well since the last agreement and the owners kept all the extra.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

If the owners were sticking to the original deal, there would be no issue.

I'd really need to see the X and O's of the offer.

That said the players are jackasses for not wanting a salary cap. Sure the top one percent probably takes a pay cut but everyone else would make more in all likelihood

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Really? That surprises me a little.

But thinking about it, I guess I could see that. It's only the 3rd most popular professional sport, so they likely don't have the tv deals that the NFL and NBA have.

Also, the one thing that baseball does have over the NFL and NBA is that it's slower pace is perfect for spending a summer day at the ballpark kind of hanging out and having some hot dogs and beer. You can run up a decent tab over a 9 inning game.

I know I'll even go to local minor league games around my area just because I enjoy being at the ballpark in the summer. Don't even know who any of the players are and don't like the big league team they're affiliated with, but I go to several games a year anyway. lol

Baseball is much more regionalized than the other major sports.

 

[bksballer89]

Stephen A had a good idea.

He said since the NBA may be in one location, this is the time to try seeding teams 1-16 instead of by conference.

First round would look like this:

1) Bucks vs 16) Magic
2) Lakers vs 15) Nets
3) Raptors vs 14) Grizzlies
4) Clippers vs 13) Mavericks
5) Celtics vs 12) Sixers
6) Nuggets vs 11) Pacers
7) Jazz vs 10) Rockets
8) Heat vs 9) Thunder

 

[tlance]

I'd really need to see the X and O's of the offer.

That said the players are jackasses for not wanting a salary cap. Sure the top one percent probably takes a pay cut but everyone else would make more in all likelihood

Baseball has its own unique structure though.

Players under team control end up playing on very team friendly deals, and vets end up getting overpaid.

A salary cap would probably end up hurting a lot of vets. Depends on how it was structured though. Because today some vets end up not even getting contracts as teams go with younger cost controlled options.

 

[tlance]

agree it's wrong to always take the side of the owners. Also wrong to dismiss their side and take the side of the players as you want to do here.

Is it really necessary for you to reply to like 8 different comments that were part of the same discussion?

I am not dismissing anything. But some on here seem to be dismissing the players’ side totally because they can’t comprehend being in that situation.

I don’t think baseball is happening this year and it will be because the 2 sides won’t agree on money. And I do see both sides. Just arguing the players because most here don’t seem to get that.

 

[dtgold88]

Really? That surprises me a little.

But thinking about it, I guess I could see that. It's only the 3rd most popular professional sport, so they likely don't have the tv deals that the NFL and NBA have.

Also, the one thing that baseball does have over the NFL and NBA is that it's slower pace is perfect for spending a summer day at the ballpark kind of hanging out and having some hot dogs and beer. You can run up a decent tab over a 9 inning game.

I know I'll even go to local minor league games around my area just because I enjoy being at the ballpark in the summer. Don't even know who any of the players are and don't like the big league team they're affiliated with, but I go to several games a year anyway. lol

I'll look for an article, but by memory I think it was something like baseball revenue is 60% ticket sales (and what you mentioned that comes along with going to a game....parking, concessions, etc). and, yeah, those TV deals in the NFL take care of nearly everything for them. Probably why we haven't heard mention of asking players to give back if no fans in stands....at least so far.