mlb floating "arizona plan"

[Alsacs]

The thing is, how much difference exactly is there in revenue paid out to players?

Using this plan, 50 game season, prorated salary, so 50/162=about 31% of what they would normally make.

For their initial proposal, from Jeff Passan


For Mike Trout, the highest paid player, he would get about $5.7 million in their initial proposal, and $11 million in this current one.

If I am doing the math right (????), anyone making up to $20 million a year would be making more money in this proposal than in the initial one; a $20 million guy would be making about $3.9 million in the first proposal, and about $6 million in the second one


If my math is wrong, blame Jeff Passan. He's dumb. Where did he go to school anyway?

There isn’t much difference in revenue it’s the owners finding a way to keep their losses down and be able to collect postseason money and other revenue streams.

They don’t want a half season and pay half a season of payroll so because the players wouldn’t take less money they will just play less games.

It’s such a bullchit offer. If I am the players I take the season off and I am in no hurry to renegotiate the CBA. Let the sport burn.
The owners want to play hardball let them.

 

[Knicks411]

There isn’t much difference in revenue it’s the owners finding a way to keep their losses down and be able to collect postseason money and other revenue streams.

They don’t want a half season and pay half a season of payroll so because the players wouldn’t take less money they will just play less games.

It’s such a bullchit offer. If I am the players I take the season off and I am in no hurry to renegotiate the CBA. Let the sport burn.
The owners want to play hardball let them.

It's 80 games per team vs 50, isn't that a fairly significant difference in tv money? I know they get a lot from playffs, but thats a lot of regular season games you're losing.

The way i understand it A) it could actually be more money than the initial offer (though I feel like Im missing something, so feel free to show me different, and B) it's not supposed to be an offer. They seem to think they can impose this without the PA signing off.

 

[Alsacs]

It's 80 games per team vs 50, isn't that a fairly significant difference in tv money? I know they get a lot from playffs, but thats a lot of regular season games you're losing.

The way i understand it A) it could actually be more money than the initial offer (though I feel like Im missing something, so feel free to show me different, and B) it's not supposed to be an offer. They seem to think they can impose this without the PA signing off.

MLB would be stupid with a CBA expiring next year to unilaterally implement the comeback this season.

They wanted a 82 game season with not a full prorated salary for players. They only want the 50 games now because they will pay the full prorated salaries but it’s 32 less games of them having to pay players full prorated salaries.

MLB is penny pinching for this one year. Fans should realize what it is. If baseball owners can’t take a financial hit for one half of a season to make the sport continue then they deserve the crap they are getting and the future doubt of the sport’s relevance.

The NBA new calendar is going to infringe on MLB and will further dilute the sport’s problems.

 

[sutomcat]

It's 80 games per team vs 50, isn't that a fairly significant difference in tv money? I know they get a lot from playffs, but thats a lot of regular season games you're losing.

The way i understand it A) it could actually be more money than the initial offer (though I feel like Im missing something, so feel free to show me different, and B) it's not supposed to be an offer. They seem to think they can impose this without the PA signing off.

I think the owners are of the belief that they are going to lose money trying to play this year and are looking at way to reduce their losses as much as possible.

I know there is a small group of owners that are quietly campaigning to just not play this year period. The lack of understanding of the impact on the fan base not playing/playing an abbreviated schedule when they could have played more/having long, protracted disagreements on how the season should be played tells me the Wilpons are deeply involved.

I hope smarter people are able to intercede and save the sport. Some of the things the owners are doing really look like they are intentionally destroying it. I am specifically very upset over this idea to reduce the number of minor team teams from 160 to 120. I haven't seen the exact breakdown on which teams are being phased out but it sounds like the NY Penn League and the Eastern League are taking huge hits. The number of minor team teams in upstate NY is going to drop dramatically.

I think we will be left with Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. No Binghamton, no Auburn, no Batavia, no Albany, no Hudson Valley. These minor league teams are a way of introducing thousands of kids to pro baseball and a way of keeping adults engaged and interested in the sport. Why would you shut it down for so many communities?

 

[Knicks411]

The thing I am struggling with, is (like I said), as far as I can tell, in this new "proposal", the owners would be paying out a similar, if not higher, amount of total dollars, but would be bringing in less revenue because there are fewer games. So I must be missing something. Maybe they would be able to minimize losses more this way, but I am struggling to see it.

 

[Bayside44]

I think the owners are of the belief that they are going to lose money trying to play this year and are looking at way to reduce their losses as much as possible.

I know there is a small group of owners that are quietly campaigning to just not play this year period. The lack of understanding of the impact on the fan base not playing/playing an abbreviated schedule when they could have played more/having long, protracted disagreements on how the season should be played tells me the Wilpons are deeply involved.

I hope smarter people are able to intercede and save the sport. Some of the things the owners are doing really look like they are intentionally destroying it. I am specifically very upset over this idea to reduce the number of minor team teams from 160 to 120. I haven't seen the exact breakdown on which teams are being phased out but it sounds like the NY Penn League and the Eastern League are taking huge hits. The number of minor team teams in upstate NY is going to drop dramatically.

I think we will be left with Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. No Binghamton, no Auburn, no Batavia, no Albany, no Hudson Valley. These minor league teams are a way of introducing thousands of kids to pro baseball and a way of keeping adults engaged and interested in the sport. Why would you shut it down for so many communities?

If the purpose is player development to get to the MLB you don't need those teams. Low level minor league baseball is terrible quality. Selling these guys the notion that they're going to be the one to break through when in reality they reach their mid-late 20s broke, having served as cannon fodder for the the guys on the 40 man roster plus a few that management cares about. I know that sounds callous.

 

[Briancuse]

If the purpose is player development to get to the MLB you don't need those teams. Low level minor league baseball is terrible quality. Selling these guys the notion that they're going to be the one to break through when in reality they reach their mid-late 20s broke, having served as cannon fodder for the the guys on the 40 man roster plus a few that management cares about. I know that sounds callous.

Ya 90 pct of those guys will never see the big leagues. Every now and then you get a guy who breaks through in his late 20s early 30s. Some guys just love to play even if they aren't good and these small towns rely on those minor league teams.

 

[sutomcat]

If the purpose is player development to get to the MLB you don't need those teams. Low level minor league baseball is terrible quality. Selling these guys the notion that they're going to be the one to break through when in reality they reach their mid-late 20s broke, having served as cannon fodder for the the guys on the 40 man roster plus a few that management cares about. I know that sounds callous.

I agree with that. Even in AAA, it isn't unusual to have only 2 or 3 decent prospects on the roster. Add in maybe a few has beens and a lot of not good enoughs.

I think minor league baseball is a great advertisement for the sport and an important part of a lot of small cities, many of whom have hosted minor league teams for 100 or more years.

If the MLB owners don't want to help promote and support the sport that has been so good to them, I hope some civic leaders of some of these communities get involved and get independent teams up and running.
This is part of America. It shouldn't die.

 

[Alsacs]

The thing I am struggling with, is (like I said), as far as I can tell, in this new "proposal", the owners would be paying out a similar, if not higher, amount of total dollars, but would be bringing in less revenue because there are fewer games. So I must be missing something. Maybe they would be able to minimize losses more this way, but I am struggling to see it.

They are paying basically the same amount they would in their original 82 game proposal.
They just lowered the amount of games they want to pay to 50 instead of 82 games because the players weren’t going to agree to lower than salaries by what the original 82 game proposal called for.

The owners said okay fine we will pay you your full prorated salaries we just won’t play 82 games so we won’t have to pay you more money since 50’games will result in the same salaries being paid.

All the owners did was chop 32 games off losses of their ledger to get the same salaries.

It’s an insult to the fans for a 50 game season just because owners who are billionaires won’t take a one year hit and just make the money back from owning their teams for as long as they want too.

 

[Bayside44]

They are paying basically the same amount they would in their original 82 game proposal.
They just lowered the amount of games they want to pay to 50 instead of 82 games because the players weren’t going to agree to lower than salaries by what the original 82 game proposal called for.

The owners said okay fine we will pay you your full prorated salaries we just won’t play 82 games so we won’t have to pay you more money since 50’games will result in the same salaries being paid.

All the owners did was chop 32 games off losses of their ledger to get the same salaries.

It’s an insult to the fans for a 50 game season just because owners who are billionaires won’t take a one year hit and just make the money back from owning their teams for as long as they want too.

It's hard to impossible to accept the legitimacy of a 50 game season.

 

[Knicks411]

They are paying basically the same amount they would in their original 82 game proposal.
They just lowered the amount of games they want to pay to 50 instead of 82 games because the players weren’t going to agree to lower than salaries by what the original 82 game proposal called for.

The owners said okay fine we will pay you your full prorated salaries we just won’t play 82 games so we won’t have to pay you more money since 50’games will result in the same salaries being paid.

All the owners did was chop 32 games off losses of their ledger to get the same salaries.

It’s an insult to the fans for a 50 game season just because owners who are billionaires won’t take a one year hit and just make the money back from owning their teams for as long as they want too.

But how? Their main expense is player salaries, which are staying the same. Their main (only at this point?) source of revenue is tv money, which presumably goes down if you are playing fewer games. What money are they saving from chopping 32 games off the schedule?

 

[Alsacs]

But how? Their main expense is player salaries, which are staying the same. Their main (only at this point?) source of revenue is tv money, which presumably goes down if you are playing fewer games. What money are they saving from chopping 32 games off the schedule?

If players are being paid at pro-rated rates it means if they play 50 games players only get paid for 50/162 games.

If they played 82 games at pro rated salaries the players would be getting 1/2 of their salaries for this season.
Owners don’t want to pay players 1/2 their salaries. They want to pay them in essence 1/3 of their salaries.

 

[Knicks411]

If players are being paid at pro-rated rates it means if they play 50 games players only get paid for 50/162 games.

If they played 82 games at pro rated salaries the players would be getting 1/2 of their salaries for this season.
Owners don’t want to pay players 1/2 their salaries. They want to pay them in essence 1/3 of their salaries.

Their initial proposal was worse than that. My Passan tweet from yesterday got buried, I'm going to post again




Basically, they were starting from a base of a prorated half season salary, and then chopping more money off of that.

If you read further along in the thread, Mike Trout, who is scheduled to make $37 million this year, was going to make about $5.7 million in their initial proposal. Definitely not half. And in this one, he's going to make about 11! (now, he is an outlier obviously, because of how much he is making that was initially esssentially going to be taxed at 80%).

 

[Alsacs]

Their initial proposal was worse than that. My Passan tweet from yesterday got buried, I'm going to post again




Basically, they were starting from a base of a prorated half season salary, and then chopping more money off of that.

If you read further along in the thread, Mike Trout, who is scheduled to make $37 million this year, was going to make about $5.7 million in their initial proposal. Definitely not half. And in this one, he's going to make about 11! (now, he is an outlier obviously, because of how much he is making that was initially esssentially going to be taxed at 80%).

Trout is the outlier.

If you were scheduled to make 10 million for this year for example.
Under the owners first proposal that player would have made 4 million dollars.
Under this new proposal that player would make 3.1 million dollars.

The owners are throwing a few more bucks at the top guys now and hoping that is enough.

The owners want 50 games because they can’t do 82 games without having to pay the players the prorated amounts due in the contract.

If the owners just did the 82 game schedule with prorated contracts the deal would get done pretty easily.

 

[Knicks411]

Trout is the outlier.

If you were scheduled to make 10 million for this year for example.
Under the owners first proposal that player would have made 4 million dollars.
Under this new proposal that player would make 3.1 million dollars.

The owners are throwing a few more bucks at the top guys now and hoping that is enough.

The owners want 50 games because they can’t do 82 games without having to pay the players the prorated amounts due in the contract.

If the owners just did the 82 game schedule with prorated contracts the deal would get done pretty easily.

Here is the thing about that, and I think I have it right...

Those scales are not off the full season salary. They are off the pro rated numbers.

So if you were scheduled to make $10 million, then first, cut that in half to get to your prorated salary. $5 million. Then you use those (essentially) tax brackets. So a player will a full season salary of $10 million would end up with about $2.8 million) (in his example, Passan first uses a guy making the minimum, $563,500, you don't get 90% of that, which would be $507,150. You get 90% of (basically) half of that)

 

[Alsacs]

Cubs owner disputes idea MLB teams 'hoard' cash

Cubs owner Tom Ricketts said most MLB teams' yearly revenue goes right back into the team and that "the league itself does not make a lot of cash."

www.espn.com

Sell the team then jackass.

 

[Briancuse]

It's hard to impossible to accept the legitimacy of a 50 game season.

You could see a white sox/pirates world series. You need at least 80 games here.

 

[MSOrange]

I agree with that. Even in AAA, it isn't unusual to have only 2 or 3 decent prospects on the roster. Add in maybe a few has beens and a lot of not good enoughs.

I think minor league baseball is a great advertisement for the sport and an important part of a lot of small cities, many of whom have hosted minor league teams for 100 or more years.

If the MLB owners don't want to help promote and support the sport that has been so good to them, I hope some civic leaders of some of these communities get involved and get independent teams up and running.
This is part of America. It shouldn't die.

I hate the business part of sports so I'm not interested in this discussion except for the part about minor league baseball. I totally agree with this. I loved going to Chiefs games growing up and developed a life long love of baseball because of it. It's small towns connection to the big leagues. One of the things I always used to do growiing up when we took a vacation trip was to see if any minor league teams were in the area and try to catch a game for some inexpensive entertainment for a night.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Alsacs]

Rob Manfred is almost as bad as Revenue Roger Goodell as a commissioner.

Atleast Goodell being a robot makes sense financially.

Players aren’t going to give the owners a favorable CBA after next year.

 

[Alsacs]

 

[CuseRunner]

This is when i especially miss George as a Yankee fan. The Yankees have a World Series Favorite team this year and where is Hal ? George would throw his weight around and make sure we would play a season with the Yankees having the favorite team to win the world series.

Hal where r u ?

 

[NineOneSeven]

This is when i especially miss George as a Yankee fan. The Yankees have a World Series Favorite team this year and where is Hal ? George would throw his weight around and make sure we would play a season with the Yankees having the favorite team to win the world series.

Hal where r u ?

I mean... that's not really how this works

 

[CuseRunner]

I mean... that's not really how this works

George would not let a season where his team is a world series favorite not be played potentially.

 

[OrangeDW]

George would not let a season where his team is a world series favorite not be played potentially.

George didn’t and wouldn’t have that kind of power.