We're basically getting 50-60 man MLB rosters with the taxi squad

[kobeunderbite]

Tim Tebow MLB debut coming soon to your television set

[PhutureDynasty]

Why are we, and Timothy, so blessed?

[Kevin]

Not gonna be a season tho because of the owners.

[elartman1973]

Nobody cares.
MLB is disposable

[vcsgrizzfan]

Not gonna be a season tho because of the owners.

I'm more on their side than the players based on what I've seen so far.

[Kevin]

Not gonna be a season tho because of the owners.

I'm more on their side than the players based on what I've seen so far.

Exceptionally bad take. The players agreed to a prorated salary, which would amount to a 50% cut this year and both sides agreed. Now the billionaire owners are reneging on that agreement saying they should take even more of a paycut. Do the players get bonuses when the league has a better than expected year revenue wise? Fuck no. They want to share in the losses while not sharing in the profits. They can suck it up for once and take the downside of the risk that they supposedly take for owning a sports team.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Not gonna be a season tho because of the owners.

I'm more on their side than the players based on what I've seen so far.

Exceptionally bad take. The players agreed to a prorated salary, which would amount to a 50% cut this year and both sides agreed. Now the billionaire owners are reneging on that agreement saying they should take even more of a paycut. Do the players get bonuses when the league has a better than expected year revenue wise? Fuck no. They want to share in the losses while not sharing in the profits. They can suck it up for once and take the downside of the risk that they supposedly take for owning a sports team.

With all due respect, that is not a realistic take.

The salary structure is based on a certain expectation of revenues. This doesn't take rocket science capabilities to understand. In a "normal" season, the deviation from that for the league as a whole might be at most a few percentage points. At most.

This isn't what's happening here.

Approximately 40% of baseball revenues are associated with gate receipts. Ticket sales, parking, concessions and so on. That doesn't decline by a few percent. It declines to zero. In addition ballpark advertising revenues will also go to close to zero.

I suspect other revenue streams will also be affected. I'm not certain, but I doubt tv contracts will be exactly prorated. MLB will likely take a haircut that is more than that in network contracts and most local tv contracts. That's just economic reality when the economy reopens.

The long and short of it is that baseball will see a lot more than 50% shrinkage in revenues.

Let's very quickly look at an economic model. It will be hugely off because we don't know the numbers but it will illustrate the point.

Let's assume baseball in a 'normal' season generates about $10 billion in revenue. Let's assume player salaries in total amount to $5billion. I have no idea if that's even close, but let's assume it is.

In that case, it would probably be fair to assume that total revenues would decline to at the very most, about $3 billion. That assumes live gate receipts go to zero and the remaining $6B is prorated to a half season with no other haircuts which is an unrealistically optimistic projection.

To be fair, some expenses would decline significanly too. Less for travel and accommodation and some other expenses, but its relatively trivial in the grand scheme.

In the 'normal' environment, baseball would have $5B to cover all expenses and earn a return if salaries were roughly 50% of revenues.

In the environment we are in, the pie has shrunk to $3B. Pro rating salaries would reduce that to $2.5B leaving MLB to cover all expenses with the $500 million left over. Players' share of revenues would go from 50% to a little under 85%.

It's not tenable.

Both sides inevitably will feel more than prorated pain because the revenue losses greatly exceed any proration formula.

But both sides need to be reasonable. I won't say baseball will die if the season is lost because of a squabble, but it will be on life support. And players looking for new deals in 2021 and 2022 etc will be looking at negotiating in an environment where instead of $20 million deals, they will be looking at fractions of that. Meanwhile, owners will be seeing franchise values crumble.

Both sides need to understand that they can't alienate fans any more and they must reasonably share the pain or they both will wither and die.

Proration would be difficult to maintain if revenues were exactly prorated because expenses are not exactly prorated. They will always decline less than the revenue declines. But in this environment, it really is untenable. Both sides need a reality check.

[lettherebehouse]

I'm more on their side than the players based on what I've seen so far.

Exceptionally bad take. The players agreed to a prorated salary, which would amount to a 50% cut this year and both sides agreed. Now the billionaire owners are reneging on that agreement saying they should take even more of a paycut. Do the players get bonuses when the league has a better than expected year revenue wise? Fuck no. They want to share in the losses while not sharing in the profits. They can suck it up for once and take the downside of the risk that they supposedly take for owning a sports team.

With all due respect, that is not a realistic take.

The salary structure is based on a certain expectation of revenues. This doesn't take rocket science capabilities to understand. In a "normal" season, the deviation from that for the league as a whole might be at most a few percentage points. At most.

This isn't what's happening here.

Approximately 40% of baseball revenues are associated with gate receipts. Ticket sales, parking, concessions and so on. That doesn't decline by a few percent. It declines to zero. In addition ballpark advertising revenues will also go to close to zero.

I suspect other revenue streams will also be affected. I'm not certain, but I doubt tv contracts will be exactly prorated. MLB will likely take a haircut that is more than that in network contracts and most local tv contracts. That's just economic reality when the economy reopens.

The long and short of it is that baseball will see a lot more than 50% shrinkage in revenues.

Let's very quickly look at an economic model. It will be hugely off because we don't know the numbers but it will illustrate the point.

Let's assume baseball in a 'normal' season generates about $10 billion in revenue. Let's assume player salaries in total amount to $5billion. I have no idea if that's even close, but let's assume it is.

In that case, it would probably be fair to assume that total revenues would decline to at the very most, about $3 billion. That assumes live gate receipts go to zero and the remaining $6B is prorated to a half season with no other haircuts which is an unrealistically optimistic projection.

To be fair, some expenses would decline significanly too. Less for travel and accommodation and some other expenses, but its relatively trivial in the grand scheme.

In the 'normal' environment, baseball would have $5B to cover all expenses and earn a return if salaries were roughly 50% of revenues.

In the environment we are in, the pie has shrunk to $3B. Pro rating salaries would reduce that to $2.5B leaving MLB to cover all expenses with the $500 million left over. Players' share of revenues would go from 50% to a little under 85%.

It's not tenable.

Both sides inevitably will feel more than prorated pain because the revenue losses greatly exceed any proration formula.

But both sides need to be reasonable. I won't say baseball will die if the season is lost because of a squabble, but it will be on life support. And players looking for new deals in 2021 and 2022 etc will be looking at negotiating in an environment where instead of $20 million deals, they will be looking at fractions of that. Meanwhile, owners will be seeing franchise values crumble.

Both sides need to understand that they can't alienate fans any more and they must reasonably share the pain or they both will wither and die.

Proration would be difficult to maintain if revenues were exactly prorated because expenses are not exactly prorated. They will always decline less than the revenue declines. But in this environment, it really is untenable. Both sides need a reality check.

[kobeunderbite]

As usual, the owners are in the right.

The notion of players keeping full prorated salaries when half of the revenue stream for the sport is wiped out is laughable. It just makes no sense on any level and it speaks to the millionaires being more out of touch than the billionaires in this case.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I get what Grizz is saying. I guess the question for me is how much money is reasonable for the owners/players to lose in the short term instead of the usual how much money should they be making... because it's just accepted that virtually every other American business is being told to "suck it up and take the loss."

With unemployment skyrocketing... and thousands of businesses either shuttering for good after all this, or running at a significant loss as "part of owning a business"... I don't think anybody has to bend over backwards to ensure billionaires are running their operations profitably this year.

I'm still mystified how the Los Angeles Lakers (worth $4B+) had the balls to apply for a PPP small business loan — and it was merely a cursory mention by most. They should be being ripped a helluva lot more than they have been for that. It's despicable behavior and the type of thing that makes it really hard to ever be empathetic to the owners of these pro sports franchises.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I get what Grizz is saying. I guess the question for me is how much money is reasonable for the owners/players to lose in the short term instead of the usual how much money should they be making... because it's just accepted that virtually every other American business is being told to "suck it up and take the loss."

With unemployment skyrocketing... and thousands of businesses either shuttering for good after all this, or running at a significant loss as "part of owning a business"... I don't think anybody has to bend over backwards to ensure billionaires are running their operations profitably this year.

I'm still mystified how the Los Angeles Lakers (worth $4B+) had the balls to apply for a PPP small business loan — and it was merely a cursory mention by most. They should be being ripped a helluva lot more than they have been for that. It's despicable behavior and the type of thing that makes it really hard to ever be empathetic to the owners of these pro sports franchises.

The question is how to share the losses. We are talking a massive divergence from the norm, and how do players and owners share the losses, because there will be big losses.

The revenue pie is going to shrink from something around $10B to something likely less than $3B.

I'm going to be uber generous and say that profits for the league as a whole, netting the losses of losing franchises against those of the most profitable franchises might be somewhere around $500 million if there hadn't been a Covid-19. I think its likely less than that but we are all pissing in the wind trying to ascertain a good number.

Operating costs will obviously decline, but nowhere near the amount that revenues decline. They might decline to something like $5 to $6 Billion if you strictly prorated salaries? A ballpark guess if you'll pardon the obviously forced pun.

Simple math and logic should be enough to know strict proration is silly.

Owners need players and players need owners. Both need fans in a sport that continues to be somewhat marginalized by younger fans.

I've used this expression before and it is apt here. My law school tax professor always said the number one rule in tax is "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered". Both sides have to avoid being hogs for the good of both longer term.

Edit: if I were an owner, I think my break point would be accepting losses that are roughly equal to not playing a season at all. Any level of salaries that would materially increase the losses over not playing a season at all gets silly. Some incremental losses yes, for longer term reasons, but significantly more than not playing at all - no.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Just read an interview with Blake Snell. He's saying no way he takes a pay cut because of the increased risks. "For me to take a pay cut is not happening, because the risk is through the roof". I've got to get my money. I'm not playing unless I get mine."

To me, that's a moron wanker completely out of touch with what the hell is going on in the world. Reasonable minds can differ I suppose, but I don't see myself changing my mind on this one.

[Bush4Ever.]

I haven't bothered to learn the facts of this situation, but I side with the "little guy" in this conflict because that's what good and moral people do in situations like this.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I haven't bothered to learn the facts of this situation, but I side with the "little guy" in this conflict because that's what good and moral people do in situations like this.

Like most things, people tend to react emotionally one way or the other on these things and don't think much.

I really hope both sides are sane about this and reach an agreement that allows a season to happen. I can see both sides being stupid and it blowing up and that would be a shame. It will harm the game long term and it's already a little wobbly. Owners have to suck it up and not expect a ton less losses than if no season is played and players have to recognize that owners fielding teams that lead to significantly bigger losses than not playing at all is stupid too.

I'm not the biggest baseball fan in the world, but I do enjoy it now and again and if the Blue Jays were actually any good, I'd watch a lot more. Nate Pearson whenever he's called up will be must see TV for me for a while anyway. And hopefully, Vladdy Jr. hits a lot more like I expected him to hit this season. That would be fun.

[lettherebehouse]

You’ll have to forgive my good friend Kevin. He’s an MCS commie no troll. I don’t even know how he escaped out of his cage, and I’m truly embarrassed it happened. We’ve got better chains securing him now, I promise he won’t be a problem anymore.

[Kevin]

Players don’t get ‘bonuses’ to their pay in good years when the teams and league does better than expected. Why should they ‘share’ in the losses now in a bad year? They’re not owners. Owners are the ones who signed up for that risk. They should bear that cost for one year or risk long term franchise valuation hits to their teams, which is ultimately what they care about far more than yearly profits. Asking them to take less than a prorated salary in this case is a totally idiotic and billionaire sympathetic take.

Also, owners just expect the players to go along with this while not opening up their books. Sure, just take us at our word that we’re suffering catastrophic losses here, because that’s always a wise move to take ownership at their word. If they’re not even willing to open their books and show all revenues, there’s not a chance in hell the players agree to this. I don’t think there is even if they do but it’s pretty obvious the owners have a lot to hide.

Also, go fuck yourself House. Watch my boots, pal.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Players don’t get ‘bonuses’ to their pay in good years when the teams and league does better than expected. Why should they ‘share’ in the losses now in a bad year? They’re not owners. Owners are the ones who signed up for that risk. They should bear that cost for one year or risk long term franchise valuation hits to their teams, which is ultimately what they care about far more than yearly profits. Asking them to take less than a prorated salary in this case is a totally idiotic and billionaire sympathetic take.

Also, owners just expect the players to go along with this while not opening up their books. Sure, just take us at our word that we’re suffering catastrophic losses here, because that’s always a wise move to take ownership at their word. If they’re not even willing to open their books and show all revenues, there’s not a chance in hell the players agree to this. I don’t think there is even if they do but it’s pretty obvious the owners have a lot to hide.

Also, go fuck yourself House. Watch my boots, pal.

You shouldn't conflate normal operating seasons with what goes on now. In a normal environment, both sides accept a relatively small variation in profitability. The numbers are pretty predictable, at least in totality even if there might be larger misses in either direction for individual franchises.

This is not the situation.

Revenues are likely dropping at least 70% and as I illustrated in the math in posts above, pro rating makes no sense. The owners have a significant financial incentive to not play the season at all if that is the alternative.

[Kevin]

Players don’t get ‘bonuses’ to their pay in good years when the teams and league does better than expected. Why should they ‘share’ in the losses now in a bad year? They’re not owners. Owners are the ones who signed up for that risk. They should bear that cost for one year or risk long term franchise valuation hits to their teams, which is ultimately what they care about far more than yearly profits. Asking them to take less than a prorated salary in this case is a totally idiotic and billionaire sympathetic take.

Also, owners just expect the players to go along with this while not opening up their books. Sure, just take us at our word that we’re suffering catastrophic losses here, because that’s always a wise move to take ownership at their word. If they’re not even willing to open their books and show all revenues, there’s not a chance in hell the players agree to this. I don’t think there is even if they do but it’s pretty obvious the owners have a lot to hide.

Also, go fuck yourself House. Watch my boots, pal.

You shouldn't conflate normal operating seasons with what goes on now. In a normal environment, both sides accept a relatively small variation in profitability. The numbers are pretty predictable, at least in totality even if there might be larger misses in either direction for individual franchises.

This is not the situation.

Revenues are likely dropping at least 70% and as I illustrated in the math in posts above, pro rating makes no sense. The owners have a significant financial incentive to not play the season at all if that is the alternative.

Yeah, but that financial incentive is greatly shortsighted when them locking the players out causes their franchise valuations to plummet as fallout from that.

Let’s see if they actually open their books to an audit. I bet they don’t because they have plenty to hide. They aren’t losing anywhere near what they claim. Again, the fact that they projected a ‘loss’ even before COVID tells you all you need to know and anyone who trusts owners is an absolute fool.

[elartman1973]

Unsticky this garbage thread already..

[vcsgrizzfan]

Unsticky this garbage thread already..

It was never stickied ya fat autistic retard. You're tempting me to sticky it though.