MLB Hot Stove 2019-20

[wadesworld]

Top of the 5th, nobody on, nobody out. Line score:

Pakuni    5  6  0
Wades    0  0  2

I'd be worried if Lenny had me winning something. Glad to know I'm right where I should be.

What really matters is what the players think. And given that they continue to reject proposals with no counter offers, it appears the players see Snell as correct.

[The Sultan]

The players told MLB today that they will play a season for as long as the owners wish but will not agree to less than prorated salary or expanded post season.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Lennys Tap]

I'd be worried if Lenny had me winning something. Glad to know I'm right where I should be.

As Brian Wilson once wrote, "Don't Worry, Baby".

[wadesworld]

The players told MLB today that they will play a season for as long as the owners wish but will not agree to less than prorated salary or expanded post season.

Seems reasonable to me.

Agreed.

[shoothoops]

https://twitter.com/DanielDescalso/status/1271647651285487616?s=19

[wadesworld]

https://twitter.com/DanielDescalso/status/1271647651285487616?s=19

Yup.

[buckchuckler]

The players told MLB today that they will play a season for as long as the owners wish but will not agree to less than prorated salary or expanded post season.

Seems reasonable to me.

Not really.  They are taking the top 2 things that are important to the owners off the table.  If what they are looking for is a shitty 50 game season that just makes everyone mad, this is how to get it.  Both sides have been completely stupid about this.

[Lennys Tap]

Not really.  They are taking the top 2 things that are important to the owners off the table.  If what they are looking for is a crapty 50 game season that just makes everyone mad, this is how to get it.  Both sides have been completely stupid about this.

I love baseball, I miss baseball. But if my choice is no baseball or a 50 game season, it's not even close. No baseball (as bad as that would be) wins in a walk.

[buckchuckler]

I love baseball, I miss baseball. But if my choice is no baseball or a 50 game season, it%u2019s not even close. No baseball (as bad as that would be) wins in a walk.

Yes, I agree of course, I meant that the deal will make both the MLBPA and the owners mad.

Oh and by the way, the MLBPA already gave the owners the ability to set the number of games.  Which the owners will make as few as possible so they pay less in salary.  The players don't "win" anything in that scenario.  They still only get their 6 donuts.

[MU82]

In 6 weeks, the NBA and NHL will be going and the NFL will be starting training camp. Baseball will be forgotten. That's what all of them (especially the owners) should be worried about.

[buckchuckler]

In 6 weeks, the NBA and NHL will be going and the NFL will be starting training camp. Baseball will be forgotten. That's what all of them (especially the owners) should be worried about.

Yeah.  They are fighting over dollars now, and could all lose fortunes because of it.  It is idiotic.

[Pakuni]

Yeah.  They are fighting over dollars now, and could all lose fortunes because of it.  It is idiotic.

Both sides are willing to sacrifice this season to win the next CBA.

[MU82]

Both sides are willing to sacrifice this season to win the next CBA.

Good point, Pak.

[The Sultan]

Not really.  They are taking the top 2 things that are important to the owners off the table.  If what they are looking for is a crapty 50 game season that just makes everyone mad, this is how to get it.  Both sides have been completely stupid about this.

Nope. Players have no obligation to take a per game cut. And they shouldn't. Why should they play for less than that?

[4everwarriors]

Don't give a chit 'bout boat deez entitled groups. Got bigga fish ta fry and baseball/sports is a small capillary feedin' da entire ocean, hey?

[Lennys Tap]

Don't give a chit 'bout boat deez entitled groups. Got bigga fish ta fry and baseball/sports is a small capillary feedin' da entire ocean, hey?

+1, Doc. No good guys vs bad guys. Just good old greedy self interest vs greedy self interest. People who can't see that are blind partisans and/or fools.

[buckchuckler]

Nope. Players have no obligation to take a per game cut. And they shouldn't. Why should they play for less than that?

They have no obligation, correct.  But MLB has the power to implement a season of however many games they want, I believe as long as it is at least 50 games.  The players have said that 30% of their salaries is not enough and they don't want that and won't negotiate on a per game pay cut.  That will result in a 50 game season and players making 30% of their salaries.  It is stupid. Neitgwr side is really negotiating in good faith ( but the players have tried at least, the owners haven't at all).  With both sides essentially participating in boulwarism, nothing gets accomplished.

[The Sultan]

They have no obligation, correct.  But MLB has the power to implement a season of however many games they want, I believe as long as it is at least 50 games.  The players have said that 30% of their salaries is not enough and they don't want that and won't negotiate on a per game pay cut.  That will result in a 50 game season and players making 30% of their salaries.  It is stupid. Neitgwr side is really negotiating in good faith ( but the players have tried at least, the owners haven't at all).  With both sides essentially participating in boulwarism, nothing gets accomplished.

I get that. I just don't like the narratives I read suggesting the players are being greedy for not paying for less.

+1, Doc. No good guys vs bad guys. Just good old greedy self interest vs greedy self interest. People who can't see that are blind partisans and/or fools.

Well protecting your self-interest is what negotiations are about right?  Greedy is just in the eye of the beholder.

[Lennys Tap]

I get that. I just don't like the narratives I read suggesting the players are being greedy for not paying for less.


Well protecting your self-interest is what negotiations are about right?  Greedy is just in the eye of the beholder.

True. I understand the principle. But to my set of eyes someone living paycheck to paycheck negotiating with a business owner barely turning a profit looks different than a group of millionaires/multimillionaires arguing with a group of multimillionaires/billionaires about whether the former is willing to take a salary cut to help mitigate the latter's losses due to a pandemic. However this one comes out the players and owners will be millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires. And the ones who get screwed will be the fans.

[buckchuckler]

nm 

[MU82]

True. I understand the principle. But to my set of eyes someone living paycheck to paycheck negotiating with a business owner barely turning a profit looks different than a group of millionaires/multimillionaires arguing with a group of multimillionaires/billionaires about whether the former is willing to take a salary cut to help mitigate the latter's losses due to a pandemic. However this one comes out the players and owners will be millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires. And the ones who get screwed will be the fans.

This exactly. Neither players nor owners deserve any sympathy. Players are the ones fans see, follow and cheer/boo, so it's not surprising if they get the brunt of criticism.

[MUBurrow]

Being mad at everyone equally without digging into the nuance is implicit support for the owners.

[buckchuckler]

I don't understand why the players are hell bent on the 100% prorating of their contracts.  They would make more in 85% of 65 games than 100% of 50 games.  And more in 85% of 81 games than 100% in 65 games.  You'd think most players would be more interested in the bottom line they are making as opposed to their per game rate.  Especially when so many people have had to take a % reduction of their rates this year. 

What they are looking at right now is a 50 game season with regular playoffs.  Basically the worst possible outcome for both sides.  Nice work guys.  You negotiated a lose-lose deal.

[cheebs09]

I don't understand why the players are hell bent on the 100% prorating of their contracts.  They would make more in 85% of 65 games than 100% of 50 games.  And more in 85% of 81 games than 100% in 65 games.  You'd think most players would be more interested in the bottom line they are making as opposed to their per game rate.  Especially when so many people have had to take a % reduction of their rates this year. 

What they are looking at right now is a 50 game season with regular playoffs.  Basically the worst possible outcome for both sides.  Nice work guys.  You negotiated a lose-lose deal.

I don't think the owners are offering that though. All offers are the same dollar amount, just packaged differently.

There are many rich players, but based on how MLBs pre-arbitration suppresses contracts, not all are making millions. Many good young players are still at around $600k. I'd certainly be happy with that paycheck, but not everyone is making 5M a year.

That's all after these guys didn't make a living wage in the minors.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I don't understand why the players are hell bent on the 100% prorating of their contracts.  They would make more in 85% of 65 games than 100% of 50 games.  And more in 85% of 81 games than 100% in 65 games.  You'd think most players would be more interested in the bottom line they are making as opposed to their per game rate.  Especially when so many people have had to take a % reduction of their rates this year. 

What they are looking at right now is a 50 game season with regular playoffs.  Basically the worst possible outcome for both sides.  Nice work guys.  You negotiated a lose-lose deal.

I was thinking the same.

cheebs09 - I think you're right but the players should counteroffer with along the lines of what you said.