Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

B & B closes down their tents using a roll method. Or so I'm told. Maybe that was a dream. Or an lsd trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnum & Bailey folded their tents for the last time in May of 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the them using the elephants to put up the tents once. The old pachyderms knew the drill so well the mahoots had to keep slowing them down because they were faster than the human riggers could keep up! One elephant can bring up the center post of a three ring tent just like taking  a walk in the park.

That said, I couldn't tell you if the tents were rolled or folded when they started! 🐘🐘🐘

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Barnum & Bailey folded their tents for the last time in May of 2017.

Rolled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnum & Bailey rolled their tents for the last time in May of 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1776 said:

Barnum & Bailey rolled their tents for the last time in May of 2017.

More Cowbell GIF by Beastie Boys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I thought we had to link rolled?

Yes I believe that that is a rule.  You know it's a great song when the black bartender starts grooving to it.  Can't say that I care for his shorts though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I guess this was assumed but here it is official:

 

They want to prorate salaries to 50 games, but are hoping the players want to play 80-82?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Casimir said:

They want to prorate salaries to 50 games, but are hoping the players want to play 80-82?

I don’t think they actually want 50 games. But they have to say that because their argument is that they lose money on every game when players are paid full freight. 
 

They are holding out 50 games as something they claim they can implement. So the players can do the math and realize how much they would make in that scenario (basically 30% of their full salary for the year).

So now the players can look at 82 games, wherein they would get 50%, as being pretty far from that. Maybe they can agree to a reduction that gets them 40% of their yearly pay. It’s not 50. But it’s better than 30. 

I would think a flat “tax” on every dollar made over 1 million would be an easy way to get you there. The split among the players would still be there, but are the guys making arb and free agent money really going to cry about the minimum salary guys not losing 50 grand or whatever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there is typically an anti-owner sentiment ("they have a ton of money, quit being so greedy,") but I don't forget that they are still trying to run a business and turn a profit.  If they were trying to solve for only fewer games being played, I would support the pro-rated salary argument.  However, they are also dealing with a significant loss in revenue from ticket sales, concessions, apparel/swag sales and probably other ancillary streams of income.  I'm not sure just pro-rating the players salaries is enough.  

I think both sides need to give, and I suspect they will, though it probably has to happen soon.  We're a bunch of old nerds who love baseball, and we're mostly coping without a season.  Do you think the other 80-90+% (casual fans) are really thinking about baseball right now? Or missing it? I doubt it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I don’t think they actually want 50 games. But they have to say that because their argument is that they lose money on every game when players are paid full freight. 
 

They are holding out 50 games as something they claim they can implement. So the players can do the math and realize how much they would make in that scenario (basically 30% of their full salary for the year).

So now the players can look at 82 games, wherein they would get 50%, as being pretty far from that. Maybe they can agree to a reduction that gets them 40% of their yearly pay. It’s not 50. But it’s better than 30. 

I would think a flat “tax” on every dollar made over 1 million would be an easy way to get you there. The split among the players would still be there, but are the guys making arb and free agent money really going to cry about the minimum salary guys not losing 50 grand or whatever?

I've seen comments elsewhere about players have been paid part of their annual salary already.  I don't know if this is true for all MLB contract players (I would assume such) and/or if this factoring into the negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I've seen comments elsewhere about players have been paid part of their annual salary already.  I don't know if this is true for all MLB contract players (I would assume such) and/or if this factoring into the negotiations.

Yeah, they have been getting advance payments in the form of rather large stipends. Those are the payments verlander and kate have been donating every week. I assume they are still doing that. Maybe the advance payments are over now. It was a fixed amount they agreed to back in March. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

I know there is typically an anti-owner sentiment ("they have a ton of money, quit being so greedy,") but I don't forget that they are still trying to run a business and turn a profit.  If they were trying to solve for only fewer games being played, I would support the pro-rated salary argument.  However, they are also dealing with a significant loss in revenue from ticket sales, concessions, apparel/swag sales and probably other ancillary streams of income.  I'm not sure just pro-rating the players salaries is enough.  

I think both sides need to give, and I suspect they will, though it probably has to happen soon.  We're a bunch of old nerds who love baseball, and we're mostly coping without a season.  Do you think the other 80-90+% (casual fans) are really thinking about baseball right now? Or missing it? I doubt it.

 

The owners are dealing with significant losses, true.  But when do they share in the significant profits?

They've screwed up horribly by negotiating this publicly.  So many people are worse off financially now than they were in February and we are witnessing billionaires vs millionaires.  I miss baseball, but I can draw lines in the sand when I have had it.  I boycotted Meyer's last season at OSU.  There won't be any baseball until July and I do not have access to FSD right now since MLB sponsor YouTubeTV pulled the channel out from NW Ohio (was looking at switching cable providers when everything shut down).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I feel like both sides are being babies. It goes without saying that the league will make less money than before on a per game basis. Could the owners absorb the financial hit? Sure. But I do think that in-season revenue streams are an important aspect to writing the checks every two weeks. Would some teams need to borrow against the value of the franchise or whatever to have the liquidity to cut the checks? I have no idea how their accounting works. 
 

regardless, the owners could make it work. But at the same time, the contracts are what they are based in large part to how much money is made. So I do think the players have shared in the revenue boom over the past five years, at least relative to what they would be making if the revenue boom hadn’t happened. The players didn’t want a salary cap or other revenue based model. They wanted that free market.
 

I think the players would also be ok if they shared in some of the revenue losses. If verlander makes 12 million instead of 15 million for a half season of work, I think he’ll be ok. If an owner loses 10 million, or makes 10 million less than he would have or whatever, they would be ok, too. 
 

It’s beyond annoying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you suppose any of this is about setting precedents for the absorption of future losses? Is either side looking into a future that may not be so  bright even after CV-19 is a memory? The television industry is going through profound changes, with broadcast's share of pie shrinking by the day.  Probably not the players I suppose, but some of the owners must see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a baseball fan it's just frustrating cause we all know the sport has been on the decline in popularity the past 10 or so years and I think with how starved the country is for sports right now if they were to play it could be a chance for them to possibly get some of those fans back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

As a baseball fan it's just frustrating cause we all know the sport has been on the decline in popularity the past 10 or so years and I think with how starved the country is for sports right now if they were to play it could be a chance for them to possibly get some of those fans back.  

this.  I doubt fans will boycott anything.  MLB's biggest challenge is growing irrelevancy.  They should embrace being the only girl in town right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tenacious D said:

I know there is typically an anti-owner sentiment ("they have a ton of money, quit being so greedy,") but I don't forget that they are still trying to run a business and turn a profit.  If they were trying to solve for only fewer games being played, I would support the pro-rated salary argument.  However, they are also dealing with a significant loss in revenue from ticket sales, concessions, apparel/swag sales and probably other ancillary streams of income.  I'm not sure just pro-rating the players salaries is enough.  

I think both sides need to give, and I suspect they will, though it probably has to happen soon.  We're a bunch of old nerds who love baseball, and we're mostly coping without a season.  Do you think the other 80-90+% (casual fans) are really thinking about baseball right now? Or missing it? I doubt it.

 

And when you take the risk to invest in a business, you are responsible for the downside. They offered the players guaranteed contracts, you don't get to renege because your revenue is less than expected. That is not how investing or contracts are supposed to work. The players have agreed to prorated contracts, there should be no more negotiation regarding payments beyond that.

Besides, even if they lose money this year, there is not a single team that won't be profitable over a three year window including the prior and next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TigerNation said:

And when you take the risk to invest in a business, you are responsible for the downside. They offered the players guaranteed contracts, you don't get to renege because your revenue is less than expected. That is not how investing or contracts are supposed to work.

Besides, even if they lose money this year, there is not a single team that won't be profitable over a three year window including the prior and next season.

So, every business that is impacted by COVID, should be not furloughing or laying off employees because their business is impacted?  The players actually have the advantage of having a contract that prevents this.  If having a season is not financially viable for the owners, because the players stand behind their guaranteed contracts, how does anyone benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...