They shouldn't be trying to play in the 1st place. What happens when you have a cluster of 6 or 8 people associated with a clubhouse all test positive at the same time ?
Notice I said WHEN , not IF. This comes in clusters. An MLB clubhouse cluster would shut it all down anyway

Walking back a "100%" certainty just 1 week later is laughable.

I realize there's such a thing as positioning in a public or semi-public negotiation, but good grief, MLB is now in the lead of who is the dumbest of two very dumb counterparties.

Bill Shaikin on Twitter: Source: In a letter today, MLB told the MLBPA there would be no 2020 season unless the players waived any legal claims against the league.

link

Kinda like come to my political convention, but sign this so you can't sure me if you get sick.

4, actually, if the waiver is in regards potential infection from COVID-19, that's not unreasonable (as I posted about a week ago, no self-respecting attorney is going to let its client re-start a billion dollar operation without curtailing the risk of monumental lawsuits).

What would be nuts is for MLB to tell MLBPA that there will be no 2020 season unless MLBPA waives potential legal claims against MLB about the length of the season and payments to players stemming from the ultimate length of the season. Using the same rationale as above, no self-respecting attorney would be stupid enough to have its client send out THAT letter.

#1. Doesn't have to come in clusters. The NBA is talking daily testing and that has a genuine shot at keeping a single case from turning into a cluster.

Still not sold that the accuracy is high enough. With a high false negative a cluster becomes nearly inevitable.

MLB doesn’t want to play a season in the first place. What they want is some small scale thing that will get a network to pay them a ton of money and requires mlb to spend as little as possible.

That rob thinks the season is in jeopardy despite the union telling them when and where tells you all you need to know about their real intentions.

@BillShaikin
Bruce Meyer said Rob Manfred told the MLBPA that teams "were not interested in salary deferrals because they could easily borrow the money at miniscule interest rates."

Wait, so owners could easily finance the season, they just don't want to?

@EugeneFreedman
This indicates that MLB knows it has violated March Agreement's "best efforts" provision & won't proceed if MLBPA intends to try to enforce the Agreement.

So, they both want out of the pro rata provision and the best efforts provision. Seems they really dislike their own work.

Indeed.

So, they both want out of the pro rata provision and the best efforts provision. Seems they really dislike their own work.

No. Once again, they do not "want out" of the pro rata provision. The pro rata provision does not apply under current circumstances (only discussing no-fans games). For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't exist. The extent to which the players' advocates are overplaying their hand w/r/t this undermines their credibility.

"Best efforts" is another story, and is vague enough that the players could likely bring a grievance, and who the hell knows how an arbitrator would rule on language like that? Of course, the owners could also argue that the players aren't negotiating in good faith, as required, when they continue to take the position that the original payment terms must still apply under circumstances that were specifically held to trigger a different negotiation.

Salary deferrals are a red herring. Liquidity is not the major issue here. Liquidity will become an issue of the season is cancelled for some teams but it has no bearing on the issues at hand. It is a pure profitability discussion. And it’s going nowhere.

I think the owners long ago made peace with no season. I’m not sure it has dawned yet on the players that there might be no season.

The owners are now saying they simply won’t play if the consequence of playing is a grievance. Since the conditions of play (fans, ease of cross-border travel etc) haven’t been met. They don’t have to play.

The pro rata provision does not apply under current circumstances (only discussing no-fans games)

Haven't been keeping up, have you?


https://twitter.com/BillShaikin/status/1270813321524994048

https://twitter.com/jareddiamond/status/1271991746591850496?s=20

No. Once again, they do not "want out" of the pro rata provision. The pro rata provision does not apply under current circumstances (only discussing no-fans games). For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't exist. The extent to which the players' advocates are overplaying their hand w/r/t this undermines their credibility.

"Best efforts" is another story, and is vague enough that the players could likely bring a grievance, and who the hell knows how an arbitrator would rule on language like that? Of course, the owners could also argue that the players aren't negotiating in good faith, as required, when they continue to take the position that the original payment terms must still apply under circumstances that were specifically held to trigger a different negotiation.

The LA Times reportedlast week that the agreement doesn't seem to require the players to renegotiate in the event of no fans:

After weeks of unseemly public bickering, Major League Baseball owners and players appear to be headed toward starting the 2020 season on or around July 10. The long-running and oft-acrimonious negotiations have centered around one sticking point: Are players obligated to renegotiate salaries for games played in fan-free ballparks?

The owners say yes. The players say no.

Based on a Times review of the March 26 agreement in question, the answer appears to be no.

The players likely will prevail on that score, to the frustration of owners who believe the players’ union has to negotiate on salary. The owners have been waiting for the players to compromise on the issue, but players have refused to do so in each of their proposals, and the language in the agreement appears to favor the players.

100% moron

Stevey - you've made it quite clear that you're a hard-line players' advocate. That's fine, and you have a very valid position here overall. But this idea that the March agreement still holds is just ideology-based wishful thinking.

Shaikin (implicitly) acknowledges that a second discussion must take place. From the article linked from the tweet you linked (the same one quoted above by Jeff Frances):

Nonetheless, “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility” is not the same as “discuss the amount by which salaries shall be reduced.”

And that's true. The players can take, and have taken, the position *in the second discussion* that salaries should not be reduced from pro rata. Whether that meets the "good faith" standard, who knows how an arbitrator would see it? That could very well go in the players' favor, as they have offered things they could characterize as concessions in other areas. But the issue is not already resolved - the second discussion must be had.

Likewise, Jared Diamond's "smoking gun" tweet, apparently thrown out there without any further evidence or context that I can find:

On May 22, MLB lawyer Pat Houlihan wrote a letter to MLBPA lawyer Jeff Perconte that said, "We agree with the Association that, under the [March] Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated pay."

Again - not in any way inconsistent with what I'm saying. Of course the players are not *required* to accept less than their full prorated pay. They are required only to negotiate in good faith. But the position that "it was already resolved in the March agreement," and that the owners "want out" of something they already agreed to, is not in any way tenable.

@EugeneFreedman
This indicates that MLB knows it has violated March Agreement's "best efforts" provision & won't proceed if MLBPA intends to try to enforce the Agreement.

That wouldn’t make much sense for MLB, and is one reason I think we still may get an agreement after MLB runs out the clock a bit to reduce the number of regular season games. If MLB knows it has violated the March agreement, there’s nothing they can do to prevent the players from enforcing the agreement. No games and a huge back pay award to the players isn’t a good outcome for MLB.

And that's true. The players can take, and have taken, the position *in the second discussion* that salaries should not be reduced from pro rata. Whether that meets the "good faith" standard, who knows how an arbitrator would see it? That could very well go in the players' favor, as they have offered things they could characterize as concessions in other areas. But the issue is not already resolved - the second discussion must be had.

I think I would prefer to be on the player's side if this goes to arbitration.

THe LA times article is hardly convincing and contains pretty much no analysis. Here is one of the key passages:

“Resumption of Play” section of the agreement sets three criteria: no restrictions against fans attending games; no restrictions on travel through the United States and Canada; no unreasonable health or safety risk to players, staff or fans.

“Since those three conditions have not been met,” New York Yankees president Randy Levine told the New York Post last month, “the agreement says that, based on those facts and the economic feasibility of the moment, there has to be a renegotiation on salaries. That is not my opinion, that is what the text of the agreement says.”

Not quite. This is what the text says: “The Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators.”

How that leads the LA TImes to conclude that the players will always be entitled to a pro rata pay I dont get. Its clear none of those three conditions are being met at the present and surely at least one of them is always going to be present. Thus it seems that the original agreement is not in force.

If that's the case then it says they are to discuss in good faith the economic feasability of such. Doesnt mandate that they have to be paid pro rata.

Maybe Im missing something....

I think I would prefer to be on the player's side if this goes to arbitration.

I can't really decide. On the one hand, the players have two clauses they can point to rather than one. Both parties have the "good faith" requirement, but as noted above, the players also have the "best efforts" clause.

Now, the "best efforts" clause is a lot more nuanced than many would have you believe - it's not just "best efforts to play as many games as possible." It's "best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability and the economic feasibility of various alternatives." (Emphasis added.) So the league would argue that money-losing games are economically infeasible and thus not "possible" as used in the agreement.

So, I dunno. When you're talking about trying to interpret such broad terms, especially in such a fact-intensive context, they're all probably toss-ups, and I'd rather have two shots at a toss-up going my way than one.

However, on the other hand, if the players file the grievance, they would have the burden of proof. I could definitely see an arbitrator saying "look, this was a complex negotiation, and in this context terms like 'good faith' and 'best efforts' are so vague and broad that it's nearly impossible to show that one side definitively performed on them while the other side didn't." Which would probably just be a throwing up of hands and finding that the burden of proof was not satisfied.

Salary deferrals are a red herring. Liquidity is not the major issue here. Liquidity will become an issue of the season is cancelled for some teams but it has no bearing on the issues at hand. It is a pure profitability discussion. And it’s going nowhere.

I think the owners long ago made peace with no season. I’m not sure it has dawned yet on the players that there might be no season.

The owners are now saying they simply won’t play if the consequence of playing is a grievance. Since the conditions of play (fans, ease of cross-border travel etc) haven’t been met. They don’t have to play.

yup.

manfred's mealymouthed tiptoeing is a direct result of him knowing that 6-10 owners have decided they'd lose less money if there's no season. he has no room to negotiate, because if he gives too much ground (any ground?), he'll lose their votes, and there won't be a season anyway.

That wouldn’t make much sense for MLB, and is one reason I think we still may get an agreement after MLB runs out the clock a bit to reduce the number of regular season games.

Im not optimistic. There's way too many wild cards that dont seem to be addressed, while the two sides seem to be spending all their energy on the number of games. The MLB bringing up the issue of having the players sign medical releases for instance. One would think they would have already reached agreement on stuff like this, instead these are just new issues popping up at a late date.

Stevey - you've made it quite clear that you're a hard-line players' advocate. That's fine, and you have a very valid position here overall. But this idea that the March agreement still holds is just ideology-based wishful thinking.

And you an hard-line owners advocate. Which has no tenable position here.

The only thing that is wishful thinking is the idea that the agreement can be reopened. No one serious has been able to argue that position on its legal merits. And that the owners have to beg for the PA to waive the possibility of filing a grievance couldnt telegraph any harder that they have no tenable position.

And you an hard-line owners advocate. Which has no tenable position here.

Try reading my posts, man. I'm not your enemy here.

The only thing that is wishful thinking is the idea that the agreement can be reopened. No one serious has been able to argue that position on its legal merits.

I did just that in 14. What is "unserious" about it, and where is your evidence supporting your position?

Walking back a "100%" certainty just 1 week later is laughable.

I don't think Bowie Kuhn would manage that. Impressive in a way.

I’m of the view that no season is perhaps better. I wasn’t enamored with DH and expanded playoffs and other things Like the change in inter league play and expanded rosters. I think all of this and more would have become the new Normal. I’m still not sure we have any reasonable chance of fans in 2021. If we are still fanless for 2021, we’ve still got a ton of issues.

Fred Katz @FredKatz
Can’t wait til Rob Manfred says again that Mike Trout has to market himself better.

Doug Smith @SmithRaps
Baseball doesn't deserve the people who run baseball

Am I getting my $120 for MLB.tv back?

So 10/24: which team do you work for?

Now, the "best efforts" clause is a lot more nuanced than many would have you believe - it's not just "best efforts to play as many games as possible." It's "best efforts to play as many games as possible, while taking into account player safety and health, rescheduling needs, competitive considerations, stadium availability and the economic feasibility of various alternatives." (Emphasis added.) So the league would argue that money-losing games are economically infeasible and thus not "possible" as used in the agreement.

I am not an arbiter, but if this if this is the best that the owners can show, then I would rule for the players. How can the owners say that the players must negotiate based on the "economic feasibility of various alternatives" when they won't open their books? They are insisting that the players trust them on the economic feasibility part. Isn't the foundation for such economic negotiations the owner's books? So as a layman's idea of an arbiter, if one side refuses to provide the necessary information to the other side then that part of the clause is negated.

Try reading my posts, man. I'm not your enemy here.

I have, and have never called you the enemy. You just merely bend over backwards to interpret the owners-speaking-through-the-media mouthpieces in the most favorable light for the owners. That's all.

I did just that in 14. What is "unserious" about it, and where is your evidence supporting your position?

You interpreting the bits and pieces asthat Rosenthal and Passan report from owner-led leaks, in the manner described above, is not serious in any way. The people who have seen the agreements, the LA Times and the MLB lawyer quoted above can't find a way to support the owner's talking points.

And you know what actually is the smoking gun that the agreement doesn't say what the owners are trying to pretend it does? That they haven't leaked it, and they're also following other aspects of the agreement. The owners have leaked any and everything under the sun that they think will help them, and not one of those things is the actual language of the contract. There's a reason for that, just like there's a reason they're begging for the players not to file a grievance. They also have cut the draft, and implemented lower signing bonuses. They like that part of the March agreement, so they're not throwing a tantrum over it, instead pretending people like you won't notice that they want to enforce parts of it and pretend other parts are not applicable anymore.

Per AP several players and staff have tested positive for virus

Some letter from MLB obtained by AP

you know what actually is the smoking gun that the agreement doesn't say what the owners are trying to pretend it does? That they haven't leaked it

honest question: has MLBPA come out and said publicly and definitively that there is no such clause?

I try to follow this crap as little as possible, so I grant that I easily could have missed it.

You just merely bend over backwards to interpret the owners-speaking-through-the-media mouthpieces in the most favorable light for the owners. That's all.

And yet you're relying on your assumption that the agreement doesn't say what the language that has been widely quoted says because it hasn't been leaked, and so therefore the owners are lying about it. OK. But the players haven't leaked it either, so... but that's different?

They also have cut the draft, and implemented lower signing bonuses. They like that part of the March agreement, so they're not throwing a tantrum over it, instead pretending people like you won't notice that they want to enforce parts of it and pretend other parts are not applicable anymore.

While it's true that we haven't seen the entire document, it seems logical that these sections wouldn't be conditioned on the various requirements for starting the season, such as no restrictions on large gatherings. Why would that have anything to do with the draft?

The people who have seen the agreements, the LA Times and the MLB lawyer quoted above can't find a way to support the owner's talking points.

Again, please read my posts. Neither source is in any way inconsistent with what I'm saying. Also, read post 18 and please let me know where I am bending over backwards to take the owners' side?

Baseball attendance since 1960

And yet you're relying on your assumption that the agreement doesn't say what the language that has been widely quoted says because it hasn't been leaked,

The language quoted doesnt say the rest of the agreement is null and void, and no serious analysis by the players involved (sorry, but your constant appeal to you own authority doesnt fly). And the owners are the ones doing all the leaking here. If they had a good leak, they would use it.

let me know where I am bending over backwards to take the owners' side?

It just happens to seems logical to you that the parts of the agreements the owners dont like get null and voided while the parts they do like are good to go.

The agreement, when discussing salary, only mentioned pro-rata salaries. If the owners want to say thats not economically feasible and cancel the season, they can open their books and prove it. But discussing economic feasibility is not null and voiding the rest of the agreement. The second discussion is not a reopening of the salary negotiations. There is zero language anywhere that even hints at that.

The latest card the owners have played is to say theres no season unless they cant be sued for operating in bad faith. Theres nothing else to say about their standing in this matter.

honest question: has MLBPA come out and said publicly and definitively that there is no such clause?

meanwhile, from the head of Baseball Prospectus:

The Duality of Craulg
@cdgoldstein
From Russell's piece:

look at what happened to attendance after the 1994 strike. It took them 12 years to get back to the same number of fans per game. That is a mountain of lost revenue, and they're willing to do it again, seemingly out of spite.

Sam Quinn @SamQuinnCBS
Rob Manfred is so awful on TV. At least other commissioners can lie and deflect effectively.

What kind of coin does Manfred pull? Eight figures?

The second discussion is not a reopening of the salary negotiations. There is zero language anywhere that even hints at that.

Never said it was. Just that a second discussion is required, because the first one expressly doesn’t cover these circumstances.

Chris Grenham @chrisgrenham
Damian Lillard and Adam Silver spoke together on ESPN tonight shortly after Rob Manfred called the MLB's situation a "disaster." The tale of two leagues.

**** it, I'm going to follow B-R's sim league this year. Trout is already up to 23 HRs! That guy is amazing, he's basically duplicating last year's MVP season. If he doesn't get a virtual injury he might crack 50 homers!

It seems odd to believe they threw together an agreement in March after a couple of days/a week that anyone considered definitive. It was clearly a placeholder where two things happened: players got service time in the event of no season and the owners didn’t have to pay the players. Everything else was kicked down the road. I don’t think it really matters whether you “believe” the owners or the players. What they are saying about the agreement now is simply posturing.

It had to be the case, that they were basically agreeing to discuss the brave new world at a later date. Had either side considered this to be the agreement by which they permanently went forward, it never could have been done that quickly.

The owners actions clearly demonstrate that they have a very clear view of what money they can pay this year AND what risks to their situation they are willing to bear. Whether that implies the amount is a small loss, break even or a profit for the owners is unknown. But it’s very clear that the owners must think there is a high risk of loss if the playoffs don’t happen.

42: so who reviews the owners talking points with you? Always a buffer so that there is deniability later? That’s the obvious move. But makes sense

honest question: has MLBPA come out and said publicly and definitively that there is no such clause?

hours ago, I figured the answer presumably was yes.....

It has to be noted that the NBA and MLB are very different. The NBA has far fewer players, the best players are far more important to their teams, in that their individual performance affects the outcomes far more, and as a result, fans and sponsors are guaranteed that the best players are going to be in the playoffs every year, and the very best will be battling it out for the championship every year. To a certain extent, it stands to reason that more certain outcomes are worth a higher percentage of revenue (as well as being appealing to casual fans who know they can tune in in April and see the same faces as last season, with continuing storlines).

Another way in which they're very different is that the NBA has more cost certainty. Their free-agency isn't really free-agency, since there's a maximum contract as well as a salary cap. That's a real way in which MLB players have a better situation than NBA players, even with a lower overall percentage of revenue. MLB players may have a lower percentage of revenue collectively than the other leagues, but they also make a lot more in terms of raw dollars.

is this an accurate summary of the most recent events?:

FRI: Manfred 100% we're going to play baseball.
SUN: MLBPA: we reject the offer, we have no counter, Manfred can dictate the schedule.
MON: Manfred: not sure we're going to play. Owners: we wont play until the PA signs off on no liability for getting sick.

“If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season, all players signed to a Major League [contract] shall be paid a daily salary rate,”

"Commencement of the 2020 championship season" would seem to be the controlling factor tied to salary. If the (championship) season starts then, by definition, the conditions for it to start must have existed. I would very much want to see the text of the "resumption of play" section ... if it in fact says that the presence of fans is necessary for commencement of the season then the season won't commence. But the clause pretty clearly states if the season starts, they get pro-rata.

The clause on "good faith discussion on the economic feasibility of playing in the absence of fans" ... as I noted elsewhere, that requires "discussion" and some agreed evidence of "economic feasibility" and we've seen offers, not discussion, and there's clearly no agreed evidence of "economic feasibility" and notions of "economic feasibility" depend a lot on whether you emphasise short-term revenues/profits or longer-term (past and future) revenue/equity growth. But most importantly, there's nothing in that clause that says the earlier clause no longer holds. Possibly that's made clear in "resumption of play" (so if anybody has seen the text on that) but I doubt it since it doesn't really make sense for it to say that the absence of fans requires renegotiation on salary.

How that leads the LA TImes to conclude that the players will always be entitled to a pro rata pay I dont get.

First, I think I just gave it ... if the season starts, the conditions necessary for it to start must have existed and therefore players get pro-rata.

Second, I don't think that's quite what the LA Times has said. The onwers are claiming the "no fans" clause means the salary agreement is void. That clause doesn't require that in any way much less state it clearly. It requires "discussion." What solution that discussion leads to is left completely open. No games, 80 games at 75% pro-rata, 50 games at 100% pro-rata, 80 games at 100% pro-rata but with an extra round of playoffs, 75 games at 75% pro-rata but a roster of 30, MLB borrows the money now and, under certain negative circumstances regarding future revenues, MLBPA becomes liable for some of it, or even revenue sharing.

At best the "conditions for resumption of play" clause give the owners the ability to say "the agreed conditions are not met to start the season" and therefore they can't do anything to maximize the number of games. The "no fans" clause can be seen as an attempt to clarify that the presence of fans isn't really a _necessary_ condition to re-start the season. (In contrast at least pretending the health of players, staff and fans condition has been met is necessary.)

I ain't no lawyer and I know these things don't always mean what they would to a normal human but the "no fans" clause clearly does not say "pro-rata is out the window." It does give the onwers an avenue to argue "without fans, pro-rata games are not economically feasible" (with evidence to back it up) at which point the discussions of how to fix that problem begin.

The owners' offers just look like an attempt to satisfy the "try to play as many games as possible" clause. If we want to talk disingenuous interpretations, that clause clearly was not intended to mean "more games for the same total money."

Finally, a minor point -- and bearing in mind none of us have seen the actual agreement -- but nothing I've seen so far suggests "part of your salary will be contingent on the completion of the playoffs" was ever considered in play by this agreement. Guaranteed salaries are of course another long-standing hill to die on for the MLBPA so that sort of thing is a non-starter.

By the way, are there any internal travel restrictions in the US right now?

because the first one expressly doesn’t cover these circumstances.

There is no evidence this is true. The first one covers the circumstances of the salary negotiation. The second one is to whether games should be played in fan-less stadiums. There is no language presented that says the agreement needs to be re-done, or that a new pay agreement needs to be arrived at. Salary negotiations are settled. The owners only recourse is to demonstrate that it is economically infeasible to play games without fans, and the result of that is no games. So far, all they've done is ####### and moaned and not presented one drop of actual evidence.

#48 You will note that they have been careful to avoid making a direct claim that they can't afford to. This is something Marvin Miller tried to goad Bowie Kuhn into doing -- and eventually succeeded. Back then (and I don't think the law has changed) you had to back up a claim of inability to pay with access to the books. That's what led to Roger Noll's getting access to the major league baseball's books.

Never seen the report itself but I have read the summary in Zimbalist's Baseball and Billions. Interesting stuff.

How many regular season games will each team play across 2020, 2021, and 2022? Over/under 301.5?

If they cancel the regular season this year and miss a significant chunk of the season in 2022, then can baseball survive in its current form? (I realize that assumes that 2021 is completely unaffected, which I'm not so sure about either.) To be clear, I don't think the owners will hemorrhage money or anything of that nature. My question is whether people will maintain their interest in baseball after two out of three or three straight seasons are disrupted?

Remember when Manfred was named commissioner and the selling point was that he handled the labor negotiations under Selig?

OKay that seems like a pretty compelling argument, Walt. Without going through all of that. I want to focus on just one aspect, this part:

“If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season, all players signed to a Major League [contract] shall be paid a daily salary rate,”

Q 1: is their a common understanding, that "Daily salary rate" means pro rata? I.e. it is whatever salary the player signed for divided by days in the season. For instance that same language appears in many or all MLB contracts and has an understood meaning.

If so, then yes, I think that is what the players and the LA times are pointing to. If not, then I suppose "a daily rate" means any old rate, could be a dollar a day.

Q2: it seems to be the understanding that if Manfred imposes a schedule, it has to be at the daily/pro rata rate. Is this language the reason?

My question is whether people will maintain their interest in baseball after two out of three or three straight seasons are disrupted?

Hell, between a shortened season with bloated playoffs, the owners’ repulsive greed, and destructive changes to the game itself like a universal DH and the contraction of the minors, my interest in the sport is already at rock bottom. I don’t want to give these people a ####### dime, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

honest question: has MLBPA come out and said publicly and definitively that there is no such clause?

hours ago, I figured the answer presumably was yes.....

I'm sure I'm just being dense - but is the indirect response here that yes there is such a clause, but it doesn't mean anything, or at least not what the owners claim it means?

There is no language presented that says the agreement needs to be re-done, or that a new pay agreement needs to be arrived at. Salary negotiations are settled.

well then, what does the phrase "economically feasible" mean to you?

#55 This is something that you really want a labor lawyer for, but to me it establishes a duty to demonstrate (as opposed to assert) that it is in fact not economically feasible.

EDIT: Also note that "economically feasible" and guaranteed short-term profitability are not the same thing. Lots of businesses know there's no way they can be profitable right now and are choosing to operate as best they can under current restrictions. As long as their losses are less than they'd sustain by not having any season it's "economically feasible" to have a season.

There is no language presented that says the agreement needs to be re-done, or that a new pay agreement needs to be arrived at. Salary negotiations are settled.

well then, what does the phrase "economically feasible" mean to you?

That and "no restrictions on large gatherings," which is a condition precedent to the agreement.

Look, I'm not even disagreeing with you that, were the issue to be litigated in court/arbitration, the owners would have to show evidence that (a) they have negotiated in good faith, and (b) playing games without fans but at full prorated salaries is not economically feasible, and that to date they have (publicly, at least) given only assertions for the latter. The players (and you) have a strong position here without having to rely on an obviously disingenuous interpretation of the plain language of the agreement.

EDIT: Also note that "economically feasible" and guaranteed short-term profitability are not the same thing.

Well for sure, yes. My point is that the salary in place now, should be relevant to the issue of whether something is economically feasible.

having said that, one would think that if you're going to count up salaries in all this, then you'd have to count up the franchises as well. I.e. you'd have to open up the books. What would be the point of saying salaries cost $1 billion, but we dont know where the franchises stand.

Thinking about this more, I fully realize that the owners have established a track record of being frauds who poop their collective pants.

*But*, that said, isn't the Occam's razor here, in this particular scenario, that fanless games would actually lose money in the aggregate? If the owners were making any per-game profits at full pro rata salaries, their incentive in this negotiation would be, like the players, to push for more games. Clearly they aren't. So the alternative explanation is either that (a) despite fanless games being profitable at full pro rata, the owners want to make even more money by reducing players' salaries, and the delta between the two is significant enough to make them risk the 2020 season, poisoning the well for the upcoming CBA negotiations, and the long-term damage to the game resulting from another prolonged labor battle. This seems unlikely - the owners can be greedy and shortsighted, sure, but that greedy and shortsighted? The delta in profits probably wouldn't be anywhere near large enough to justify the risks. And moreover, this wouldn't lead to the kinds of offers we've seen from the owners, where they're willing to spend more or less a fixed amount on salaries. Instead, they would still be pushing for as many games as possible, just at the reduced salary rate.

Or, (b), the owners are just "trying to break the union," which is the blanket allegation that gets made by labor activists in any dispute, and is so vague and knee-jerk as to have little meaning.

Granted, the owners have not shown their work as far as how fanless games would lose money. But for those who take the position that they're lying - if that's true, why would the negotiations have taken the shape they have?

Look, I'm not even disagreeing with you that, were the issue to be litigated in court/arbitration, the owners would have to show evidence that (a) they have negotiated in good faith, and (b) playing games without fans but at full prorated salaries is not economically feasible, and that to date they have (publicly, at least) given only assertions for the latter.

I think this is a fair summary from what we have seen of the agreement.

I would go farther and say that satisfying (a) requires them to demonstrate (b) to the MLBPA as part of those negotiations. They can't hide the ball and just disclose the relevant facts to the arbitrator down the road.

Granted, the owners have not shown their work as far as how fanless games would lose money. But for those who take the position that they're lying - if that's true, why would the negotiations have taken the shape they have?

it's not all of them; it's a fractional group of 6-10 of them, which is enough to veto any agreement that doesn't sufficiently #### over the players.


we all know which organizations are living off welfare because they've been doing it for nearly 2 decades at this point. they were a problem before any of this happened, and they are the problem here.

*But*, that said, isn't the Occam's razor here, in this particular scenario, that fanless games would actually lose money in the aggregate? If the owners were making any per-game profits at full pro rata salaries, their incentive in this negotiation would be, like the players, to push for more games. Clearly they aren't. So the alternative explanation is either that (a) despite fanless games being profitable at full pro rata, the owners want to make even more money by reducing players' salaries, and the delta between the two is significant enough to make them risk the 2020 season, poisoning the well for the upcoming CBA negotiations, and the long-term damage to the game resulting from another prolonged labor battle. This seems unlikely - the owners can be greedy and shortsighted, sure, but that greedy and shortsighted? The delta in profits probably wouldn't be anywhere near large enough to justify the risks. And moreover, this wouldn't lead to the kinds of offers we've seen from the owners, where they're willing to spend more or less a fixed amount on salaries. Instead, they would still be pushing for as many games as possible, just at the reduced salary rate.

The owners have the power to unilaterally start up the games so I'm not sure they're actually risking the 2020 season.

Also, they're asking for a truncated regular season and expanded playoffs (where revenues are higher* and the players are compensated with relative peanuts). So if they need justification for the expanded playoffs they might sacrifice regular season games to get it - even if the variable costs of each regular season game doesn't cause them to hemorrhage cash. Also, as noted, the owners' financial interests may diverge greatly on what is or is not profitable.

*Especially for the lower classes of MLB who get a share of national broadcasts but not YES network.

FWIW I wrote about 2 weeks ago that I was told that like 61 says it's a group of owners who legit do not want to have a season and see this situation as an opportunity to get complete control back on all things financial. I thought it was pretty crazy then. Doesn't seem so crazy now.

*But*, that said, isn't the Occam's razor here, in this particular scenario, that fanless games would actually lose money in the aggregate? If the owners were making any per-game profits at full pro rata salaries, their incentive in this negotiation would be, like the players, to push for more games. Clearly they aren't. So the alternative explanation is either that (a) despite fanless games being profitable at full pro rata, the owners want to make even more money by reducing players' salaries, and the delta between the two is significant enough to make them risk the 2020 season, poisoning the well for the upcoming CBA negotiations, and the long-term damage to the game resulting from another prolonged labor battle. This seems unlikely - the owners can be greedy and shortsighted, sure, but that greedy and shortsighted? The delta in profits probably wouldn't be anywhere near large enough to justify the risks. And moreover, this wouldn't lead to the kinds of offers we've seen from the owners, where they're willing to spend more or less a fixed amount on salaries. Instead, they would still be pushing for as many games as possible, just at the reduced salary rate.

Is anyone really denying that owners are going to lose money this season if they pay full pro-rata? Of course they are. They have also admitted they could easily finance those losses at a low interest rate, and they would almost certainly recoup those losses through good revenue seasons, the ever-increasing value of their franchsises and equity stakes in RSNs and BAMTech, and potential expansion fees they could implement. There are going to be losses this year, the question is why the players should share in those losses when the two sides already came to an agreement on compensation and players have not generally been asked to share directly in profits.

64--All over Twitter is the phrase "privatize profits/socialize losses" and not just related to baseball.

the two sides already came to an agreement on compensation

Not for these circumstances - see previous posts.

players have not generally been asked to share directly in profits

This is a fair point, so long as the losses this year wouldn't be enough to jeopardize the health of baseball as a whole for the future. That seems unlikely on its face, for the reasons you mention. However, that said, there is a poster over at FanGraphs* who seems to have some level of expertise in the area and has at least credibly discussed that some owners could well face a risk of reduced income triggering debt calls or major spikes in interest rates. I certainly don't know enough to have any idea whether that's true, but it seems at least possible.

*Said poster is getting torn a new one in the comments for trying to analyze the issue rather than being as rabidly anti-owner as the others. FanGraphs is great, but they and most of their readers are definitely more advocates than analysts on this topic.

Is anyone really denying that owners are going to lose money this season if they pay full pro-rata? Of course they are.

As a whole the owners would lose money, but it is likely some of them would make money. It is easy to imagine that the owners projecting the largest losses are fine with torpedoing the season.

The Joe P writer who is doing that series at the Athletic had an interesting tweet on how many owners have received a lot of public money for stadiums, received a lot of profits over the years and now when times are difficult have no interest in giving back to the community. I am sure that could be different market to market but overall seems fairly on point.

Gasp. Some owners might have to sell some stuff

I have been reading about MLB finances during the 30's and 40's

Of course the finances were super different namely because of the reserve clause.

But still kind of interesting on how teams toughed it out most cities.

Given that the owners have long found it economically feasible to play essentially fanless games in several cities, not sure how believable their assertions are.

could well face a risk of reduced income triggering debt calls or major spikes in interest rates. I certainly don't know enough to have any idea whether that's true, but it seems at least possible.

I think I read a quarter of owners, maybe more, are in pretty substantial debt, so yea, I can see that as a big motivator in not adding to the debt, but also a reason to get some revenue in this year as opposed to cancelling the season.

Does anyone know how the Korean league is handling this? All of their games have been fan-less - have they gotten the players to take less money? Or is ownership just sucking it up and paying full salaries? (Same question for the soon-to-resume Japanese league)

It's pretty clear that MLB has lost the last 2 or 3 media cycles on this fight with MLBPA.

Having said that, I ran into this language in a column from Robo Rosenthal makes it clear that it's not entirely up to MLB to start the season when and how it wants:

Under the March agreement, Manfred is empowered to determine the number of regular-season games as long as the league pays players their full prorated salaries and tries to play as many games as possible. But he is not required to start the season unless specific conditions are met, including the removal of restrictions on mass gatherings and travel throughout the United States and Canada. The parties also are required to engage in a good faith discussion about the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at neutral sites. The league, in its letter, says none of those conditions has been met.

“I had been hopeful that once we got to common ground on the idea that we were gonna pay the players’ full prorated salary, that we would get some cooperation in terms of proceeding under the agreement that we negotiated with the MLBPA on March 26,” Manfred told ESPN. “Unfortunately, over the weekend, while Tony Clark was declaring his desire to get back to work, the union’s top lawyer was out telling reporters, players and eventually getting back to owners that as soon as we issued a schedule — as they requested — they intended to file a grievance claiming they were entitled to an additional billion dollars.”

Phrased differently, there's a massive amount of litigation risk for MLB if it restarts the season unilaterally, and not just on the pretty self-evident front of how much players should get paid.


Passan then reports that there may be lines of communication on health protocols and other similar items, even though MLB and MLBPA are very far apart on the money issues.:

In his interview with Greenberg, Manfred for the first time publicly seemed to acknowledge the inevitability of how the players would be paid: "I had been hopeful that once we got to common ground on the idea that we were going to pay the players full prorated salary that we would get some cooperation in terms of proceeding under the agreement that we negotiated with the MLBPA on March 26."

Perhaps he was referring to doing so in a shortened schedule, but then implementing one and inviting a grievance from the MLBPA for not "using best efforts to play as many games as possible," as the agreement mandates, would run a risk for the league.

A risk, sources said, that MLB would prefer not to take. It's why multiple sources told ESPN that a negotiated settlement with the union -- one that would pay players their full pro rata -- is now the preferred course of action. Players remain skeptical of the league's motives, much as the league's suspicion of the union persists, but there is movement toward meeting and discussing a mutually beneficial agreement, sources familiar with the thinking of the league and union told ESPN.

This is absolutely a mess.

MLB has backed itself into a corner, but it has some genuine concerns about unilaterally setting the terms of a season.

One would hope that MLB and MLBPA would cut the damn sniping, perhaps even change lead counsel and try to reach a mutually accepted solution.

Is anyone really denying that owners are going to lose money this season if they pay full pro-rata?

Lose money compared to what? Compared to $0, sure I believe that. Compared to not having a season at all but still having to pay all of their fixed costs+debt service? I don't believe that at all. I think on a marginal basis the revenue from games from TV+other > player salaries+other variable costs. And that's not accounting for the financial impact on next year's revenue and beyond.

(b), the owners are just "trying to break the union,"

I phrase (b) differently. I think that 'they', or at least some of them, have this idea of what 'beating' the union in the negotiation looks like, and they're not going to lose NO MATTER WHAT, because of a stupid idea that losing to the union even one time is the harbinger of the end of their dominion over baseball and the riches and power it provides. So they'll drive the whole thing off a cliff rather than give in. If that sounds overly dramatic and stupid then I don't think you're properly paying attention to how these kinds of people are capable of acting.

There's this core concept that billionaires 'got that way for a reason' and must be wise, underneath it all. That successful corporations have some form of governance that always makes sure they make smart long term decisions. But evidence piles up everyday that many (not all) such people and corporations are just as stupid, impulsive, and incompetent as the rest of us.

And Robo has another good column in today's Athletic:

The solution to this mess is not terribly complicated. The parties need to stop exchanging angry letters, stop obsessing over how they are perceived in the media, stop making offers in different languages. Then they need to start actually negotiating, perhaps first by resolving numerous secondary issues, then by settling on the pay structure and length of season once and for all.
....
Manfred and the owners need to figure it out, and quickly. Most owners will be in the game longer than most players, enabling them to eventually recoup their losses from 2020, then profit from their franchise’s resale values. Manfred, meanwhile, is supposed to be the adult in the room, a leader with a sense of the game’s place in our society, the caretaker of the sport

Good points all.

Phrased differently, there's a massive amount of litigation risk for MLB if it restarts the season unilaterally, and not just on the pretty self-evident front of how much players should get paid.

The MLBPA already sent a proposal with a start date of June 30. It might be true that Manfred couldn't start the season over the MLBPA's opposition without those factors being satisfied but MLBPA has effectively waived any objections to playing baseball.

What we don't know are the health and safety procedures the MLBPA is willing to accept. They have objected to any plan which restricts the players' freedom of movement and, IIRC, their plan allowed for players who are themselves or have family in at-risk groups to sit the season out.

I phrase (b) differently. I think that 'they', or at least some of them, have this idea of what 'beating' the union in the negotiation looks like, and they're not going to lose NO MATTER WHAT, because of a stupid idea that losing to the union even one time is the harbinger of the end of their dominion over baseball and the riches and power it provides. So they'll drive the whole thing off a cliff rather than give in. If that sounds overly dramatic and stupid then I don't think you're properly paying attention to how these kinds of people are capable of acting.

With the CBA's expiration date coming up, some of the owners may see this as an opportunity to impoverish the players (relatively speaking) and undermine their resolve to strike.

Great Trevor Buaer twitter thread

I got there through a Yelich tweet that said "If you want to know what's really going on", FWIW.

77, Pops, don't know if you are an attorney, but I'm not sure MLBPA did waive those objections (in fact, MLB's snippy, written retort was precisely along the lines of please confirm whether you waived those rights).

By the way, are there any internal travel restrictions in the US right now?

Yes, I think there a bunch of state controls as to people from other states. For example, in South Carolina, only essential travelers from NYC, NJ and Connecticut are permitted. You can see that on a web-site for booking a hotel in South Carolina.

If you are in a vacation rental in Florida, you have different rules on what you can do when you get there, depending on what state you are from.

Remember when Manfred was named commissioner and the selling point was that he handled the labor negotiations under Selig?

This is great point in that it highlights a) how pathetic Tony Clark has been, and b) how significant the death of Michael Weiner was.

This is great point in that it highlights a) how pathetic Tony Clark has been, and b) how significant the death of Michael Weiner was.

A lot of the MLBPA problems started under the watch of Weiner.

A lot of the MLBPA problems started under the watch of Weiner.

Such as??????

He and Manfred got along famously and the players had always been extremely supportive of Weiner.

Tony Clark said this a few days ago:

"Players want to play. It's who we are and what we do. Since March, the Association has made it clear that our No.1 focus is playing the fullest season possible, as soon as possible, as safely as possible.

…

"As a result, it unfortunately appears that further dialogue with the league would be futile. It's time to get back to work. Tell us when and where."

The players have also made a proposal about what the wanted insofar as player safety is concerned - back in May. The details weren't publicly released but there was a summary tweeted out by Evan Drelich:

MLBPA has delivered its response to MLB’s health protocols. Includes notes on:

• Testing frequency
• Protocols for positive tests
• In-stadium medical personnel
• Protections for high-risk players and family
• Access to pre-, postgame therapies
• Sanitization protocols

It's pretty clear that MLB has lost the last 2 or 3 media cycles on this fight with MLBPA.

Yup. MLB is clearly missing Bud Selig's charismatic handling of the media.