Red Sox/MLB Buffalo Blue Jays - Mookie Betts agrees to sign 12-year, $365 million contract extension with LA

[Smitty93]

Agreed. If you want a player that fits a specific kind of role, draft a player with those skills. Don't draft a guy that isn't that and try to change their entire game because that never works.

I think a lot of teams overrate their ability to develop players. For me, the most important thing for management is good self-evaluation. Know your strengths and weaknesses, and what you can and can't do. Teams see athletic balls of clay and think they can mold them into anything. They're willing to sacrifice certainty because their egos are so big that they can't imagine not being able to develop the player to their full potential.

It's the old Family Guy joke "A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything, it could even be a boat!" Just take the ******* boat.

 

[JRull86]

I mean the owners and players can't possibly think losing an entire season will be good for the future health of the game right?

Baseball is already declining in popularity, regardless of what in stadium attendance numbers say. The last thing they can afford, is to have a season wiped out because of money, in a time when so many are struggling.

 

[Smitty93]

I mean the owners and players can't possibly think losing an entire season will be good for the future health of the game right?

Baseball is already declining in popularity, regardless of what in stadium attendance numbers say. The last thing they can afford, is to have a season wiped out because of money, in a time when so many are struggling.

The CBA also ends after next season, so we could be looking at a lost season this year, and then a lockout/strike. If that happens, the sport will likely never recover.

 

[McGarnagle]

The CBA also ends after next season, so we could be looking at a lost season this year, and then a lockout/strike. If that happens, the sport will likely never recover.

There's too much at stake for both sides to avoid a lockout/strike, but right now the owners kind of have the union by the balls, which is unfortunate. Manfred is trying to use this to buy over all the backup infielders and relief pitchers to try to handicap the Harpers and Machados and get the owners out of commitments to pay them $30 million a year. Someone did the math on the latest proposal where players who make over a certain amount get like 20% of the prorated half of their salary for 81 games, and it ended up with Mike Trout being paid just under $5 million. Honestly at that point it's not worth him going to the ballpark to risk injuring himself every day.

 

[JRull86]

The CBA also ends after next season, so we could be looking at a lost season this year, and then a lockout/strike. If that happens, the sport will likely never recover.

100%.

 

[JRull86]

I mean, it's hard to sympathize with millionaires, but man...



I don't blame them one bit for telling the owners to go screw.

 

[BruinsFanSince94]

I mean, it's hard to sympathize with millionaires, but man...



I don't blame them one bit for telling the owners to go screw.

It is hard, especially when you see a guy still making 262k. I'm like, "shit that's a lot of money haha". But I'm sure if you compare this to the greedy owners, it is easy to side with the players.

 

[McGarnagle]

What does "recovery" even mean?

It's not 1952 where every child is playing stickball in the neighborhood and pretending they're Duke Snider and Mickey Mantle, and as a cultural phenomenon it's fallen well behind the NFL and is losing market share to the NBA. But MLB revenue last year was $9.7 billion dollars. Tell that to Joe Dimaggio who was an American sports icon and made $37,000 a year.

Baseball's not going anywhere.

 

[BMC]

This is a bad look for the players. Nobody identifies with the billionaire owners but a lot of the players come from the middle & lower economic classes that most of us belong to and at some point many of us have dreamed about becoming professional athletes. I know people who are in serious danger of losing their businesses and everything else they've worked so hard to acquire so I've got no sympathy for Mike Trout or any other major leaguer making less money to play a shortened season. So Trout only gets under $ 5 million under this proposal? Boo freaking hoo. He's still far better off than most of us especially when you consider how much money he has already made during his career. He's financially secure for several lifetimes already. Not to pick on Trout I think he's the best player in baseball but face it he (like every other pro athlete) is vastly over paid for what he does. After all it is just a game.

 

[McGarnagle]

This is a bad look for the players. Nobody identifies with the billionaire owners but a lot of the players come from the middle & lower economic classes that most of us belong to and at some point many of us have dreamed about becoming professional athletes. I know people who are in serious danger of losing their businesses and everything else they've worked so hard to acquire so I've got no sympathy for Mike Trout or any other major leaguer making less money to play a shortened season. So Trout only gets under $ 5 million under this proposal? Boo freaking hoo. He's still far better off than most of us especially when you consider how much money he has already made during his career. He's financially secure for several lifetimes already. Not to pick on Trout I think he's the best player in baseball but face it he (like every other pro athlete) is vastly over paid for what he does. After all it is just a game.

No he's not. If anything he along with the other players deserve a larger share of the billions and billions of dollars that the league generates. But these weasel owners like Peter Angelos and Jerry Reinsdorf hide behind the league's archaic antitrust exceptions and pocket most of the revenue. It's not just a game, it's a business. If people are willing to pay money to go to games and buy licensed products, and if enough eyes are watching that sponsors are going to pay them big bucks too, then the players earn every penny they get, fairly.

 

[CDJ]

It’s a horrible look for the owners if anything

they’re asking them to take a 2nd paycut. Open the books and explain why or go kick rocks


I don’t understand how people can side with owners on anything especially when they’re being openly shady

 

[CDJ]

I mean, it's hard to sympathize with millionaires, but man...



I don't blame them one bit for telling the owners to go screw.

i hadn’t even seen this yet, that’s insulting knowing how much money these teams rake in with TV deals alone

Those holding it against the players that they’re millionaires to side with billionaires is dizzying, especially considering the fact that the players are the ones generating all of the revenue. Nobody makes any money without them. Owners are still trying to profit like it’s a regular season while making the players take the financial hit. It’s pathetic

 

[JRull86]

i hadn’t even seen this yet, that’s insulting knowing how much money these teams rake in with TV deals alone

That's the owners proposal. The players proposal is further down in the replies of that Twitter thread. It's still a pay cut, but it's prorated based on an 82 game schedule, which the players want to play.

No one is asking the owners to pay them their full 162 game salary. They want what they deserve to have based on a shortened season. I see no problem with that.

 

[CDJ]

That's the owners proposal. The players proposal is further down in the replies of that Twitter thread. It's still a pay cut, but it's prorated based on an 82 game schedule, which the players want to play.

No one is asking the owners to pay them their full 162 game salary. They want what they deserve to have based on a shortened season. I see no problem with that.

I see no problem whatsoever as well. As a matter of fact I’d say that’s the common sense option. Prorating everything makes plenty of sense.

Billionaires being billionaires. They already lobby Congress so they can f*** over minor league ball players, might as well go for the major leaguers too

 

[JRull86]

"bUt iT'S tHe pLaYeRS fAuLT!!!!!!"

I can see it now. Season cancelled, owners and Manfred put out the we gave them a fair and realistic deal, and they didn't want to take it to make it work. Then a strike happens and another season is gone.

I will say, I think Tony Clark is a TERRIBLE MLBPA head. He's in way over his head IMO.

 

[Smitty93]

This is a bad look for the players. Nobody identifies with the billionaire owners but a lot of the players come from the middle & lower economic classes that most of us belong to and at some point many of us have dreamed about becoming professional athletes. I know people who are in serious danger of losing their businesses and everything else they've worked so hard to acquire so I've got no sympathy for Mike Trout or any other major leaguer making less money to play a shortened season. So Trout only gets under $ 5 million under this proposal? Boo freaking hoo. He's still far better off than most of us especially when you consider how much money he has already made during his career. He's financially secure for several lifetimes already. Not to pick on Trout I think he's the best player in baseball but face it he (like every other pro athlete) is vastly over paid for what he does. After all it is just a game.

I think part of it is that billionaires might as well be a different species. Most people can't imagine having a million dollars, let alone a billion. Everyone's aware that billionaires basically run the country, and there's nothing that will change that, so it's hard to believe that they're actually beatable in any of these negotiations (despite the MLBPA soundly beating them 25 years ago).

When so many people have been laid off or had pay cuts, it's hard to sympathize with someone who will still make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. I'd love to support the union more, but it's not like they use tactics that are all that different from the owners. Max Scherzer puts out that statement talking about talking a "2nd pay cut", which is just straight up bullshit. The agreed upon deal in March was that they'd get pro-rated salaries based on the amount of games played. It's reasonable that you'd only get half your salary if you're only going to work half the time. I wouldn't classify that as a pay cut. It's basically what happens any time there's a lockout.

 

[McGarnagle]

"bUt iT'S tHe pLaYeRS fAuLT!!!!!!"

I can see it now. Season cancelled, owners and Manfred put out the we gave them a fair and realistic deal, and they didn't want to take it to make it work. Then a strike happens and another season is gone.

I will say, I think Tony Clark is a TERRIBLE MLBPA head. He's in way over his head IMO.

Its amazing how the MLBPA leadership has been in a state of complete decline over the last 40 years.

Marvin Miller was a hardass who didn't take shit from owners. Fehr was a decent negotiator but completely negligent in issues like PEDs that caused further problems down the road. Weiner never had any major events in his tenure but was conciliatory to any of the stuff the commissioner wanted to push through. Tony Clark is just a complete pushover though.

 

[Johnnyduke]

I know Blake Snell's comments are old now but my god...what an absolute moron that guy sounds like. Guess I can't blame him for wanting all his money because he won't be making money in any other position in life.

 

[JRull86]

I think part of it is that billionaires might as well be a different species. Most people can't imagine having a million dollars, let alone a billion. Everyone's aware that billionaires basically run the country, and there's nothing that will change that, so it's hard to believe that they're actually beatable in any of these negotiations (despite the MLBPA soundly beating them 25 years ago).

When so many people have been laid off or had pay cuts, it's hard to sympathize with someone who will still make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. I'd love to support the union more, but it's not like they use tactics that are all that different from the owners. Max Scherzer puts out that statement talking about talking a "2nd pay cut", which is just straight up bullshit. The agreed upon deal in March was that they'd get pro-rated salaries based on the amount of games played. It's reasonable that you'd only get half your salary if you're only going to work half the time. I wouldn't classify that as a pay cut. It's basically what happens any time there's a lockout.

I mean he's definitely using that phrase somewhat disingenuously, but I get what he's saying.

Owners and players agreed to pro-rated salaries based on how many games ended up being played. Owners then come back two months later and want to reduce the prorated pay even further, hence the "2nd pay cut". It's total bullshit.

They expect the players to show up and give 100% for an 82 game schedule, but instead of paying them for 51% of the season, they want to pay them for 30%? No freaking way. I don't blame any of them, especially the big money guys, one bit for telling them to kick rocks.

 

[Smitty93]

i hadn’t even seen this yet, that’s insulting knowing how much money these teams rake in with TV deals alone

Those holding it against the players that they’re millionaires to side with billionaires is dizzying, especially considering the fact that the players are the ones generating all of the revenue. Nobody makes any money without them. Owners are still trying to profit like it’s a regular season while making the players take the financial hit. It’s pathetic

The other side of that argument is that the players wouldn't be able to make anything without the owners. If we're being honest, it's a lot easier to replace a player than it is to replace an owner. There are only so many billionaires that are even interested in owning a team.

I see no problem whatsoever as well. As a matter of fact I’d say that’s the common sense option. Prorating everything makes plenty of sense.

Billionaires being billionaires. They already lobby Congress so they can f*** over minor league ball players, might as well go for the major leaguers too

I've got to disagree, slightly, with the bolded. $3 billion is the number I remember seeing for the revenue from tickets, so that's immediately gone. We can think the owners should just be willing to eat that and pay the players anyway, but that's not going to happen, whether we want it to or not. Maybe I'm just a pushover, but billionaires always seem to get what they want. Saying all of that, the 50-50 revenue split, and this most recent offer are incredibly shitty. No one should be supporting either, but I don't think a straight up proration of salaries makes sense either, when there aren't going to be any fans.

 

[CDJ]

The other side of that argument is that the players wouldn't be able to make anything without the owners. If we're being honest, it's a lot easier to replace a player than it is to replace an owner. There are only so many billionaires that are even interested in owning a team.



I've got to disagree, slightly, with the bolded. $3 billion is the number I remember seeing for the revenue from tickets, so that's immediately gone. We can think the owners should just be willing to eat that and pay the players anyway, but that's not going to happen, whether we want it to or not. Maybe I'm just a pushover, but billionaires always seem to get what they want. Saying all of that, the 50-50 revenue split, and this most recent offer are incredibly shitty. No one should be supporting either, but I don't think a straight up proration of salaries makes sense either, when there aren't going to be any fans.

I think if they opened up the books you would be alarmed at the amount of money they have coming in- they’re for sure going to take a hit (everybody is) but I bet even with prorated salaries and zero ticket sales they will be raking in a fortune


My whole point is if the players choose not to play the owners have nothing at all. If they choose to play you have massive TV deals and the owners profit. Seems very stupid to not relent to the players in this instance- or at least justify their asks by showing them their books

There is a reason why they don’t want to do that

 

[Smitty93]

I mean he's definitely using that phrase somewhat disingenuously, but I get what he's saying.

Owners and players agreed to pro-rated salaries based on how many games ended up being played. Owners then come back two months later and want to reduce the prorated pay even further, hence the "2nd pay cut". It's total bullshit.

They expect the players to show up and give 100% for an 82 game schedule, but instead of paying them for 51% of the season, they want to pay them for 30%? No freaking way. I don't blame any of them, especially the big money guys, one bit for telling them to kick rocks.

It's funny how a lot of these deals would be much easier if leagues were just willing to release financial information, but that's never going to happen.

Deferred payments probably make the most sense, and I think it should depend on what happens with the playoffs. The players basically play for free in the playoffs, so that's all money going in the owners' pockets. Defer money, and then have it paid out based on what happens with the playoffs, since I believe that national TV revenue is more well-known, so there should be less of a question about how much they make.

 

[McGarnagle]

People are underestimating how big the TV ratings are going to be when live sports return. There's going to be literally nothing else on, scripted entertainment is going to take a long time to get back in production, movie theaters won't open for a while. But if the MLB playoffs are on, even in an empty arena, the ratings are going to be bigger than they've been in years. Which means sponsorship rights are going to go for big money.

 

[Smitty93]

I think if they opened up the books you would be alarmed at the amount of money they have coming in- they’re for sure going to take a hit (everybody is) but I bet even with prorated salaries and zero ticket sales they will be raking in a fortune


My whole point is if the players choose not to play the owners have nothing at all. If they choose to play you have massive TV deals and the owners profit. Seems very stupid to not relent to the players in this instance- or at least justify their asks by showing them their books

There is a reason why they don’t want to do that

This is the question, right? There was a Fangraphs article from a couple weeks ago, where they tried to review the MLB claim of a $4 billion loss. The author's conclusion is basically that the $4 billion number is bullshit, but that we don't actually know whether they'll make or lose money this year.

Parsing MLB’s Claim of a $4 Billion Loss

I do wonder if it would be easier to come to a deal if the CBA wasn't about to expire in a year. Opening the books would certainly solve some problems, but that will never happen. I think the winner of most of these deals is decided by who loses more if there is no deal. Usually, it's the players because they have a limited amount of time to earn, so they're more desperate, while most of the owners have other businesses so they're not wholly dependent on their sports profits. It seems likely that someone will cave, but we'll see whether it's the players or owners.

 

[CDJ]

This is the question, right? There was a Fangraphs article from a couple weeks ago, where they tried to review the MLB claim of a $4 billion loss. The author's conclusion is basically that the $4 billion number is bullshit, but that we don't actually know whether they'll make or lose money this year.

Parsing MLB’s Claim of a $4 Billion Loss

I do wonder if it would be easier to come to a deal if the CBA wasn't about to expire in a year. Opening the books would certainly solve some problems, but that will never happen. I think the winner of most of these deals is decided by who loses more if there is no deal. Usually, it's the players because they have a limited amount of time to earn, so they're more desperate, while most of the owners have other businesses so they're not wholly dependent on their sports profits. It seems likely that someone will cave, but we'll see whether it's the players or owners.

w/ the cba expiring I think it basically just expedited the lockout


Oh well, sale got TJ and won’t miss a game lol