OT: Other Sports 73

[No Fun Shogun]

Saw on Twitter last night that the Knicks are apparently heavily considering Thibs as their next coach, to the usual bewilderment of New York fans on everything.

I get all of the negatives of him breaking players by overplaying them, but I do find it hilarious to think that Knicks wouldn't view him as a massive upgrade for their garbage team. Oh no, their players will be too tired for the playoffs that they're probably not good enough to qualify for anyway.

 

[chicagoskycam]

We need to get the idea that businesses are entitled to a profit out of the minds of people here.
If a business is running a deficit, that is NOT the employee's problem. It is ownership/management's problem. End of story.

Business is not entitled to make a profit at all times under any circumstance, and if they don't pass the burden onto their employees and the public. It's wrong on so many levels.

So you think they should function as a charity? Okay, I have news for you... that's not going to happen.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

So you think they should function as a charity? Okay, I have news for you... that's not going to happen.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Owners should have to take operating losses from time to time as the cost of doing business. They should NOT under any circumstances be allowed to privatize profits while socializing losses. If the owner wants to reap the benefits of turning a profit, if they run a loss that's their responsibility as well. That's capitalism 101.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I can't fault a cash strapped NHL team making cuts during these times, but the TV revenues have been so massive for years for the other three leagues that they're all perfectly fine with a temporary collapse of their incomes. For what is mostly a vanity project in their overall portfolios, the money they dole out to minor leaguers and rank and file employees is a pittance to NBA, MLB, and especially NFL owners.

I know they're not charities, but they'd be buying more goodwill among their fans by not appearing as penny-pinching tightwads.

That all being said, I have to quote a line I always say... the easiest thing in the world to do is to have an opinion about other people's money, so I can't talk too much.

 

[x Tame Impala]

What's going on with the MLB? Are they dragging their feet through this? Baseball seems like an excellent sport to play while maintaining social distancing. It's outside and aside from a few instances there's very little close human contact.

With as little cardio as these guys are required to do as is, you could have the batters/catchers/umps wear masks too.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

What's going on with the MLB? Are they dragging their feet through this? Baseball seems like an excellent sport to play while maintaining social distancing. It's outside and aside from a few instances there's very little close human contact.

With as little cardio as these guys are required to do as is, you could have the batters/catchers/umps wear masks too.

Basically, players and owners agreed in March to pay the players their salary, pro rated for the number of games player. So if I made $1 million and we played 81 games instead of 162, I'd make $500k.

Now owners are saying they don't want to do that because there will be no fans so they're going to be making less money than they would have. The suggested a sliding scale of pay cuts beyond pro-rated salaries that will see lower paid players making closer to the full pro-rated amount and higher paid players would make 25-50% of the pro-rated amount. So a player earning $1 million, would pro-rate to $500K and then with the new plan they'd make say, $450k. But a player making $30 million, would pro-rate to $15 million and then they'd be further reduced to say $8 million.

The players are saying that's ridiculous and sent a proposal back with the pro-rated salaries plus a few other things like salary deferrals and ability of players to opt out if they are in a high risk situation (for COVID).

 

[x Tame Impala]

Basically, players and owners agreed in March to pay the players their salary, pro rated for the number of games player. So if I made $1 million and we played 81 games instead of 162, I'd make $500k.

Now owners are saying they don't want to do that because there will be no fans so they're going to be making less money than they would have. The suggested a sliding scale of pay cuts beyond pro-rated salaries that will see lower paid players making closer to the full pro-rated amount and higher paid players would make 25-50% of the pro-rated amount. So a player earning $1 million, would pro-rate to $500K and then with the new plan they'd make say, $450k. But a player making $30 million, would pro-rate to $15 million and then they'd be further reduced to say $8 million.

The players are saying that's ridiculous and sent a proposal back with the pro-rated salaries plus a few other things like salary deferrals and ability of players to opt out if they are in a high risk situation (for COVID).

Interesting. That's too bad. I've never had more time in my life to watch baseball

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Both Owners and Players are tone deaf

At time when 30M+ are now unemployed a player complaining they will only make several million to play (At worst still well over 300/400k for lowest paid players) and owners complaining that the less important revenue aspect (In seat attendance) being lost will make them so poor

MLB makes so much off of sponsership/tv deals that they dont rely on in game attendance to make profit unlike a league like NHL

If MLB loses season because of this fighting while NHL/NBA get going that will be damaging to league at a level of 94 strike IMO

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Saw on Twitter last night that the Knicks are apparently heavily considering Thibs as their next coach, to the usual bewilderment of New York fans on everything.

I get all of the negatives of him breaking players by overplaying them, but I do find it hilarious to think that Knicks wouldn't view him as a massive upgrade for their garbage team. Oh no, their players will be too tired for the playoffs that they're probably not good enough to qualify for anyway.

Thibs would get Knick back to being relevant and in playoffs

That alone is worth investment

Even if its just a short window before his players turn on him

 

[BK]

Thibs would get Knick back to being relevant and in playoffs

That alone is worth investment

Even if its just a short window before his players turn on him

Crazy but I think he would as well.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Knicks have made playoffs only 4 times in last 19 seasons

Firing Van Gundy was moment that franchise went into gutter

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/mlb-aide-union-head-trade-barbs-as-feud-escalates-sherman/

I am starting to believe we may not have a season

 

[Putt Pirate]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/mlb-aide-union-head-trade-barbs-as-feud-escalates-sherman/

I am starting to believe we may not have a season

I agree with you. It is looming like they are not maki g any progress. There is an article on espn with Ricketts. It is pretty interesting read. I am understanding ding of both sides but I just don’t see how they can come together.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The mlb doesn't split revenue 50-50?

 

[Mrfenn92]

The mlb doesn't split revenue 50-50?

No sir.

 

[x Tame Impala]

No sir.

Interesting. I'd imagine that throws a big wrench in everyone's plans

 

[Putt Pirate]

Apparently the mlbpa considers a revenue split a type of salary cap per the ESPN article. MLb owners see the other leagues doing it and would like to do the same. I don’t see it happening this year.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

 

[Sarava]

The players are going to have to back off their demands. They aren't getting full protated shares when there's no fans in attendance.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

The players are going to have to back off their demands. They aren't getting full protated shares when there's no fans in attendance.

The owners could just as easily back off their demands, not sure why it should be the players.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Billionaires versus millionaires, I know, but I think the random fan would easily side with owners on this one as everyone recognizes that the gate is a big part of league revenue. That dropping to zilch is such an obvious thing that most fans would blame players for wanting a merely prorated share as if nothing else changed.

 

[Sarava]

The owners could just as easily back off their demands, not sure why it should be the players.

How can you expect full pay when revenues have taken a massive hit? It doesn't make sense. But yes, they both will need to move. I just find the players position ridiculous.

 

[HawksBeerFan]

How can you expect full pay when revenues have taken a massive hit? It doesn't make sense. But yes, they both will need to move. I just find the players position ridiculous.

Because they are not owners in the business, they are just employees. If my employer and I signed a contract for a certain amount, I would not be obligated to take less salary just because my owner's profits went down for a year.

We hear every time the CBA negotiations are going on about how the poor owners need to "bear the financial burden when things aren't good." Well, they're proving right now how those statements are complete BS.

Edit: Not to mention pro rated salaries is what BOTH sides agreed to do in March when games resumed.

 

[hawksrule]

How can you expect full pay when revenues have taken a massive hit? It doesn't make sense. But yes, they both will need to move. I just find the players position ridiculous.

Beyond that, the players have a finite number of years to make their millions before they're out of baseball, and human nature dictates that they will be reluctant to give up what will still be millions of dollars for most players. As I've said, I could see players on the cusp of free agency holding out because of injury risk or the risk of a down half-season, but other than that I expect the players to buckle.

 

[hawksrule]

Because they are not owners in the business, they are just employees. If my employer and I signed a contract for a certain amount, I would not be obligated to take less salary just because my owner's profits went down for a year.

We hear every time the CBA negotiations are going on about how the poor owners need to "bear the financial burden when things aren't good." Well, they're proving right now how those statements are complete BS.

Edit: Not to mention pro rated salaries is what BOTH sides agreed to do in March when games resumed.

No one said you would be obligated to. But if the two choices were less money or no money, you might take the less money.