Current Events > If you were the MLB players union do you accept mlb's offer?

(+) Yeah! (+)

iirc they get 75 perc. of what they would have made this year but play like less than 75 perc. of the games they were supposed to. But iirc they're still very unhappy with this proposal

---

I would throw out an middle ground number (87.5%) but I would be willing to accept.

I understand that owners lose out on money from the stadiums being empty, and if this goes on much longer players will make $0.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

I would throw out an middle ground number (87.5%) but I would be willing to accept.

I understand that owners lose out on money from the stadiums being empty, and if this goes on much longer players will make $0.

you're a big baseball fan? but aren't they playing less than 75 perc. of games? you think it seems fair?

---

I have no idea how much teams make from ticket and concession sales, but they are clearly going to lose something.

I just want there to be a season.

---

what is your team?

---

Fuck no.

They're only guaranteed 50% of their pro-rated salary and the other 25% is if there is playoffs.

MLB should give the full pro-rated salaries. The owners want to socialize the losses and its bullshit. Theyre only thinking in the short-term and this has a chance to put MLB down to the level of the MLS.

---

It wouldn't be 75% of what they would have made this year. Their salaries are going to be prorated regardless, so they would only be getting paid for whatever number of games they'd be playing. The owners don't want to pay all 100% of that number, so 75% is what they came up with.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Fuck no.

They're only guaranteed 50% of their pro-rated salary and the other 25% is if there is playoffs.

MLB should give the full pro-rated salaries. The owners want to socialize the losses and its bullshit. Theyre only thinking in the short-term and this has a chance to put MLB down to the level of the MLS.

you want them to give them all the money they're owed? they're only playing part of the season and no people in the stands.

---

Smallville posted...

you want them to give them all the money they're owed? they're only playing part of the season and no people in the stands.

No.

They deserve pro-rated salaries.

IE: (all fake numbers to make it easy) You sign a contract for $100m for 200 games in a season. This year say they only play 100. The player would only earn $50m in that scenario for playing half of the games of the original contract. This scenario the owners proposed has them earning $25m in this scenario assuming they only play the 100 regular season games. Theyd then earn an additional $12.5m if the full playoffs are played.

Fuck the owners, theyre trying to kill baseball.

---

Yeah it's hard to imagine what I'd think as a player, but you can't blame them for wanting to get paid for what they're rightfully owed. The owners are at fault for this and pretty much all other issues plaguing baseball.

---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

Yeah it's hard to imagine what I'd think as a player, but you can't blame them for wanting to get paid for what they're rightfully owed. The owners are at fault for this and pretty much all other issues plaguing baseball.

how are they at fault though?

---

The owners rake in profits when revenues are crazy high and now they want the players to help with the losses.

These are owners worth billions of dollars fighting over millions of dollars. They are 100% at fault if/when baseball takes tons of heat and loses what popularity it did have.

Pay the players pro-rated salaries. If they play 76 games, pay them for 76 games. Not play 76 but pay them for 57.

---

nope

i love baseball but i think it's kinda fucked.

if it does somehow all come together, i can only see it being a small whimper with years of escalating problems. probably best to just reform and change everything now. it's gonna be painful though.

---

Baseball is dying, anyways.

Best case scenario they blow the whole thing up and make the game faster paced and fun to watch again. Better for the sport in the long run.

---

doomcrusader posted...

Baseball is dying, anyways.

Best case scenario they blow the whole thing up and make the game faster paced and fun to watch again. Better for the sport in the long run.

oh so compared to nba etc.......it's ratings and shit, you're sure are going down?

---

people on the baseball board are worried this will lead to the end of the MLB. and pro american baseball shutting down forever. I think the players are fools. they might screw themselves out of their careers. short sighted greed might kill the sport that used to be considered the iconic sport of America.

Zikten posted...

short sighted greed

The only short sighted greed is from the owners.

They had a preliminary deal with the players for pro-rated salaries for a shorter season and now theyre low-balling the players.

No matter how many games are played, the players should get a pro-rated salary for that season. Its bullshit that the owners are able to brainwash people into believing anything different.

---

I support players getting as much money as they can get but when it's a matter of a lost season, they lose my support.

This is still millionaires vs. billionaires

---

Smallville posted...

oh so compared to nba etc.......it's ratings and shit, you're sure are going down?

Look at the demographics that still watch the sport.

Baseball dies with the boomers.

---

doomcrusader posted...

Look at the demographics that still watch the sport.

Baseball dies with the boomers.

Its not so much that it dies with the boomers, its that MLB is shit at marketing and the commissioner is a fucking moron. He literally called the World Series championship a piece of metal this offseason.

Literally one of the greatest players of all-time is active and I bet most people dont know who he is. Now look at other major American sports.

---

the players' contracts are the players' contracts. The League asking them to take a cut beyond the pro-rated number is completely fucking insane. I hope that if the players agree to it that it comes with the giant flashing warning that it's going to cost the league a fortune in the next cba.

---

Yeah the players are absolutely unknown.

Even hockey has more recognizable faces among your general sports fan.

Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid are as or more recognizable than the current baseball stars which really go to show how far baseball as fallen in the last 15 years.

---

Medussa posted...

the players' contracts are the players' contracts. The League asking them to take a cut beyond the pro-rated number is completely fucking insane. I hope that if the players agree to it that it comes with the giant flashing warning that it's going to cost the league a fortune in the next cba.

It does suck they might lose money but if they are too stubborn they may lost EVERYTHING. the sport will end. forever. their careers will die. they will get nothing

Zikten posted...

It does suck they might lose money but if they are too stubborn they may lost EVERYTHING. the sport will end. forever. their careers will die. they will get nothing

Stop sucking the owners teet. Theyre the ones in the wrong.

Its not fair to tell the players to bailout the owners so they dont lose (as much) money.

Thats socializing the losses while privatizing the profits.

---

That argument doesn't really work when the workers are being paid millions.

Guess who loses if there is no season? Regular people.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

That argument doesn't really work when the workers are being paid millions.

Guess who loses if there is no season? Regular people.

And the owners are billionaires.

---

doomcrusader posted...

Yeah the players are absolutely unknown.

Even hockey has more recognizable faces among your general sports fan.

Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid are as or more recognizable than the current baseball stars which really go to show how far baseball as fallen in the last 15 years.

No clue who that last guy is.

There's no way to make baseball exciting for people who just don't find it exciting. To do that you'd have to completely change what it is. MLB does need to market its stars better too, but due to the nature of the game I don't think the average person is going to be able to appreciate a player like Mike Trout the same way they can appreciate a star in another sport. The impact a single player has in baseball is much less than it is in other sports.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

And the owners are billionaires.

People are on their own side, they aren't on the side of the players or the owners.

In general people are fine with players making whatever they can get, but fans will always be happy when a player takes a discount to play for their favorite team. And in a salary cap league, players making more money means it's harder for teams to compete.

People want MLB back more than anything.

---

Everyone wants baseball back, but if the owners get their way it will just incentivize them to continue to be greedy. These are the scumbags that are already charging me a ridiculous amount of money just to go to a game. And that doesn't even include the excessive amount you have to pay for all the other crap that's part of the experience of attending a baseball game.

---

There's still an aspect of supply and demand, though. Owners can charge as much for tickets as people will pay for them. The Knicks have been terrible for literal decades now and the tickets are still super expensive because they are basically a tourist attraction and people (and businesses) will buy the tickets no matter what.

Fans are truly on their own side in this. This proposal isn't the last chance at having a season, but if it was I think the vast majority fans would support it. This is a good way of putting it (from ESPN's article on their front page)

Q: Is the possibility of a shorter 48- or 50-game season being the final outcome still in play?

Schoenfield: Fifty games is better than zero, but 76 is ... well, 52% better than 50, so I'd be 52% happier with 76 games.

---

honestly I don't think MLB had much of a chance this year anyway, with the NBA and NHL playoffs encroaching on the months the MLB usually has basically to themselves.

---

Baseball players are the greediest in all of sports
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Baseball players are the greediest in all of sports

How so? The owners want the players to play in 70 something games while getting paid as if they only played around 40-50 games.

Like if your boss asked you to work more hours for less pay, you'll fucking laugh at their face and everyone would basically be on your side. This is what's happening with the players but suddenly everyone think they're greedy???? What?
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Baseball players are the greediest in all of sports

Just cause they have the strongest union doesnt mean theyre greedy.

People who just always blindly side with the billionaires in labor disputes are the worst.


---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

No clue who that last guy is.

There's no way to make baseball exciting for people who just don't find it exciting. To do that you'd have to completely change what it is. MLB does need to market its stars better too, but due to the nature of the game I don't think the average person is going to be able to appreciate a player like Mike Trout the same way they can appreciate a star in another sport. The impact a single player has in baseball is much less than it is in other sports.

The argument doesn't hold up looking at recent history.

15 years ago, everybody knew Jeter, Arod, Ortiz, Bonds, Pedro, Ichiro, and many more and could recognize them on the street.

Your average fan will now only know the players on their regional team, and maybe some high profile players in the same division. That's literally hockey.

And it's not just marketing, games suck to watch now outside of being in the stands for the atmosphere. The pace of play has dropped, reducing tension and making games last too long. Teams also have no salary bottom so they tank for years. They need a cap as well. And it's the player's union that has fought hardest to stop these changes that will improve the game.

---

MLB is already changing pace of play. No more IBB (just take the base instead of throwing the 4 pitches), all pitchers must face a min of 3 batters or end an inning, limiting mound visits, etc. Baseball is a game of strategy and you can't take away too much from that.

Also a cap will just limit contracts. They definitely need a floor of some sort though.

Also people knew of those players because baseball was more popular 20 years ago and that was in the literal middle of the steroids-era. A-Rod, Ortiz, Bonds all took steroids (2 tested positive, Bonds refuses to admit it).

MLB sucks at marketing hardcore and obviously won't get better with a commissioner that hates baseball.

---

The most popular players in the sport currently are also fairly early into their careers. And in Trout's case, he's a lowkey guy as is playing for a team that has been mediocre for his entire career up until now.

As for the game not be exciting anymore, that is your personal opinion. I think they're still very fun to watch whether on TV or in the stands. Like I said though, I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done without radically changing the game. You either enjoy it or you don't.

---

Less money coming in means less money for players in their pockets pretty simple

and not only players but staff as well

---