Coronavirus (Sports-Related and General)

andyb 2020-06-03 22:05:46 UTC #1165

The playoff dollars are the hidden factor in the owners' proposal. Players are not paid much in the playoffs. The Nats shares were worth $382K last year for the whole playoffs. Up to 20 games. Bryce Harper makes that in 2-3 regular season games. Playoff shares are also calculated on gate receipts. No idea if the owners are planning to pay the players much of anything for the playoffs but they sure want to keep those TV dollars. This is how it is stated in the latest proposal:

The proposal includes $200 million in playoff bonuses -- $25 million for the completion of the division series, $50 million for the league championship series and $125 million for the World Series. A significant amount of the postseason bonuses would go to higher-paid players, with minimum-salaried players receiving $5,512.

Last year playoff shares for players totaled $80.6 million. So the owners are adding a little more than $100 million to the pool. They of course pay nothing if the playoffs get canceled. Not sure a bonus for winning the LCS and WS does much for the 26 teams that don't get there. The clear goal for the membership should be pro-rated game play and make the playoffs more of a small bonus.

zambonir 2020-06-03 22:27:16 UTC #1166

Yeah, clearly the players need regular season games which the owners claim they lose money own, while the owners want playoff games, which they make money on due the combination of bigger TV buck and no salaries. But it's an area where they can negotiate. I think you have to move some of the playoff bonus money to the non-playoff teams. If it's a 50 game season.

The players aren't going to strike. Ownership's right to impose whatever length of schedule they want is the same as the MBLPA's right to insist on full prorated salaries.

Thing is, while I don't think it's the reason ownership is doing it, the argument that the playoffs shouldn't drag into November is compelling. I'm still not even sure they can get through August and September and that being the case 50 games makes more sense than 114.

As Rosenthal pointed out 82 is still the midpoint between those two numbers, and I think the traditional baseball fan would like at least a half-season. It's just kind of a staring contest right now.

As I've said before, especially if you're only playing 50 games, I'd just as soon see a tournament. Make the first 30 or 40 games a seeding round and then let every team play between 5 and 10 games that would give them a chance to be in the playoffs.

andyb 2020-06-03 23:29:07 UTC #1167

I think you have to try for 82 games. Cut the playoff share to something like $50 million (i.e. less than last year even though there might be an extra round). Full pro-rated salaries for 82 games with half of that deferred. Add some escrow where the players might kick back some money if revenues do not hit a certain mark but only if MLB shares all the financial data the players' association asks for.

The injury risk is a tournament without the guaranteed pay would be a non-starter for the players. Teams would be tempted to play more of the season in "playoff" mode with things like starters used in relief. This is a business. You either have a semblance of a season or it is not worth it.

Playoffs going into November don't bother me that much. Yes you are competing with football, but you also might get huge ratings. It is not as if there isn't football in October. I think you want to finish by mid-November to have some semblance of an offseason, but more games will be more money for everyone. I also think regular season TV partners won't need too many rebates if they get the season started in July. Give them the extra playoff games for free, and they might get the benefit of huge summer ratings coupled with more playoff games.

zambonir 2020-06-04 03:18:52 UTC #1168

Oh I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid for the tournament. Make it 50 games (including seeding and preliminary rounds) with regular season salary and then normal playoffs (perhaps minus the two wild card games). I know this isn't gonna happen. I think you're probably right they settle on 82 games. But I don't think the regular season is going to be that valuable. The NBA finals aren't slated to end until October 12. There's gonna be both kinds of football. And teams are also going to lose money (especially a team like the Phillies that owns part of its local network) giving games to national outlets.

I think the reason for the short season is caution, not conflict with other sports. If they get started up in July and then have to shut down in August or make it to September but then get shut down in November it's not out of the question they can still restart the season. But if the season is actually scheduled to run until Thanksgiving and things go badly, it will never get completed.

I think TV is going to have its own problems. Yeah, it will be great for them to have sports when they haven't been able to produce new TV shows. But I don't think we can assume they are just going to rake in advertising $ and ratings as we continue to live with the virus and massive unemployment.

Also, I dread the possibility of there being playoff baseball the actual week of the election. (Some of course, think there won't be an election. If that's the case, there probably won't be sports either. Or if there is, it would be even bigger propaganda/bread and circuses than it already is.)

Lawman 2020-06-04 15:57:38 UTC #1169

Maybe we can combine them? Polling booths at the stadium for fans to be able to come vote and then go watch the game. And, yes, I'm being facetious.

andyb 2020-06-04 19:33:57 UTC #1170

There is actually some semblance of live college summer league baseball on ESPN2 tonight. Looks mainly secondary prospects and I assume few draft eligible players:

zambonir 2020-06-04 20:55:36 UTC #1171

Yup this is the thing I posted above, in the Bryan-College Station area. Probably more interesting to see if they pull it off without consequences than for the baseball itself.

Lawman 2020-06-08 15:10:42 UTC #1172

Per @KarlRavech on Twitter. W/o seeing the details, the below general outline looks reasonable to me.

MLB has made proposal to Players. 75 percent Prorated salary. 76 game season. Playoff pool money. No draft pick compensation for signing player. Season finishes September 27th. Post season ends at end of October. Significant move towards players demands and effort to play more.

andyb 2020-06-08 15:29:48 UTC #1173

That is a 30% cut from the players' 82 game pro-rated offer. It is small movement. Not what I would call significant.

They also do not get that the players want to be paid for the regular season and care less about playoff money which historically subsidizes the regular season anyway. Playoff pay should be nominal, since ALL regular players are starting with a 50% pay cut.

If I were the players I would stick to the 82-game plan. Maybe the 78-game plan (which drops the 13th in-division game) would be OK. Then offer to defer half the money at nominal interest (like 2%-3%). MLB really seems to want to finish the regular season early. I get that they don't want to playing around Thanksgiving, but going a week or two into October should be OK especially if we have no fans and could easily go to neutral playoff sites. And neutral playoff sites would cut some days off the postseason schedule if there is not travel.

bkeich 2020-06-08 16:44:48 UTC #1174

I would much rather they did not go to neutral sites and I assume the owners agree. The last thing they want is to have playoff games not be sell outs, and at neutral sites it really could easily happen.

If the owners were smart they would simply offer "full prorated for games where fans are in the seats", "x% for games without fans". That way both sides have a desire to allow people in the seats, maybe for 1 season only the owners share a percentage of the stadium revenue instead of going all the way to full prorated. (i.e. X% prorated + $Y of the stadium revenue). As it stands only the owners really want fans in the seats, one could argue the players actually dont because it adds to their risk.

It would make alot more sense to just play a reduced schedule, based on the current schedule starting on a specific day to me. That way they dont have to work around other stadium events, just play a 60-80 game schedule and do the playoffs as they normally would. It would almost be a little exciting since more teams could be "in" (mediocre teams, like the Phils, could get hot and ride their way into the playoffs). This will always be a season with an asterisk, just like 1981 strike shortened season, but Baseball needs to find a way to add excitement.

If anything I would say add a few more "play in" games at the end, so that more teams could possibly get a shot at the playoffs. The simple fact is in a normal baseball season there are 5-10 teams that simply have no shot at the playoffs from day 1, the Phils were one of those teams for a few years. This is a chance to add excitement in every city. Since there are some franchises that are just perpetual on the outside (Baltimore, etc.)

If the owners had a dream it would be for some player to come close to hitting .400 I would guess. In a 1/2 season it probably is possible, but in a full season it is very unlikely.

andyb 2020-06-08 17:03:49 UTC #1175

Not sure there are any other stadium events to contend with. Everything in the summer has been cancelled and even if there were fans in the stands half the days would still be open at home stadiums.

Every MLB proposal so far has been about limiting the players' pay to somewhere in the 30%-35% of their original salaries. It has little to do with the number of games and all to do with limiting pay. While MLB will see reduced revenue because of no fans in the park, their TV revenue will not decrease that much (have not heard about Comcast rebates have we?) and it is possible it would increase with more playoff rounds.

The players DO need to give somewhat here. The owners just have little credibility in their offers. They also need to get off the playoff bonus theme. It sounds good to the fans, but since the players are starting with a 50% cut they need as much of the money allocated to game salary to all 30 teams if necessary. What if they told you that you would have to work at 50% of your salary but would have a chance to increase that by 20% if you did well at work? Players don't play in the playoffs for money. They never have. Why should they do it now? It is just a transparent attempt by MLB to make a larger cut in their regular salaries.

zambonir 2020-06-08 17:14:27 UTC #1176

But there isn't really any scenario where fans are in the seats. I know there's talk of 25 or 50% and there's also talk of letting it happen where it's legal and not happen where it isn't - a huge competitive and economic imbalance to begin with, and won't really move the needle economically. But in the playoffs gate isn't the issue, the TV deal pays more than enough. I'm not even convinced the owners want fans - will 10,000 people at CBP actually be worth all the logistical hurdles (reallocating season tickets, staffing the games) and risk? And if they need to go to neutral sites there definitely won't be fans (i.e. it will be because there's been delays/need for quarantine, not just weather).

I don't think there's gonna be any issue with other stadium events either. No dual-use stadiums left (except for one Canadian football team). Not gonna be concerts.

Still seems to me they are not close. I also think this isn't only MLB trying to wrap things up on time - the TV partners and advertisers have probably weighed in. Their real issue still, clearly, is they don't want to pay a full pro-rated salary.

A short season and massively expanded playoffs is actually still what makes sense to me, and maybe that also puts more money in players pockets if 20 teams are involved. I would still think only the Top 8 see any real money if it's still tied to actual appearances - but does it have to be that way? Why can't the playoff pool be boosted and divided among every player in the league to balance out lost regular-season pay, if that's where all the $ is?

20 playoff teams is not really baseball, but we're already at that point. If it had been a 50-game season last year the Phillies would have won the NL East. By 76 we were out but the Red Sox and Rockies were wild cards.'

The free agent thing is an expected little bone, but affects so few players. It also comes with the subtext of, "we know your offers aren't going to be good this off-season so here's a small thing to open up the market slightly."

Lawman 2020-06-08 17:26:53 UTC #1177

This whole season is going to be so screwy, if it occurs, I'm looking at this like sort of a weird March Madness type tournament, not a real season by any stretch of the imagination.

bkeich 2020-06-08 17:48:04 UTC #1178

When the 1981 Strike happened, they actually did a split season and then a round of the playoffs to resolve that split. Very similar to many minor leagues. That really isnt needed here since there was no "split", but it is the precedent for a short season and one with expanded playoff options.

Just do a short season with expanded playoffs, like I said before, this season is always going to have an asterisk next to it just like 1981 and not really considered completely the same as others.

bkeich 2020-06-08 17:56:19 UTC #1179

According to the owners, which of course has to be taken as some degree of lie, 40% of their revenue is from the stadium (some smaller markets without the mega TV deal might be influencing this number). So I would say that there is more than some lost revenue here.

I actually think there will be fans in the seats eventually. Maybe not until mid-late August, but I would expect to see them in there and I think it is very possible they will be there fairly close to normal numbers. We will see, but there are many places in the US (southeast, southwest) where there has been far fewer issues with Covid 19 and they will want the return to normalcy.

zambonir 2020-06-08 18:11:52 UTC #1180

Cases are still rising in many places (including Texas where the Astros could have fans tomorrow) and we aren't even starting to see the impact of re-opening. We'll see, obviously the governors are a lot more open to it than they were two months ago, but it still seems like a moving target to me, and you either need to have fans in 30 cities or none.

I don't think the owners are actually lying about losing 40% of their revenue from not having fans, it's just not a very complete picture of how any team's balance sheet really works. And just as they say it would be be cheaper to have no games at all there's probably a number where it's not worth it to have fans. It also remains to be seen how many fans would actually show up, and at what price points. The push for "normalcy" still leaves out the economic reality MLB (and the US) will be in for the next year-plus.

And how do you social-distance luxury boxes, which is probably the income stream that matters more than 10,000 people in the seats? If a big law firm hasn't even let its employees come back to the office full-time they aren't going to be gathering at a ball game to entertain clients. Schools and summer programs aren't bringing groups to games.

Lawman 2020-06-08 18:19:06 UTC #1181

I'm someone who advocates for a more rapid opening then what is happening, and even I don't want - or expect - to see this during the 2020 calendar year.

andyb 2020-06-08 18:28:41 UTC #1182

The 75% offer to the players is also a bit less than initially characterized.

MLB's proposal, delivered Monday morning, includes potential earnings that would cover up to 75% of players' prorated salaries over a 76-game season -- about $1.432 billion in total compensation. Of that, $989 million would be in straight salary and $443 million in money paid if the playoffs take place.

I am not sure what "movement" there is in this proposal. It is essentially the same money as all the other proposals but now with an even smaller guarantee.

And Fangraphs agrees with this assessment:

Dirk41 2020-06-08 18:35:56 UTC #1183

This is a really great point. Another, more locally focused one is that the Wells Fargo Center was to complete renovations on the club level this summer. With that (presumed to be) on hold, going into next season with seats that don't exist will be really interesting

zambonir 2020-06-08 18:41:23 UTC #1184

In other words, the owners don't actually want the players to take this deal, they just want to lock heads for another couple of weeks until 50 games are the only option (since the players get no say in the timing of the schedule/playoffs)

https://twitter.com/Joelsherman1/status/1270054914383917056