would think this is going to make the Astros penalties tougher than otherwise would be. going to have almost nothing for a draft pool.

Also going to see a lot more folks going to college now than we normally would see.

More players going to college, and more college juniors staying to play a senior year of college baseball.

For the MLB teams, it will give a long-term advantage to whichever clubs turn out to be really good at scouting and recruiting undrafted players.

This is a good article about the lost season for minor league ball, and implying (correctly, I think) that the entire minor league system might be even smaller in the future than the 120-team plan that MLB laid out last year.

MLB clubs that are cutting salaries and furloughing staffers, not paying rent on their empty stadiums, etc., etc. are going to start asking whether they even need to be paying players and coaches of 4 minor league teams, or whether they could do just fine with 3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...el-impact/

Quote:There’s some merit to shrinking the draft, for sure. Last year, Baseball America studied three decades of drafts from 1981 to 2010. The result: Fewer than one in five drafted and signed players made the majors, and fewer than one in 10 produced at least 0.1 wins above replacement. For every Albert Pujols or Daniel Murphy (13th round), every Adam Eaton (19th round) or Jacob deGrom (ninth round), hundreds of players never come close.

I think the contraction may have taken place even if they hadn't been talking about it going into it....

(05-28-2020 07:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the contraction may have taken place even if they hadn't been talking about it going into it....

Yeah, if someone looked at baseball's minor league system in the context of other US pro sports, and didn't know the history of it, they might ask why each MLB team carries 150-200 minor league players and coaches on its payroll, compared to zero for each NFL team or compared to about 15 for each NBA team that has a G-League affiliate.

Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

yea normally when it's owners/players- it's 90/10 for supporting owners..... This seems so different this time.

(06-03-2020 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

Some disagree and see it is the Players who are unwilling to be more reasonable in order to provide their fans something of a season.

(06-04-2020 02:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

Some disagree and see it is the Players who are unwilling to be more reasonable in order to provide their fans something of a season.

yeah some do. 19%. That normally is around 90% quite frankly..... It's totally flipped this time.

(06-05-2020 07:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 02:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

Some disagree and see it is the Players who are unwilling to be more reasonable in order to provide their fans something of a season.

yeah some do. 19%. That normally is around 90% quite frankly..... It's totally flipped this time.

really? hmmmm. Surprising. Where did you see that number?

I blame it on the players, especially the ones contending for championships

Q: do they still cut off beer sales in late innings?


They're so fluffy, we're gonna die!


These stuffed animals were practicing social distancing.

Can anyone explain why there is a cap on signing bonuses for each MLB team's draft choices? How can MLB put that in the collective bargaining agreement when draftees aren't union members and won't even be union members after signing unless they're in the majors? Sounds illegal as hell to me. Wonder why no one has challenged it.

(06-07-2020 06:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 07:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 02:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

Some disagree and see it is the Players who are unwilling to be more reasonable in order to provide their fans something of a season.

yeah some do. 19%. That normally is around 90% quite frankly..... It's totally flipped this time.

really? hmmmm. Surprising. Where did you see that number?

Just historically. normally people always side with the owners....

But the owners with their tactics and their rather ridiculous "negotiating" just have changed that...

Even with the 48-52 game threat that MLB has... If they did it- players would be getting 1.23 billion dollars this year....

meanwhile, the last proposal had the players getting only 1.09 billion for the regular season. Then had 550 million for playoffs if it happens. Putting literally 2/3 of the risk on the postseason on the players....

Owners between what they did with the draft, the minor leagues, and now this just look very opportunistic. They refuse to show the players the books.

(06-11-2020 09:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just historically. normally people always side with the owners....

But the owners with their tactics and their rather ridiculous "negotiating" just have changed that...

Even with the 48-52 game threat that MLB has... If they did it- players would be getting 1.23 billion dollars this year....

meanwhile, the last proposal had the players getting only 1.09 billion for the regular season. Then had 550 million for playoffs if it happens. Putting literally 2/3 of the risk on the postseason on the players....

Owners between what they did with the draft, the minor leagues, and now this just look very opportunistic. They refuse to show the players the books.

Well, I'd prefer a 50/50 revenue split, but then they'd have to open their books somewhat, but didn't the owners already propose something like that?

Players' argument was that it would be a de-facto salary cap, which they are opposed to. That's a big reason I side with the owners because saying you'd like the very business you work for to be at risk of being put out of business by not having the business pay for itself is just stupid. Sure some owners can subsidize from outside, but that logic is ultimately destructive and puts the players in position of not really caring about the overall health and growth of their game and sport as long as they get theirs today. Short term thinking is selfish--the players have their jobs and salaries because of players who came before--they should leave the game healthier and in better financial for the next generation, not try to squeeze every penny and the sport be damned. That's why I'd prefer a player/owner 50/50 partnership.

(06-12-2020 12:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 09:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just historically. normally people always side with the owners....

But the owners with their tactics and their rather ridiculous "negotiating" just have changed that...

Even with the 48-52 game threat that MLB has... If they did it- players would be getting 1.23 billion dollars this year....

meanwhile, the last proposal had the players getting only 1.09 billion for the regular season. Then had 550 million for playoffs if it happens. Putting literally 2/3 of the risk on the postseason on the players....

Owners between what they did with the draft, the minor leagues, and now this just look very opportunistic. They refuse to show the players the books.

Well, I'd prefer a 50/50 revenue split, but then they'd have to open their books somewhat, but didn't the owners already propose something like that?

Players' argument was that it would be a de-facto salary cap, which they are opposed to. That's a big reason I side with the owners because saying you'd like the very business you work for to be at risk of being put out of business by not having the business pay for itself is just stupid. Sure some owners can subsidize from outside, but that logic is ultimately destructive and puts the players in position of not really caring about the overall health and growth of their game and sport as long as they get theirs today. Short term thinking is selfish--the players have their jobs and salaries because of players who came before--they should leave the game healthier and in better financial for the next generation, not try to squeeze every penny and the sport be damned. That's why I'd prefer a player/owner 50/50 partnership.

The owners have acted like vultures in everything thru out this crisis. Taking advantage of the situation 100%.... They think the players should subsidize the losses.

(06-12-2020 03:44 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The owners have acted like vultures in everything thru out this crisis. Taking advantage of the situation 100%.... They think the players should subsidize the losses.

Yup. This is the owners' "final offer" sent on Friday:

Quote:Not until the third page does Halem detail what he calls the league’s “Final Counterproposal for 72 games,” in which the players would receive 70 percent of their prorated salaries for the regular season and up to 80 percent if the postseason is completed. The financial guarantee of the offer is the rough equivalent of the guarantee the players would receive if commissioner Rob Manfred exercises his right to impose a season for as few as 48 games at full prorated salary.

That prompted this tweet from a Cubs player:

Quote:Daniel Descalso
@DanielDescalso

MLB: Do you want a half dozen donuts?
MLBPA: No.
MLB: Oh, So you want 6?
MLBPA: That’s the same thing
MLB: Our mistake. How about 2 sets of 3?
MLBPA: Never mind.
MLB: Wait wait, I can give you 3 sets of 2. How’s that?

8:36 PM · Jun 12, 2020 · Echofon

sounds like the owners are really reaching. And lost this big time...

yesterday-
1st off about 4pm word came out that MLB and Turner have agreed to an extension of their TV deal... 1 billion per year now.....

The players last night put out a statement...

the owners followed up with a statement...

the problem is the language the owners used.... premised on mutual understanding.

Seems what the owners thought was in the deal well, isn't in the March 26 deal....

What is funny as hell is that the owners are arguing going against the letter of the law, when they scream bloody murder about letter of the law with I don't know. Service Time..

(06-03-2020 01:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Owners seem determined to wreck this MLB season just as they did in 1994.

MLB plowing toward tiny season after rejecting players’ 114-game proposal

Quote:MLB rejected the Players Association’s proposal for a 114-game season and is building internal consensus around implementing a season of roughly 50 games for full prorated play for players, unless the players are willing to play around 82 games at less than that, sources told The Post.

Absolutely

Perfectly even since 1902