Thread: MLB News

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

Among the 4 things on the table, I think the split for future TV revenue increases (tied to the 2021 new playoff round) is the one that is hardest to resolve because it's really negotiating the 2022 CBA now. 60-70 games is only about $8M per team in additional salary.  The difference in new playoff share for 2020 from $25 to $50M is less than $1M per team.  We don't know the value of the advance forgiveness.  But, if the new round of playoffs yields $200M per year in revenue, the players want $100M of it.  It becomes a template for other national TV revenue sharing. Current playoff shares are tied to ticket sales if I recall correctly.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Jun 20

Yes Alex, totally.  In one of my leagues both owners must confirm the deal by email before a trade can be processed.

Last night the owners refused to agree to even 65 games, even though that likely gets them expanded postseason revenue, some return on their $170 million advance, and a pledge not to face a greivance that could cost them $300 million or more.  

Now if the players simply repeat "tell us when", owners will have to either concede something or shut down the season, meaning they also lose hundreds of millions AND face a greivance.

Bob Elam Bob-in-TX
Jun 20

Reading Bob's post after posting mine, I'll add: if the players don't budge -- if they repeat just tell us when and where -- I'm fine with that.

Alex Patton Alex
Jun 20

Didn't Manfred, after meeting with Tony Clark in Phoenix on Tuesday, remind you of a fantasy owner who calls in a trade while the other team is still thinking about it?

Sixty games! We're going to play 60 games! Tony and I have "a framework of agreement" which I summarized verbally ten different times during the meeting and recapped in a written memo immediately afterward, just in case he recalls things differently. Note to the stat service: please change our lineups before the first game today.

But Tony did recall things differently and here we are.

Ken Davidson calls the difference between 60 games and 70 games "numerically a mild disagreement." I don't agree with that and am sure the players don't, but okay.

Make it 65. That's still a significant upgrade from 48, and there's still time.

If the owners don't agree to that (I think they will), both sides will still be at war when it becomes obvious they can't play any games.

Alex Patton Alex
Jun 20

And beyond that, the commish told the MLBPA last night that owners won't propose more than 60 games.  So I see only one thing for the players to do now: repeat the phrase, "tell us when and where."  Then file their greivance.

According to Eugene's article, Manfred has already crippled the owners' greivance case by admitting that this was about $$.

Maybe only with the ultimatum repeated do hardline owners yield to 65 games with a no greivance pledge. I said this past week that I was dubious with owners talking a done deal and players saying "not yet."  And unfortunately I was right.

Bob Elam Bob-in-TX
Jun 20

The case for more games, which we fans certainly want, is looking quite a bit weaker with the virus news regarding the Phillies and Blue Jays. 

Scott Shea SJS
Jun 19

Excellent, well-written article Eugene.  I am not an attorney but the legal explanations were plainly understandable.  Well done.

And now, let's have the parties set a 65-game season and see if we can avoid the fate of the Phillies and their 5 players who have already tested positive in Florida.

Play ball, please!

Bob Elam Bob-in-TX
Jun 19

I was published at Fangraphs for an article: The Threat of a Grievance Likely Spurred MLB’s Latest Offer to the Players.  It started out as more of a an arbitration brief, but Meg Rowley, Fangraph's managing editor, helped me revise it into something more digestible.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Jun 19

Why not?  Because owner greed and hypocrisy.

Bob Elam Bob-in-TX
Jun 19

Of course it means more for the players. But the larger point is, if they can play more games, they should play more games. Why not?

Alex Patton Alex
Jun 19