OT: Blake Snell and MLB players vs owners

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I am sure you have heard this, maybe not. It comes across as arrogant, condescending, and completely tone deaf, and Snell also comes across as an idiot. But....in thinking this, I am siding with him over the owners.

The big market owners never wanted to share revenues, never want a cap, so they always shouted down the smaller market owners. The smaller market owners, which outnumber the large market owners, never could band together to get a Cap and a Floor and revenue sharing. They would get paid off by "luxury tax" penalties on the big spenders.

So.....the owners are losing revenue? And now you want the players to contribute? Eff you. Sure, their salaries will be prorated, but that's it. You want to put in provisions for these salaries to be related to revenues? Collectively Bargain for once as a unit, not only when it compels you in a pandemic.

The players aren't sympathetic figures by far. But the owners, in this case, they made their bed. They could have played hardline years ago...but those big market superstation teams didn't want to give up anything. So.....

 

[pittdan77]

I am sure you have heard this, maybe not. It comes across as arrogant, condescending, and completely tone deaf, and Snell also comes across as an idiot. But....in thinking this, I am siding with him over the owners.

The big market owners never wanted to share revenues, never want a cap, so they always shouted down the smaller market owners. The smaller market owners, which outnumber the large market owners, never could band together to get a Cap and a Floor and revenue sharing. They would get paid off by "luxury tax" penalties on the big spenders.

So.....the owners are losing revenue? And now you want the players to contribute? Eff you. Sure, their salaries will be prorated, but that's it. You want to put in provisions for these salaries to be related to revenues? Collectively Bargain for once as a unit, not only when it compels you in a pandemic.

The players aren't sympathetic figures by far. But the owners, in this case, they made their bed. They could have played hardline years ago...but those big market superstation teams didn't want to give up anything. So.....

To be honest, the players have no reason to give anything up if there isn't anything in the CBA. A lot of the baseball money is guaranteed. If the owners didn't bargain that right or the player's contracts don't account for it, I don't really see why any player would want to make changes.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

To be honest, the players have no reason to give anything up if there isn't anything in the CBA. A lot of the baseball money is guaranteed. If the owners didn't bargain that right or the player's contracts don't account for it, I don't really see why any player would want to make changes.

Well....no. I mean, someone with a salary of say $10million, and there is only a schedule for half the games, you should expect your pay to be prorated, right? What I am saying, any further concessions because the lack of revenue streams (fans), well that's on the owners. The player's base pay is as you said, contracted.

 

[HailToPitt725]

I’ve only read up on this a little bit so forgive me if this is incorrect, but didn’t the players agree to some type of deal with the owners in January that, among other things, included how players’ salaries would be dealt with in the event of a shortened season? If so, I might side with the players if the owners are trying to agree to something other than the original agreement.

 

[pittdan77]

Well....no. I mean, someone with a salary of say $10million, and there is only a schedule for half the games, you should expect your pay to be prorated, right? What I am saying, any further concessions because the lack of revenue streams (fans), well that's on the owners. The player's base pay is as you said, contracted.

I'd want the amount I was contracted for according to the terms. People agree to stupid conditions all the time.

 

[pittdan77]

I’ve only read up on this a little bit so forgive me if this is incorrect, but didn’t the players agree to some type of deal with the owners in January that, among other things, included how players’ salaries would be dealt with in the event of a shortened season? If so, I might side with the players if the owners are trying to agree to something other than the original agreement.

Yeah. I guess I found an article that says there was an agreement and salary is prorated. Service time will count. Not sure I understand it all.

So if this is true, it's a player saying he's not going to play. I guess that's his call.

 

[pittmeister]

I am sure you have heard this, maybe not. It comes across as arrogant, condescending, and completely tone deaf, and Snell also comes across as an idiot. But....in thinking this, I am siding with him over the owners.

The big market owners never wanted to share revenues, never want a cap, so they always shouted down the smaller market owners. The smaller market owners, which outnumber the large market owners, never could band together to get a Cap and a Floor and revenue sharing. They would get paid off by "luxury tax" penalties on the big spenders.

So.....the owners are losing revenue? And now you want the players to contribute? Eff you. Sure, their salaries will be prorated, but that's it. You want to put in provisions for these salaries to be related to revenues? Collectively Bargain for once as a unit, not only when it compels you in a pandemic.

The players aren't sympathetic figures by far. But the owners, in this case, they made their bed. They could have played hardline years ago...but those big market superstation teams didn't want to give up anything. So.....

Great points and totally agree. The players should have their salaries probated and that's it...As you said, the big market owners made their bed.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I’ve only read up on this a little bit so forgive me if this is incorrect, but didn’t the players agree to some type of deal with the owners in January that, among other things, included how players’ salaries would be dealt with in the event of a shortened season? If so, I might side with the players if the owners are trying to agree to something other than the original agreement.

It wasn't in January, it was in March, iirc. But yeah. They agreed that if the season was cut short the players would be paid prorated based on how many games that are actually played, but that the players would get credit for a full season of service time for however long the season was. In other words, they play an 82 game season then players who were on the roster for all 82 games get credit for playing a full season, not for half a season because they only played half the games. That agreement does have a clause in it that says that if they have to play without fans that they can further negotiate, but it doesn't require further concessions from anyone. The players were also guaranteed a payment of a certain amount if the whole season does get cancelled.

The only reason that the owners are willing to give the players 50% of the revenues is because they think that 50% of the revenues may very well end up being a lot less than whatever the prorated amount of money would pay the players. The owners proposal is nothing more than the billionaires trying to make sure that they get more of the money than the millionaires.

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

The players should have their salaries probated and that's it..

Are they dead?

 

[wbrpanther]

I am sure you have heard this, maybe not. It comes across as arrogant, condescending, and completely tone deaf, and Snell also comes across as an idiot. But....in thinking this, I am siding with him over the owners.

The big market owners never wanted to share revenues, never want a cap, so they always shouted down the smaller market owners. The smaller market owners, which outnumber the large market owners, never could band together to get a Cap and a Floor and revenue sharing. They would get paid off by "luxury tax" penalties on the big spenders.

So.....the owners are losing revenue? And now you want the players to contribute? Eff you. Sure, their salaries will be prorated, but that's it. You want to put in provisions for these salaries to be related to revenues? Collectively Bargain for once as a unit, not only when it compels you in a pandemic.

The players aren't sympathetic figures by far. But the owners, in this case, they made their bed. They could have played hardline years ago...but those big market superstation teams didn't want to give up anything. So.....

Agreed. both sides are greedy but supposedly the owners agreed to pro rated salaries when this all started now they are moving the bar.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You will never hear Buffet Parrothead/PittFamily2/PITTF2/PittBus. badmouth "greedy, arrogant" baseball players. Know why? If Snell was an NBA or NFL player, he would be melting down.

 

[pittmeister]

Are they dead?

oops! LOL prorated....damn spell check!

 

[wbrpanther]

It wasn't in January, it was in March, iirc. But yeah. They agreed that if the season was cut short the players would be paid prorated based on how many games that are actually played, but that the players would get credit for a full season of service time for however long the season was. In other words, they play an 82 game season then players who were on the roster for all 82 games get credit for playing a full season, not for half a season because they only played half the games. That agreement does have a clause in it that says that if they have to play without fans that they can further negotiate, but it doesn't require further concessions from anyone. The players were also guaranteed a payment of a certain amount if the whole season does get cancelled.

The only reason that the owners are willing to give the players 50% of the revenues is because they think that 50% of the revenues may very well end up being a lot less than whatever the prorated amount of money would pay the players. The owners proposal is nothing more than the billionaires trying to make sure that they get more of the money than the millionaires.

The players should play for a salary equal to the percentage of games played.. The owners, who are billionaires, should not nitpick about much money they will lose with the loss of fans. And no player should have to play for less than the minimum salary.

Quite simple.