MLB 2025 Season

Options
1…873874876878879…1220

Comments

  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,359
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.
    Wasn't this in agreement that fans would be in the stands though?
  • Poncier
    Poncier Posts: 17,874
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.
    Wasn't this in agreement that fans would be in the stands though?
    Depends on who you believe:

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29161983/passan-20-questions-why-financial-battle-2020-mlb-season-get-really-really-ugly

    For one, union lawyers believe they're in the right legally when it comes to guaranteeing players' prorated salary. The March agreement contains a Player Compensation and Benefit section that does not specifically address a reduction in salary if games are played in front of no fans.

    That said, on Page 1 of the agreement, the first point of the Resumption of Play section includes the words: "(T)he 2020 championship season shall not be commenced unless and until each of the following conditions is satisfied." One of those conditions ends with: "(T)he Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites."

    The first sentence of the compensation section begins with the clause: "If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season ... " -- language similar to that on the first page.

    When asked by ESPN to interpret the language, four longtime labor lawyers who work for neither MLB nor the union adopted different positions. Two said the similarity in the language made it clear that those sections were meant to be tied together. One agreed with the union's interpretation that anything about compensation changing should have been written explicitly. The fourth called any potential grievance on the matter a toss-up.

    This weekend we rock Portland
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.


    We don’t know what the owners agreed to because the players are famous for leaking inaccuracies to pro PA reporters. Many reports indicate all the owners agreed to was providing a full year of service in exchange for not paying contracts for unplayed games. I doubt the owners would have guaranteed full per game salaries with zero attendance, zero parking, zero luxury suites and zero concessions without knowing whether they would have fans in the stands. That makes no sense because it exposes the owners to $4 billion in losses.

    As far as proving economic hardship, that sounds absurd. How difficult is it to prove significant decline in Revenue when every seat is empty?

    The players want to play hardball that’s fine. But it’s unlikely the owners would risk losing $4 billion annualized because the players think they have a strong union.

    If players push too hard, it’s likely they will not see a dime until 2022. If it takes us 18 months to get past covid that could wipe out 2 seasons without an agreement and the sport post covid could take many more years to get back to its $10 billion revenue level dependent on its ability to pack fans is the stands. Player salaries would be taking a long term hit either way.


    This is my understanding of the March agreement:
    ” As for the deal’s salary provisions, the players agreed to forego any potential suit against the league for full salaries in the event that the 2020 season does not take place.  Instead, MLB will advance players $170 million over the next two months, which the Players Association will divide among its members.  MLB salaries are paid on a per game basis, so to the extent that games are missed due to COVID-19, there is a legitimate argument that players would not be owed their contractually-agreed upon salaries.  Perhaps recognizing the uncertain legal landscape at play here and the bad optics of litigating over millions in salaries at this time of mass unemployment, it would appear that both sides determined that a swift resolution to the matter was in everyone’s best interests.”
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    MLB uniform players contract:

    ” Governmental Regulation–National Emergency
    11. This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or the League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.”

    someone should get the union lawyers on the phone stat.
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    None of that changes my opinion.
    Looking at any business at a one year glance is not the way I would do it....and not the way we are looking at our business now.  I hope to shit the rest of the country's executive teams are also not looking at this as a one year deal.  
    A good business is built over a course of time.
    You can quote reporter angles and agree with them...I don't need the reporters to inform my opinion of how a business can be run.

    Don't blame the owners for playing it the way they are, I just disagree with it.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    We can’t expect the owners to fork over $4 billion for lost 2020 gate revenue. That is unrealistic and the player arguments sound like five year old boys crying about someone stealing their toys.

    The reality is this is likely a long term problem, until 50000 fans can again pack a stadium. Something we all want, when it’s safe. So is that $8 billion in losses the owners fork over 2 years? Unless trump orders us back to baseball stadiums?

    And many major sponsors are looking at hard times and could exercise force majeure clauses.  Many could be canceling their long term sponsorships or demanding massive mlb concessions. So is that $10 billion in lost revenue over 2 years?

    And it doesn’t stop there. We could be heading for our first depression in 90 years. Entertainment, leisure, hospitality and travel industries will be hit excessively hard. Even when we get the covid all clear, teams may not be able to draw 3 million fans for a very long time. Corporations will be looking to not buy season boxes and luxury suites. Teams may go bankrupt. Sponsors could go bankrupt. That’s depression type stuff. I work in a stable regulated industry and I am worried. Unemployment is 20% and counting and our bad debts could likely soar. That will equate to job losses eventually. The last thing I would ever do is demand a full days pay if my employer told me times are rough in this environment.

    So are we looking at $20 billion in lost mlb revenue over 5 years? Too unrealistic?

    To think the owners have that amount if cash laying around is not realistic. Especially considering their other business interests could be taking massive losses also.

    So we expect owners to liquidate their investments to fund these losses? If players are looking for that it’s more likely teams file for bankruptcy and players get goose gossage instead of money.
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    You are right, you convinced me.  Only one person's opinion could possibly be valid.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    Boras:

    “Every owner has at least doubled or quadrupled their money, with every club gaining $700 million to $2 billion in equity,’’ Boras said. “And never has there been a suggestion about sharing those gains with players. They wanted to privatize the games. This is the only time it has come up.

    “If I’m an owner of a company, I don’t ask my employees in a downtime due to the virus to bear the cost. I pay them their salaries. That’s what every business owner does. You don’t socialize their employees.”


    How many dishonest comments, Scott?


    1. Equity value is not “money.” You are suggesting the owners liquidate assets or borrow billions to pay players full per game salaries


    2. The equity you are referring to is pre covid, with the ability to draw 3 million fans. Are you guaranteeing those franchise values in today’s dollars and empty stadiums with your own money? Put up or shut up Scott.


    3. “If I’m an owner of a company, I don’t ask my employees in a downtime due to the virus to bear the cost.” No Scott, you fire them. Check out something called unemployment. It’s everywhere now. Either you get subsidized by the federal govt or you fire your employees if you are unable to operate your assets, like say, a stadium.


    4. “ You don’t socialize.” No Scott. You are the one looking for a socialist bailout. The maximum revenue your players could generate per game is gone. Vanished. If they can’t fill the stands they are no generating that gate revenue. Let’s ask Pearl Jam how many shows they’ll play for an empty house. They could do pay per view, but the money they earn is based on the money they earn. Not a bailout from promoters or owners.





  • Poncier
    Poncier Posts: 17,874
    Lerxst1992 said:
    Boras:

     


    4. “ You don’t socialize.” No Scott. You are the one looking for a socialist bailout. The maximum revenue your players could generate per game is gone. Vanished. If they can’t fill the stands they are no generating that gate revenue. Let’s ask Pearl Jam how many shows they’ll play for an empty house. They could do pay per view, but the money they earn is based on the money they earn. Not a bailout from promoters or owners.


    Comparing a concert to professional sports is apples to watermelons. Sports teams/leagues generate the majority of their revenue from TV contracts and these baseball games will be televised. Pearl Jam gains their revenue at concerts from fans in attendance only, through ticket and merchandise sales.
    One could even argue that the TV revenue should be higher if they start playing in July as they'll be possibly the first/only of the 4 majors playing since March and ratings should be higher than normal, so why doesn't MLB just demand more money from its TV partners rather than demand the players take a further haircut? Oh cause they agreed to a deal already. Just like they did in March with the PA.
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,359
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.
    Wasn't this in agreement that fans would be in the stands though?
    Depends on who you believe:

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29161983/passan-20-questions-why-financial-battle-2020-mlb-season-get-really-really-ugly

    For one, union lawyers believe they're in the right legally when it comes to guaranteeing players' prorated salary. The March agreement contains a Player Compensation and Benefit section that does not specifically address a reduction in salary if games are played in front of no fans.

    That said, on Page 1 of the agreement, the first point of the Resumption of Play section includes the words: "(T)he 2020 championship season shall not be commenced unless and until each of the following conditions is satisfied." One of those conditions ends with: "(T)he Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites."

    The first sentence of the compensation section begins with the clause: "If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season ... " -- language similar to that on the first page.

    When asked by ESPN to interpret the language, four longtime labor lawyers who work for neither MLB nor the union adopted different positions. Two said the similarity in the language made it clear that those sections were meant to be tied together. One agreed with the union's interpretation that anything about compensation changing should have been written explicitly. The fourth called any potential grievance on the matter a toss-up.

    I'd have to read the rest of it and see if any other language is in there.
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    edited May 2020
    Jesus,. Now you are smarter than Scott Boras?

    Fricking genius over here.  I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room.  But Boras is a dummy?
    C'mon man.  Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.



    I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell.  Definitely bad optics.   I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.

    Messy 
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Jesus,. Now you are smarter than Scott Boras?

    Fricking genius over here.  I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room.  But Boras is a dummy?
    C'mon man.  Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.



    I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell.  Definitely bad optics.   I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.

    Messy 


    really dude? You are so smart you need to personally attack to explain how the owners are coming up with this amount of cash? Boras is an aggressive and arrogant man who only cares about padding his bank account. His bank account has a vested interest in this. Mine does not. He will say anything to contort facts to fit his narrative. If he thinks the owners are going to print $5 billion a year he is out of his mind. 

    The 10 wealthiest owners are worth about  $35 billion combined, before any losses from covid.  So these owners are going to liquidate assets during a national emergency to make the PA happy, when every single player’s contract says the commissioner has the right to suspend operations ? 
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    Poncier said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    Boras:

     


    4. “ You don’t socialize.” No Scott. You are the one looking for a socialist bailout. The maximum revenue your players could generate per game is gone. Vanished. If they can’t fill the stands they are no generating that gate revenue. Let’s ask Pearl Jam how many shows they’ll play for an empty house. They could do pay per view, but the money they earn is based on the money they earn. Not a bailout from promoters or owners.


    Comparing a concert to professional sports is apples to watermelons. Sports teams/leagues generate the majority of their revenue from TV contracts and these baseball games will be televised. Pearl Jam gains their revenue at concerts from fans in attendance only, through ticket and merchandise sales.
    One could even argue that the TV revenue should be higher if they start playing in July as they'll be possibly the first/only of the 4 majors playing since March and ratings should be higher than normal, so why doesn't MLB just demand more money from its TV partners rather than demand the players take a further haircut? Oh cause they agreed to a deal already. Just like they did in March with the PA.

    The comparison is they both need to fill stadiums and or arenas to make money. We might think that the higher mlb ratings would bring in more money until we realize many advertisers could be in financial pain from covid and possibly cancel their sponsorships. 
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,844
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.
    Wasn't this in agreement that fans would be in the stands though?
    Depends on who you believe:

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29161983/passan-20-questions-why-financial-battle-2020-mlb-season-get-really-really-ugly

    For one, union lawyers believe they're in the right legally when it comes to guaranteeing players' prorated salary. The March agreement contains a Player Compensation and Benefit section that does not specifically address a reduction in salary if games are played in front of no fans.

    That said, on Page 1 of the agreement, the first point of the Resumption of Play section includes the words: "(T)he 2020 championship season shall not be commenced unless and until each of the following conditions is satisfied." One of those conditions ends with: "(T)he Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites."

    The first sentence of the compensation section begins with the clause: "If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season ... " -- language similar to that on the first page.

    When asked by ESPN to interpret the language, four longtime labor lawyers who work for neither MLB nor the union adopted different positions. Two said the similarity in the language made it clear that those sections were meant to be tied together. One agreed with the union's interpretation that anything about compensation changing should have been written explicitly. The fourth called any potential grievance on the matter a toss-up.

    I'd have to read the rest of it and see if any other language is in there.

    Every players contract indicates the commissioner can suspend operations.


    ” Governmental Regulation–National Emergency
    11. This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or the League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.”
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    Lerxst1992 said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Jesus,. Now you are smarter than Scott Boras?

    Fricking genius over here.  I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room.  But Boras is a dummy?
    C'mon man.  Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.



    I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell.  Definitely bad optics.   I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.

    Messy 


    really dude? You are so smart you need to personally attack to explain how the owners are coming up with this amount of cash? Boras is an aggressive and arrogant man who only cares about padding his bank account. His bank account has a vested interest in this. Mine does not. He will say anything to contort facts to fit his narrative. If he thinks the owners are going to print $5 billion a year he is out of his mind. 

    The 10 wealthiest owners are worth about  $35 billion combined, before any losses from covid.  So these owners are going to liquidate assets during a national emergency to make the PA happy, when every single player’s contract says the commissioner has the right to suspend operations ? 
    These numbers are all garbage.  Do you realize that they don't share how much they actually make?
    I don't take any issue with people having different opinions, only when people act like their opinion is the only correct one.  We don't know.  The reporters don't know.  The owners only know, and I don't trust them - at all.
    It is my belief that owning a team has been a printing press for money for some while and as business owners they should be on position to do what is needed this season.  If they blew all of their profits then perhaps they should consider selling 
    My opinion.
    Boras knows far more than we do, and I would say far more than the reporters do about the true economics.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Poncier
    Poncier Posts: 17,874
    Lerxst1992 said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Poncier said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Cliffy6745 said:
    Understand not every team is the Yankees, but Steinbrenner bought the team for $10 million and is now worth $5 billion.  Pretty sure they can afford to pay pro-rated salaries for 3 months...

    The team is worth 5 billion but they don't bring that in every year.  They don't even bring in a billion as the league as a whole takes in 10 billion per year over 30 teams.

    If I was an owner I would ask and demand for the 50/50 split too.  

    If I was a player though I would want the prorated salary. There is zero dollars coming in for playing at home now so I side w the owners.

    I would like to see baseball played but there is no way the owners/players cave on this.
    The simplest answer is that the owners agreed to the prorated salary option already in March. So they should not be now trying to alter that agreement and go for the revenue split. Should have pushed for that back in March (but wouldn't cause they thought at the time the revenue would have been higher than it will be under the current plan) if they thought that was "fair". Everyone knew the possibility of empty stadia was on the table in March. They made their beds, now lie in them.
    Wasn't this in agreement that fans would be in the stands though?
    Depends on who you believe:

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29161983/passan-20-questions-why-financial-battle-2020-mlb-season-get-really-really-ugly

    For one, union lawyers believe they're in the right legally when it comes to guaranteeing players' prorated salary. The March agreement contains a Player Compensation and Benefit section that does not specifically address a reduction in salary if games are played in front of no fans.

    That said, on Page 1 of the agreement, the first point of the Resumption of Play section includes the words: "(T)he 2020 championship season shall not be commenced unless and until each of the following conditions is satisfied." One of those conditions ends with: "(T)he Office of the Commissioner and Players Association will discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators or at appropriate substitute neutral sites."

    The first sentence of the compensation section begins with the clause: "If and when the conditions exist for the commencement of the 2020 championship season ... " -- language similar to that on the first page.

    When asked by ESPN to interpret the language, four longtime labor lawyers who work for neither MLB nor the union adopted different positions. Two said the similarity in the language made it clear that those sections were meant to be tied together. One agreed with the union's interpretation that anything about compensation changing should have been written explicitly. The fourth called any potential grievance on the matter a toss-up.

    I'd have to read the rest of it and see if any other language is in there.

    Every players contract indicates the commissioner can suspend operations.


    ” Governmental Regulation–National Emergency
    11. This contract is subject to federal or state legislation, regulations, executive or other official orders or other governmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting military, naval, air or other governmental service, which may directly or indirectly affect the Player, Club or the League and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to suspend the operation of this contract during any national emergency during which Major League Baseball is not played.”
    What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,359
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Jesus,. Now you are smarter than Scott Boras?

    Fricking genius over here.  I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room.  But Boras is a dummy?
    C'mon man.  Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.



    I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell.  Definitely bad optics.   I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.

    Messy 


    really dude? You are so smart you need to personally attack to explain how the owners are coming up with this amount of cash? Boras is an aggressive and arrogant man who only cares about padding his bank account. His bank account has a vested interest in this. Mine does not. He will say anything to contort facts to fit his narrative. If he thinks the owners are going to print $5 billion a year he is out of his mind. 

    The 10 wealthiest owners are worth about  $35 billion combined, before any losses from covid.  So these owners are going to liquidate assets during a national emergency to make the PA happy, when every single player’s contract says the commissioner has the right to suspend operations ? 
    These numbers are all garbage.  Do you realize that they don't share how much they actually make?
    I don't take any issue with people having different opinions, only when people act like their opinion is the only correct one.  We don't know.  The reporters don't know.  The owners only know, and I don't trust them - at all.
    It is my belief that owning a team has been a printing press for money for some while and as business owners they should be on position to do what is needed this season.  If they blew all of their profits then perhaps they should consider selling 
    My opinion.
    Boras knows far more than we do, and I would say far more than the reporters do about the true economics.
    I'm pretty sure I could do some digging and find out about how much a team makes a year since everything gets leaked.

    What does puzzle me is a team like the Marlins whom gets zero attendees is still open for business.  That profit sharing thing must be doing them a great service.
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    tempo_n_groove said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Lerxst1992 said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    Jesus,. Now you are smarter than Scott Boras?

    Fricking genius over here.  I get being smarter than me, I mean clearly you are the smartest guy in the room.  But Boras is a dummy?
    C'mon man.  Take a teency step down from the high horse you are riding around on.



    I did agree with Tempo on the quotes I read from Blake Snell.  Definitely bad optics.   I don't disagree with some of what he is saying but coming out with it that way doesn't seem to gain him much public support (nor any for other players) and this is exactly what the owners wanted when they started leaking all of this crap well before any offer was even discussed with the players.

    Messy 


    really dude? You are so smart you need to personally attack to explain how the owners are coming up with this amount of cash? Boras is an aggressive and arrogant man who only cares about padding his bank account. His bank account has a vested interest in this. Mine does not. He will say anything to contort facts to fit his narrative. If he thinks the owners are going to print $5 billion a year he is out of his mind. 

    The 10 wealthiest owners are worth about  $35 billion combined, before any losses from covid.  So these owners are going to liquidate assets during a national emergency to make the PA happy, when every single player’s contract says the commissioner has the right to suspend operations ? 
    These numbers are all garbage.  Do you realize that they don't share how much they actually make?
    I don't take any issue with people having different opinions, only when people act like their opinion is the only correct one.  We don't know.  The reporters don't know.  The owners only know, and I don't trust them - at all.
    It is my belief that owning a team has been a printing press for money for some while and as business owners they should be on position to do what is needed this season.  If they blew all of their profits then perhaps they should consider selling 
    My opinion.
    Boras knows far more than we do, and I would say far more than the reporters do about the true economics.
    I'm pretty sure I could do some digging and find out about how much a team makes a year since everything gets leaked.

    What does puzzle me is a team like the Marlins whom gets zero attendees is still open for business.  That profit sharing thing must be doing them a great service.
    I think that would prove a point ...also, if attendance and related makes up to 40% of their revenues, as I have read (and don't know to be true), then we can only imagine how much profit they must make overall to see attendance and related revenue amount to less than half of revenue.

    I am starting to think that with the safety issues the payroll deal is not going to matter, much.  This will be much worse for all involved and I hope it does not come to pass.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,807
    Bravo MLB
     HardballTalk : MLB to defer draft bonuses on its already-shortened draft
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Poncier
    Poncier Posts: 17,874
    Pathetic
    This weekend we rock Portland

Categories