MLB Owners Support Thread

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by CalCub

True but Manfred is influenced heavily by the owners, if the majority of the owners banded together & demanded that Manfred cancel the season, it could influence him to cancel the season.

Not much different? How so? Pro baseball is a business, obviously the owners proposals are generally based about not losing too much money, can't blame them for that, which is exactly why the players should be wiling to take a pay cut in order to give the fans more baseball games without causing financial stress on the MLB teams they work for

Fans shouldn't want their favorite teams to come under financial stress, fans should want their teams to be profitable like any other business. It's funny how a lot of the people in the public that are siding with the players actually have 401K retirement plans that only grow over time if the stock market does well long term, and MOST stocks only do well if they have profitable businesses and/or able to generate cash flow, yet they don't mind if team owners lose money

Well if the owners mutiny and cancel the season, then you’ll be right about them having wanted to compromise. If they don’t, then you will be wrong because their proposals have all been 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Do you need a spoiler alert?

[Zauron]

Originally Posted by CalCub

You're wrong, the owners could have indeed agreed to cancel the season to reduce financial losses since the players won't compromise by taking a pay cut due to no revenue coming in from ticket sales at stadiums, and some owners seriously want to cancel the whole season, but they also know doing that would hurt the popularity of baseball in 2021 & beyond.

The the owners latest proposal of a 70-75 game season included payments between 80% and 85% of the players' prorated salary...if you don't think that's a compromise, then you're in complete denial and have lost credibility in your arguments against the owners--plain & simple

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the proposal only pay out the 75% IF there is a playoffs?

Also, the math on each proposal basically came out to paying the players 30-36% of their full salary. Imagine if your work said they will only pay you 35% of your salary this year?

[sarahmc143]

.....

[sarahmc143]

Originally Posted by tier1dc

you're a psycho.

You are who you are and that's a stone cold idiot.

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

There is that. But he’s also basing his argument heavy on the notion that owners have compromised when they haven’t. And neither have the players. So no sympathy points awarded for either side.

Originally Posted by marterburn

They never said second part of this. A FEW owners (like 2-3) are and have been willing to take a flamethrower to the season, but most of them are smart enough to realize what that will mean for future gains, and that they will be outed by other owners if they vote that way. They need 8 votes - they're well short of that.

There's a reason every offer has contained the close to the same total dollars as 50 games proration. That's what they're willing to spend. No more.

I'm not going to say more pro-player stuff because if I do you're gonna jump down my throat again (because you're a psycho and that's all you're capable of) -- and still, I'm not discussing this with you, but I'm posting because your statement is inaccurate.




Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

What a bunch of bandwagon babies you guys are. Calling someone psycho because they are passionate in their argument and have tried to show you every reason why you are legitimately wrong but you just can't quite understand it for some reason. It is ok to disagree and that is what this forum is for but to continue to gang up on someone and run with it isn't acceptable so knock it off. You guys just take it and run with it and never shut up, for once think on your own and get your head out of your ass. I bet marterburn & JustinVerlander07 are both under 25 in college or still living at home with the immaturity and lack of knowledge about basic overall business. Tier1 just unacceptable. Rcm you are correct both sides look bad but the owners have certainly compromised and much more than the players. You guys stop being babies and stop getting so upset over nothing, you wouldn't last a minute out on the street from behind your keyboards. Really just look pathetic with the immature name calling.... OP just gets frustrated with you young guys that think you know everything so trying to show his viewpoint and may not be perfect with his wording on his read on you guys but frustrating with what little common sense you guys show sometimes so it is understandable especially when it is like 10 against 1. You guys give it a rest and if you don't like each other's opinions then just stop replying. This is a thread he created so if you don't like it move on as it is obvious you aren't going to agree as you keep arguing like 5 year olds.

[Eckstein197]

Originally Posted by CalCub

And what are you talking about regarding Manfred not allowing people to share MLB content on social media?

With the explosion of social media, MLB while under Manfred made changes to their social media policy. Anyone sharing a clip from any type of baseball game, must pull it directly from the MLB account or other MLB sanctioned accounts. They threaten to delete your account if you post anything that they haven’t posted. The problem is they don’t post a ton of game footage. If I’m watching a Twins game, I can’t record Buxton stealing a HR, post it on my Twitter for people to see without risk of my entire account being shut down. The reason Manfred did this was he wanted full control of what’s out there

This is very different than the NBA. The NBA allows any type of sharing and there’s no risk of peoples accounts being banned. This has allowed an explosion of fans in the social media/millennial/Gen Z group because mainly kids/teenagers/college kids/young adults use social media. I can see Steph Curry swish a 3 from half court and post it all over. This allows for a much larger mass exposure to the general public because so many people are doing it

Same thing on YouTube, NBA clips can be used for anything, MLB does not have the same thing and it’s much harder to get access

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by sarahmc143

What a bunch of bandwagon babies you guys are. Calling someone psycho because they are passionate in their argument and have tried to show you every reason why you are legitimately wrong but you just can't quite understand it for some reason. It is ok to disagree and that is what this forum is for but to continue to gang up on someone and run with it isn't acceptable so knock it off. You guys just take it and run with it and never shut up, for once think on your own and get your head out of your ass. I bet marterburn & JustinVerlander07 are both under 25 in college or still living at home with the immaturity and lack of knowledge about basic overall business. Tier1 just unacceptable. Rcm you are correct both sides look bad but the owners have certainly compromised and much more than the players. You guys stop being babies and stop getting so upset over nothing, you wouldn't last a minute out on the street from behind your keyboards. Really just look pathetic with the immature name calling.... OP just gets frustrated with you young guys that think you know everything so trying to show his viewpoint and may not be perfect with his wording on his read on you guys but frustrating with what little common sense you guys show sometimes so it is understandable especially when it is like 10 against 1. You guys give it a rest and if you don't like each other's opinions then just stop replying. This is a thread he created so if you don't like it move on as it is obvious you aren't going to agree as you keep arguing like 5 year olds.

Ok Mom.

[Eckstein197]

Originally Posted by sarahmc143

What a bunch of bandwagon babies you guys are. Calling someone psycho because they are passionate in their argument and have tried to show you every reason why you are legitimately wrong but you just can't quite understand it for some reason. It is ok to disagree and that is what this forum is for but to continue to gang up on someone and run with it isn't acceptable so knock it off. You guys just take it and run with it and never shut up, for once think on your own and get your head out of your ass. I bet marterburn & JustinVerlander07 are both under 25 in college or still living at home with the immaturity and lack of knowledge about basic overall business. Tier1 just unacceptable. Rcm you are correct both sides look bad but the owners have certainly compromised and much more than the players. You guys stop being babies and stop getting so upset over nothing, you wouldn't last a minute out on the street from behind your keyboards. Really just look pathetic with the immature name calling.... OP just gets frustrated with you young guys that think you know everything so trying to show his viewpoint and may not be perfect with his wording on his read on you guys but frustrating with what little common sense you guys show sometimes so it is understandable especially when it is like 10 against 1. You guys give it a rest and if you don't like each other's opinions then just stop replying. This is a thread he created so if you don't like it move on as it is obvious you aren't going to agree as you keep arguing like 5 year olds.

Wait, just so you know this guy has called other people names, including constantly calling myself an idiot/that I’m not going to go far in my career/questioning my work credentials/being rude. So you stand up for when people call him names but you don’t stand up for the people he calls rude names?

[brewtown107]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

I never said that they were all billionaires. Please show me where I said that.

This guy is saying the owners aren't rich. You defended it, now back it up.

"This guy" was talking about cash flow versus assets. People who own even a billion dollars of assets don't necessarily have the cash flow to build their own stadiums, lose a hundred million dollars or more to team costs and payroll in a single year, etc. Especially when their assets are leveraged, which is often the case.

People with half a billion in assets, like some owners have, are even less likely to have that cash flow.

So you can say "these guys are rich, they can afford x, y, and z" all you want, but it just makes you look clueless.

[rman112]

Idk what's going on here

[Eckstein197]

CalCub, here’s an article about the social media policy

https://www.socialflyny.com/social-i...ng-at-twitter/

It’s why baseball has struggled to grow new fans in the young demographics. They still treat all fans the same, that they’re watching on their TVs at home or listening to the radio. They haven’t adapted to the changes in how their consumers consume the product.

[CalCub]

Originally Posted by Zauron

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the proposal only pay out the 75% IF there is a playoffs?

Also, the math on each proposal basically came out to paying the players 30-36% of their full salary. Imagine if your work said they will only pay you 35% of your salary this year?

Yes you are correct, good motivation for the players to play for the playoffs, because as you know the greedy players have had many proposals where the playoff season starts in November, which is more risky, because a November postseason is much more likely to get canceled in there's a second wave of Covid, compared to an October postseason, so the owners were just looking out for the fans, because what a waste that would be after all this pandemic & labor negotiation drama and the playoffs get canceled.

And yes, the math for the owners does often keep getting to around a similar number because the owners don't want to resume the season with huge losses, they want to resume the season by reducing as much loss as they reasonably can & still giving the players a good salaries for the rest of the season.

Again, that's such a lame argument to use that "would you come back to work for 30%?" Here's the reality, normal non-sports businesses ask their employees to work for 30% of their normal pay....wanna know why? Because must people are not making HIGH six-figure & MILLION $$$ salaries like MLB payers are....so working for 30% of a normal person's salary would be a waste of everyone's time, because if your average worker accepted that 30% deal to keep their job, they would be spending the majority of their time after work & on the weekends looking for a job that pays them closer to their normal pay, so they would eventually quit anyway, which is why normal businesses layoff/fire/furlough employees if they need to make significant pay cuts to help get the company through hard times financially....employers that allow employees to keep their jobs if they accept a pay cut, typically only ask for roughly a 10-20% cut, because anything more than that would increase the chances those employees would look for for other jobs

Asking the players to play for 30% of their pay is much better than the option to cancel the whole season with no pay at all, which the MLB Commissioner could have done since there is still health risks due to Covid

[Eckstein197]

Also CalCub what would be your opinion of him if the letter tomorrow states that Manfred himself covered up the Yankee sign stealing allegations so they wouldn’t get in trouble?

All signs are pointing to that being the case

It’s also a bad look because Manfred is a vocal Yankees fan, he always has said they’ve been his team

[marterburn]

Originally Posted by sarahmc143

I bet marterburn & JustinVerlander07 are both under 25 in college or still living at home with the immaturity and lack of knowledge about basic overall business.

...

You guys give it a rest and if you don't like each other's opinions then just stop replying. This is a thread he created so if you don't like it move on as it is obvious you aren't going to agree as you keep arguing like 5 year olds.

I am not nearly that young.

I stopped debating CalCub 'directly' about owner vs. player many many pages ago, so I don't know where you're getting that from. I tried to point out several times (kinda nicely?) that his responses seemed intentionally caustic, and he just responded with further caustic responses. He's essentially being a bully, and declaring 'I WIN' when people just get tired of him. There is some psychosis in that behavior - it's easy and cheap to just use the label - I did and I'm sorry for that. But there's something just off with the way he responds to those 'who dare oppose him'. He's never been willing to have a civil discourse with anyone in this thread, which is all we really want.

If you go way back, you'll see RMan and I were on opposite sides but discussing rather civilly -- that's what CalCub is incapable of. (Sorry for mentioning you RMan. You don't deserve this. I brought myself down here.)



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[rman112]

Originally Posted by marterburn

I am not nearly that young.

I stopped debating CalCub 'directly' about owner vs. player many many pages ago, so I don't know where you're getting that from. I tried to point out several times (kinda nicely?) that his responses seemed intentionally caustic, and he just responded with further caustic responses. He's essentially being a bully, and declaring 'I WIN' when people just get tired of him. There is some psychosis in that behavior - it's easy and cheap to just use the label - I did and I'm sorry for that. But there's something just off with the way he responds to those 'who dare oppose him'. He's never been willing to have a civil discourse with anyone in this thread, which is all we really want.

If you go way back, you'll see RMan and I were on opposite sides but discussing rather civilly -- that's what CalCub is incapable of. (Sorry for mentioning you RMan. You don't deserve this. I brought myself down here.)



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Lol. That was 18 pages ago.

Covid has turned the world into mush.

[base set]

Conference call amongst the owners this morning. Probably final piece of the puzzle for 2020?

[pewe]

Originally Posted by base set

Conference call amongst the owners this morning. Probably final piece of the puzzle for 2020?

Fingers crossed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by base set

Conference call amongst the owners this morning. Probably final piece of the puzzle for 2020?

Probably a final tally of who wants to play and who doesn’t. Since we haven’t heard any rumblings about enough owners voting down the season, I’m going to assume they will be playing.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by brewtown107

"This guy" was talking about cash flow versus assets. People who own even a billion dollars of assets don't necessarily have the cash flow to build their own stadiums, lose a hundred million dollars or more to team costs and payroll in a single year, etc. Especially when their assets are leveraged, which is often the case.

People with half a billion in assets, like some owners have, are even less likely to have that cash flow.

So you can say "these guys are rich, they can afford x, y, and z" all you want, but it just makes you look clueless.

I'm not even sure you know the definition of rich since you and calclub want to argue these guys aren't rich.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by sarahmc143

I bet marterburn & JustinVerlander07 are both under 25 in college or still living at home with the immaturity and lack of knowledge about basic overall business.

How much are we betting?

It's unreal how many want to act like owners aren't rich. It's mindblowing.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

How much are we betting?

It's unreal how many want to act like owners aren't rich. It's mindblowing.

Holy hell how many times are you going to say this?

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Holy hell how many times are you going to say this?

I didn't think it needed to be said more than once, but apparently there are many people that think the owners aren't rich.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

I didn't think it needed to be said more than once, but apparently there are many people that think the owners aren't rich.

Please quote just one post where anybody said that.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Please quote just one post where anybody said that.

calclub's original post where he mocks me saying "if the owners are so rich why do they need taxpayer money" (They don't, thats just what rich people do)

If you can't tell he's acting like they aren't rich (he also never followed up on that because he knows he's wrong).

And now brewtown actively defending them. Read between the lines. They aren't openly saying it, just strongly implying and insinuations.

[Eckstein197]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

calclub's original post where he mocks me saying "if the owners are so rich why do they need taxpayer money" (They don't, thats just what rich people do)

If you can't tell he's acting like they aren't rich (he also never followed up on that because he knows he's wrong).

And now brewtown actively defending them. Read between the lines. They aren't openly saying it, just strongly implying and insinuations.

I will say, saying owners needing taxpayer dollars means they aren’t wealthy is false. They know taxpayers will be forced to pay for the stadiums so they can save money that way

[DrDamo]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Nationalize the MLB.