Spanky99 (01-08-2022)
It’s not about that, it’s about people not wanting to pay what cable companies charge for their subscriptions, and the subsequent sports packages. More and more viewership every year is switching to streaming services for sports consumption. Not the illegal stuff, the legal ones. People don’t want to pay for shit they don’t use anymore.
****FREE SPANKY****
Spanky99 (01-09-2022)
Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan
Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association plan to hold a bargaining session Thursday, sources tell ESPN. MLB is expected to make a core-economics proposal at the session, which would be the first between the sides since the league locked out the players on Dec. 2.
Spanky99 (01-11-2022)
'bout frigging time
The delay is just tactics by the owners.
Jimcanuck does not endorse or make any warranty, express or implied, of the accuracy of any link in this post.
Yeah. If I was the negotiator for the PA, i would have been putting out a tweet or release every day stating that he/they were ready to negotiate and has reached out to the owners, waiting for their reply - while of course knowing they wouldn't.
Obvious tactic to try and keep public sentiment on their side, but can be quite effective.
****FREE SPANKY****
MLB is expected to offer an increase in minimum salary to 600-700k and some superficial changes to qualifying offers. They are not going to address service time concerns at all.
The PA is going to love that.
****FREE SPANKY****
Most of the stuff seems like small potatoes.
The two big things are:
Minimum/Maximum salaries:
The two sides still seem pretty far apart on these. Sounds like the owners are OK adding a pretty heft minimum, but despite this the union still wants a huge boost to the maximum. They should recognize the average team spend will get a massive boost from the minimum alone and accept a smaller maximum increase.
COVID
They really have to address what happens to player salaries in the event that:
1) Games are cancelled: I think currently this is pro-rated.
2) Public is not allowed in, or attendance is restricted. The union should share the revenue loss in this instance, since the owners will get far less revenue. I haven't heard this mentioned at all.
I mean $700,000 from $575,000 is still a 21.7% increase. I guess you could argue it's been too low forever and a 50% increase is appropriate, but if they got to the high end of that report, it's not awful. I don't think you can expect the Owners to agree to some massive increase all in one year. I could see them setting it at $700K, with yearly escalation clauses that allow it to approach the 'right' number over the next 5-10 years. $700K with a 5% annual increase gets them to $1M in 8 years.