Bucky wrote:holy crap. i just did the math. if the phillies have 150 minor leaguers, paying them $400 each for 15 weeks is $900,000. Not too much more than a ML minimum salary.

Over the past decade, the value of the average MLB franchise has increased by approximately 300%, to $1.85 billion. The annual contract of the average MLB player has increased by about 40%, to $4.4 million. As The Associated Press reported, salaries have stagnated over the past five years

SCPhillyPhan wrote:

Bucky wrote:holy crap. i just did the math. if the phillies have 150 minor leaguers, paying them $400 each for 15 weeks is $900,000. Not too much more than a ML minimum salary.

Evan Drellich@EvanDrellich 9h

Source: MLBPA delivered its proposal to the league on Sunday afternoon.

ª Schedule: 114 games, June 30-Oct. 31
• Two years of expanded playoffs
• $100 million of total deferred money
• Opt out for all players if they don’t want to play

Squire wrote:These guys have to get a deal done and announce it soon. Its going to be awkward to conduct a Draft event next Wednesday without a deal.

heyeaglefn wrote:

Squire wrote:These guys have to get a deal done and announce it soon. Its going to be awkward to conduct a Draft event next Wednesday without a deal.

Isn't it already pushed to July? Or don't they have the ability to do that or does that need to be in a new deal.

Major League Baseball intends to propose a shorter season in which they would pay players a full prorated share of their salaries, sources told ESPN. The league believes the late March agreement allows it to set the schedule, and that this would fulfill players’ pro rata desire.

mcare89 wrote:Seems like a PR move more than anything so they can say "hey, we gave them what they wanted, full prorated pay!" With so few games they'd basically be making the same amount of money that they were in the previous proposal, maybe even less in some cases. That's less than a third of the regular season being played.

MFP wrote:Cannot imagine siding with the owners in any part of this.

SCPhillyPhan wrote:

MFP wrote:Cannot imagine siding with the owners in any part of this.

The only thing I see the owners side on the two proposals is the length of schedule. I do believe the owners that if they play in front of no fans, they will lose money as opposed to making money. But I've got to believe that playing the games will lose less money than not playing games at all. I'd counter with a 96 game season. 14 games against each of your division foes. 8 games against the opposite division. Yes, mostly 4 games series. Good for travel. If you want to bump it up to 100 games, play a couple of 2 game sets with more or less the two closest teams to you not in the East. Or whatever division you happen to be in.

mcare89 wrote:Seems like a PR move more than anything so they can say "hey, we gave them what they wanted, full prorated pay!" With so few games they'd basically be making the same amount of money that they were in the previous proposal, maybe even less in some cases. That's less than a third of the regular season being played.

heyeaglefn wrote:

SCPhillyPhan wrote:

MFP wrote:Cannot imagine siding with the owners in any part of this.

The only thing I see the owners side on the two proposals is the length of schedule. I do believe the owners that if they play in front of no fans, they will lose money as opposed to making money. But I've got to believe that playing the games will lose less money than not playing games at all. I'd counter with a 96 game season. 14 games against each of your division foes. 8 games against the opposite division. Yes, mostly 4 games series. Good for travel. If you want to bump it up to 100 games, play a couple of 2 game sets with more or less the two closest teams to you not in the East. Or whatever division you happen to be in.

I heard before that some teams like the Cubs and Pirates have calculated they may lose more money playing a short season than no season at all. I think Olney this weekend said 6 teams were thinking that same way.

SCPhillyPhan wrote:

mcare89 wrote:Seems like a PR move more than anything so they can say "hey, we gave them what they wanted, full prorated pay!" With so few games they'd basically be making the same amount of money that they were in the previous proposal, maybe even less in some cases. That's less than a third of the regular season being played.

I think I'd read this differently than you. I read it as the owners are going to counter propose a shorter season than what the players proposed. Somewhere between 80 and 114. If the owners are really going to come back with a proposal that's less than 80 games, we will not have baseball this year.

Jeff Passan
@JeffPassan

The potential season Major League Baseball envisions would run somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 regular-season games, sources told ESPN. The exact number is being considered, but the aim would be to return in July. It would be less than half of players’ proposed season length.