LA Angels Weekend News Crash: Ongoing Labor Disputes

On Thursday night, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred appeared on CNN and discussed the state of baseball. While a large portion of the appearance was spent talking about the protocols that must be put in place before baseball is allowed to resume, Manfred spent good while doing what is technically his job: advocating for the owners’ side of things.

Manfred says that teams could lose up to $4 billion without games, and they might lose money anyway while playing the games. It’s not a surprising stance for him to take, considering he is employed by the owners. Casual fans watching on CNN will further be persuaded against the players. Make up your own minds! =)

Meanwhile, Blake Snell says he won’t play under the current proposal. If there are enough players with a similar mindset, the season could very well not happen.

Trevor Bauer comes at Manfred with a rather nuanced analogy: illustrating himself as a painter painting houses. I seem to like this analogy, if only the paint was toxic and had a small chance of killing the painter. Do you agree or disagree with Bauer’s analogy?

The final segment of the Jon Bois Dorktown series on the Seattle Mariners is out! I’m sure it’s fantastic.

($$) Eno Sarris lists out potential aces and the criteria to label a pitcher an ace. It surprises absolutely no one that the Angels have no one on this list.

Prince Fielder might be the player who gets paid the most in 2020. Zack Cozart gets a reprieve for not finding a team with which to land.

Hannah Keyser opines on the future of baseball (and baseball discourse) if the universal DH is adopted.

So, it seems everything is still in flux! Baseball may return, but it also may not. Unsurprisingly, the only certainty is that fans and non-fans alike will have opinions, and those opinions are certainly valid. For those who partake, enjoy the end of The Last Dance this weekend, and have a good Saturday and Sunday!

7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rspencer
Trusted Member
4 years ago

Without looking too deeply into the matter, I think that I’m on the players’ side of the argument. First of all, they’ve already made their deal with MLB regarding salary, and at that time MLB knew full well the high likelihood of starting the season (at least) without fans in the seats.

Secondly, the players are already going to be working at a loss financially. While they won’t be taking an absolute loss, as the owners may well do, still they are taking a significant relative loss that they can really never recoup.

So they will both already be sharing in the loss of revenue, and it just seems like cynical manipulation for the owners to ask for more now. And I am not coming from a standpoint that the owners are greedy rich SOBs. I mean, if the owners have a real prospect of getting dangerously into the red that’s a different matter, but in this case they need to show their numbers to the players.

Jeff Joiner
Editor
Legend
4 years ago

I work in an industry that operates under revenue sharing and I love it. I bring in the money, everybody knows how much it is, and I make a very reasonable cut of it. This creates an environment in which I feel fairly compensated and that the boss and me have mutual goals, that we mutually benefit. I also have more risk than the average, salaried employee.

IMO baseball and the union need to decide now, and from this point forward, how they want to operate. The NFL and NHL work on a revenue split, baseball does not. If the owners want the players to share revenue in the downtime, the should also share revenue in the good times. If the players only want guaranteed money despite revenue streams, they forfeit the right to complain when revenues outpace salary increases (such as the last few years).

Right now the owners come across as wanting it both ways, which is not fair. But this could be a monumental decision in baseball economics. Either the owners and union become partners or they maintain an more typical employee/employer dynamic for the foreseeable future.

matthiasstephan
Super Member
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Joiner

The owners seem to want things both ways, only when it is beneficial to them. Guaranteed salaries (not tied to revenues) when revenues are going up, but shared risk (salary tied to revenue) when things are going badly.

You are right, they should choose. But right now, it sounds like they are only looking after themselves (and hoping the public blames the players – who are sticking to their model).

steelgolf
Super Member
4 years ago

OT. Came home from work yesterday to find some 2 packages containing “Crashing The Pearly Gates” shirts !!! And they are sweet, so much so that one of the shirts I ordered for myself has already been confiscated by my wife as “now her property” !

TheCheetah
Member
4 years ago
Reply to  steelgolf

Mine arrived yesterday, and it looks great!

eyespy
Super Member
4 years ago

I was listening to the R2C2 podcast. They were discussing the NBA, and how it might return to play.

One of the options was. A couple of training venues, so not to have too much travel. With remote announcers, remote control cameras, and no fans.

Would player’s put out top caliber level play under conditions like this?

How about the MLB? Would they really truly try? It would be almost like a controlled scrimmage.

And the owners wanting to go 50/50. That is some bullshit right there. If the owners want to hold the season this year, then pay the players what was written on the contract. It’s the owners that run the business, they make the decisions, offer the contracts, and close the deals. All in their favor. The need to own up, and not make it look like the hired hands need to help out with the finances.

Would you do this for your boss? My boss makes hand over fist when I’m on the clock, but only pays me pennies over the going rate. Not allowed to take a full day off. They always have work for me. I got more to say, but it’s not about me, it’s about sports.

Take care, stay healthy, and take deep breaths. They help you relax.