Derwood wrote: NonProfitCow wrote:
Derwood wrote:I admittedly haven't followed these negotiations closely, so can someone summarize why the owners are insisting on just a percentage of the pro-rated salaries (beyond blind greed)?
There's no beyond. That's it.
I'll rephrase: what are the owners' STATED reasons?
That they’ll lose too much money and it isn’t feasible to do 100% proration for 70+ games. Some, apparently, would lose less money by simply not playing then doing 70+ at 100% proration. They’re basically putting short term cash ahead of long term equity and thinking very shortsighted.
I think they also know they have the ace in the hole that Manfred can mandate a 48 or 50 game played season at 100% proration and guys have to play/MLBPA has no input. So they’re trying to stick to that payout as the max payout for the 60-70+ game schedule since they know they can fall back on that. Which will be great for the MLB/MLBPA relationship with a CBA negotiation coming up.