Will There Be a 2020 Season?

[Jerksticks]

10 minutes ago, ptatc said:

The deal both parties agreed to also said that the players had to negotiate the prorated salary if it was determined that fans would not be allowed in stadiums to generate revenue. I saw absolutely no willingness by the players to negotiate off of their full prorated salary.

This isn't just on the owners, the union isn't innocent in not playing already either.

Absolutely.  Based on what I’ve read I’m glad I’ve finally stopped thinking of the owners as simply these rich billionaires. It’s the whole organization of people, supplies and services.  Why can’t the players just play for way less this year?  

[Quin]

Just now, Jerksticks said:

Absolutely.  Based on what I’ve read I’m glad I’ve finally stopped thinking of the owners as simply these rich billionaires. It’s the whole organization of people, supplies and services.  Why can’t the players just play for way less this year?  

Playing less games at a prorated amount is way less.

[Jerksticks]

Just now, Quin said:

Playing less games at a prorated amount is way less.

But I thought that was assuming fan revenues at stadiums.  
 

i think I need to read more about this

[hi8is]

[Quin]

26 minutes ago, hi8is said:

The owners could solidify all of their points by simply opening their books.

[ptatc]

32 minutes ago, hi8is said:

Yep, they both at fault for this fiasco. It will be intersting to see which grievances will be filed and the results of them.

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Yep, they both at fault for this fiasco. It will be intersting to see which grievances will be filed and the results of them.

I don’t se show you came to that conclusion, but the owners will get rolled in arb as it seems pretty clear the March agreement did not have language that explicitly supports the owners position.

I think the theory that manfred misrepresented the March agreement to the owners and its ability to force renegotiations and has been trying to fix that mistake since.

 

[hi8is]

5 minutes ago, bmags said:

it seems pretty clear the March agreement did not have language that explicitly supports the owners position.

This

[ptatc]

38 minutes ago, bmags said:

I don’t se show you came to that conclusion, but the owners will get rolled in arb as it seems pretty clear the March agreement did not have language that explicitly supports the owners position.

I think the theory that manfred misrepresented the March agreement to the owners and its ability to force renegotiations and has been trying to fix that mistake since.

 

From the articles in the Athletic and Tribune , they said that there is language that says if it is determined that fans will not be allowed in stadia the player need to bargain in good faith to reduce the prorated salary.

It may be a difference in interpretation of language but that is the cause of many grievances. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by ptatc

[NWINFan]

I haven't followed all these issues closely, but the owners should remember this: The 1994-95 strike came to an end when it was ruled that the owners were not bargaining in good faith. Merely laying out the same position over and over and then holding your breath is not good-faith bargaining. In some ways, it doesn't matter who is bargaining for what or who is right or wrong. It's the process. Both sides need to realize this and learn something from history. 

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, NWINFan said:

I haven't followed all these issues closely, but the owners should remember this: The 1994-95 strike came to an end when it was ruled that the owners were not bargaining in good faith. Merely laying out the same position over and over and then holding your breath is not good-faith bargaining. In some ways, it doesn't matter who is bargaining for what or who is right or wrong. It's the process. Both sides need to realize this and learn something from history. 

Yes. It sounds like each side will have a "bargaining in good faith issue" The players issue is that the owners are not going to try to play as many games as possible, they are trying to keep the number down. The owners issue is that the players wouldnt bargain off of the full prorated salary with no fans allowed.

[Balta1701]

Quote

What we'll call the Jeff Luhnow mentality could be defined as the absolute devotion to gleaning every fragment of advantage, every bit of efficiency, regardless of whether you might drift beyond the bounds of common sense. The ends justify the means; just win the moment, baby.

It's as if Major League Baseball's leadership has embraced the Luhnow mindset in these tortuous labor negotiations, because the owners keep making these absurdly incremental offers at a time when the broader international context calls for decisive and bold action. With a resolution now at least three weeks too late, and counting, the industry is becoming a punchline for sports dysfunction, following antecedents like "the Knicks," "Tonya Harding" and "butt fumble." Every bit of news on America's pastime these days seems to begin with the phrase: "And then there's baseball ..."

It's the Luhnow mindset as applied to labor relations.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29302203/how-astros-luhnow-mindset-ruining-mlb

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Yes. It sounds like each side will have a "bargaining in good faith issue" The players issue is that the owners are not going to try to play as many games as possible, they are trying to keep the number down. The owners issue is that the players wouldnt bargain off of the full prorated salary with no fans allowed.

But the players were willing to give the owners expanded playoffs to increase the revenue for ownership. That just wasn't good enough for ownership.

[Y2Jimmy0]

The biggest issue is the mistrust due to years of bad behavior from ownership. They should have been able to put everything aside and work out an agreement that makes sense for 2020. The problem is that neither side trusts the other and they're both trying to make decisions now that won't be used against them in 2021 during those labor talks. 

[Balta1701]

28 minutes ago, ptatc said:

From the articles in the Athletic and Tribune , they said that there is language that says if it is determined that fans will not be allowed in stadia the player need to bargain in good faith to reduce the prorated salary.

It may be a difference in interpretation of language but that is the cause of many grievances. 

It does not say the bolded. The specific language is that they will "Discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans". It does not say that they will discuss reducing salaries, that is your/the owners interpretation, not included in the original agreement. 

https://apnews.com/dd87bcc774d608e53624594fe56fab0c

The players are, in good faith, trying to offer the owners a schedule of games that will work and additional playoff rounds for additional revenue. The owners insist that pay cuts must happen regardless of any revenue increases.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

But the players were willing to give the owners expanded playoffs to increase the revenue for ownership. That just wasn't good enough for ownership.

True. But as far as the agreement is concerned they wouldnt back off of the full prorated salary. Which is why a grievance in the possiblity. The owners also offered an 80% of prorated salary for 80 games without playoffs and a 70% plus playoff money if there were playoffs. Both sides offered a version of negotiating a deal. It will just depend on the interpretation. 

[bmags]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

It does not say the bolded. The specific language is that they will "Discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans". It does not say that they will discuss reducing salaries, that is your/the owners interpretation, not included in the original agreement. 

https://apnews.com/dd87bcc774d608e53624594fe56fab0c

The players are, in good faith, trying to offer the owners a schedule of games that will work and additional playoff rounds for additional revenue. The owners insist that pay cuts must happen regardless of any revenue increases.

Correct.

The mlbs own lawyers clearly acknowledged that the players interpretation is correct.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

The biggest issue is the mistrust due to years of bad behavior from ownership. They should have been able to put everything aside and work out an agreement that makes sense for 2020. The problem is that neither side trusts the other and they're both trying to make decisions now that won't be used against them in 2021 during those labor talks. 

No doubt. This is the issue with most union/management negotiations. There are too many people in the room focusing on what the other side did to them 10 years ago and not focusing on the current issues and how to make the best agreement for the situation going forward.

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It does not say the bolded. The specific language is that they will "Discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans". It does not say that they will discuss reducing salaries, that is your/the owners interpretation, not included in the original agreement. 

https://apnews.com/dd87bcc774d608e53624594fe56fab0c

The players are, in good faith, trying to offer the owners a schedule of games that will work and additional playoff rounds for additional revenue. The owners insist that pay cuts must happen regardless of any revenue increases.

I haven't seen the actual agreement just what I read in those articles. It seems to me that there is enough interpretation of that language as where there is a possibility of the agreement. Because what other economic negotiation would be possible from the players other than the prorated salary. The extra playoffs may have made some difference but it still looks like there is enough there for an interpretation difference.

[hi8is]

40 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It may be a difference in interpretation of language but that is the cause of many grievances. 

This.

[hi8is]

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

It does not say the bolded. The specific language is that they will "Discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games at neutral sites or without fans". It does not say that they will discuss reducing salaries, that is your/the owners interpretation, not included in the original agreement. 

This.

and among three posts collectively, my views are expressed... so I’ve got nothing left to say ?

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I haven't seen the actual agreement just what I read in those articles. It seems to me that there is enough interpretation of that language as where there is a possibility of the agreement. Because what other economic negotiation would be possible from the players other than the prorated salary. The extra playoffs may have made some difference but it still looks like there is enough there for an interpretation difference.

This is why it isn't good faith.

The Owners have an agreement in hand saying the players will play for their full salaries pro-rated to the number of games in the regular season. 

The agreement says the 2 sides will bargain in good faith if the economics don't work.

The players say "We will allow you extra playoff revenue in exchange for extra games at the agreed rate".

The owners say "No. You must accept pay cuts under any circumstances we will offer".

So the players are willing to give the owners extra revenue to help their economics, but the owners are not willing to give the players extra games in exchange for the extra revenue. 

If the owners can break even at 50 games and a full playoffs, where is the offer of 65 games, expanded playoffs, and full pro-rated salaries? Why haven't they made that offer?

[SonofaRoache]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This is why it isn't good faith.

The Owners have an agreement in hand saying the players will play for their full salaries pro-rated to the number of games in the regular season. 

The agreement says the 2 sides will bargain in good faith if the economics don't work.

The players say "We will allow you extra playoff revenue in exchange for extra games at the agreed rate".

The owners say "No. You must accept pay cuts under any circumstances we will offer".

So the players are willing to give the owners extra revenue to help their economics, but the owners are not willing to give the players extra games in exchange for the extra revenue. 

If the owners can break even at 50 games and a full playoffs, where is the offer of 65 games, expanded playoffs, and full pro-rated salaries? Why haven't they made that offer?

Because they are being assholes and fear their playoffs will be canceled. They want a quick season to get to the playoff money faster. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

Because they are being assholes and fear their playoffs will be canceled. They want a quick season to get to the playoff money faster. 

Then they could launch right now, planning an early playoffs and a 50 game schedule. 

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Because they are being assholes and fear their playoffs will be canceled. They want a quick season to get to the playoff money faster. 

It's not that they want the playoff money faster, they want fewer regular season games to pay less of the full prorated salary.