southsider2k5 Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share Posted February 5, 2022 38 minutes ago, poppysox said: I don't accept the premise that the players are negotiating in good faith while the owners are stonewalling. Like most labor negotiations both sides proposed unrealistic things and both sides countered with something equally uninspiring. The player's last proposal offered was to reduce their original $105 million pool ask to $100 which the owners took as insulting and not worthy of a counter offer. My informal poll of people indicates they feel the whole lot of them (both owners and players) are a bunch of spoiled rich jerks. Delay in starting the season won't help either side in the battle of winning the fan support IMO. Again, what evidence do you have of this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 53 minutes ago, poppysox said: I don't accept the premise that the players are negotiating in good faith while the owners are stonewalling. Like most labor negotiations both sides proposed unrealistic things and both sides countered with something equally uninspiring. The player's last proposal offered was to reduce their original $105 million pool ask to $100 which the owners took as insulting and not worthy of a counter offer. My informal poll of people indicates they feel the whole lot of them (both owners and players) are a bunch of spoiled rich jerks. Delay in starting the season won't help either side in the battle of winning the fan support IMO. The players last offer was made in response to…their previous offer. They never received an offer from the owners after putting $105 down. I don’t know that I’d describe what you just posted as a lie, but it’s certainly misleading. Only one side countered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Again, what evidence do you have of this? What "evidence" do I need to have an opinion? We all are on the outside looking in. I don't give much credit to the players for making an outlandish request and having the owners not respond. Did the players ever think their $100 counteroffer would be accepted? Of course not. If the players would have countered with $50 million I might have agreed that the owners should have countered. If you were selling your house for $300,000 and I offer you $100,000 do you owe me a counteroffer? I bet you would be insulted and not bother to counter my offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: The players last offer was made in response to…their previous offer. They never received an offer from the owners after putting $105 down. I don’t know that I’d describe what you just posted as a lie, but it’s certainly misleading. Only one side countered. My reply to 2K5 fits this discussion. If you offer to sell your house for $300,000 and I offer $100,000 do you owe me a counteroffer? I don't think so because you showed yourself to be something other than a serious buyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: The players last offer was made in response to…their previous offer. They never received an offer from the owners after putting $105 down. I don’t know that I’d describe what you just posted as a lie, but it’s certainly misleading. Only one side countered. I believe the $105 players and $10 owners were original offers with the players then offering $100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share Posted February 5, 2022 8 minutes ago, poppysox said: What "evidence" do I need to have an opinion? We all are on the outside looking in. I don't give much credit to the players for making an outlandish request and having the owners not respond. Did the players ever think their $100 counteroffer would be accepted? Of course not. If the players would have countered with $50 million I might have agreed that the owners should have countered. If you were selling your house for $300,000 and I offer you $100,000 do you owe me a counteroffer? I bet you would be insulted and not bother to counter my offer. Let me put it this way. I get a salary and a bonus based on personal and company performance in a six man shop. If nothing else changes, the company revenue doubles, and the company offers me 2% more, I would have a major problem. Your scenario is bogus and not at all apt. If the value of your house doubled, and the next owner was only willing to pay you 5% more, now you have a real comp. The players are the one who have taken a 25% haircut on doubled revenues here, not the owners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 16 minutes ago, poppysox said: I believe the $105 players and $10 owners were original offers with the players then offering $100. The players’ original offer was made in November and included reduced time to free agency. It was a full and complete offer, you don’t get to pretend it doesn’t exist and then assume people on Soxtalk are too stupid to call you on it. The owners said “this will ruin small clubs” and countered with a big cut to arbitration and that $10 million fund. This was the owners first full and complete offer, submitted on January 13. The players took a week and submitted a counter offer, dropping their free agency time request and adopting the owners “extra fund” concept at $105 million. The owners then refused to counter, which is why you are giving details from the January 13 offer here. I don’t know your motivation, but if you want to defend the owners and you cannot do so without telling things that are factually incorrect, then you are pointing out that the owners cannot be defended. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Let me put it this way. I get a salary and a bonus based on personal and company performance in a six man shop. If nothing else changes, the company revenue doubles, and the company offers me 2% more, I would have a major problem. Your scenario is bogus and not at all apt. If the value of your house doubled, and the next owner was only willing to pay you 5% more, now you have a real comp. The players are the one who have taken a 25% haircut on doubled revenues here, not the owners Your example is spot on but doesn't quite match. You have the option to leave and take your talents somewhere else. Something players don't have. Basically all real world examples seem to fail when looking at this. Bottom line, the owners are fleecing fans, their employees, and their communities. Sadly in my mind, the only group with leverage are the employees who are doing the best. I just hope that no city gives in to a MLB team when they cry poor and want a stadium. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Parkman Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, Texsox said: I just hope that no city gives in to a MLB team when they cry poor and want a stadium. I hope that the era of public financing of sports stadiums is over. They never pay off. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 43 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said: I hope that the era of public financing of sports stadiums is over. They never pay off. You're exaggerating, pardner. You're shootin' from the hip. You don't know what you're talking about. You're full of it. How far back do you want to go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 you don't have a sport without the players 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: The players’ original offer was made in November and included reduced time to free agency. It was a full and complete offer, you don’t get to pretend it doesn’t exist and then assume people on Soxtalk are too stupid to call you on it. The owners said “this will ruin small clubs” and countered with a big cut to arbitration and that $10 million fund. This was the owners first full and complete offer, submitted on January 13. The players took a week and submitted a counter offer, dropping their free agency time request and adopting the owners “extra fund” concept at $105 million. The owners then refused to counter, which is why you are giving details from the January 13 offer here. I don’t know your motivation, but if you want to defend the owners and you cannot do so without telling things that are factually incorrect, then you are pointing out that the owners cannot be defended. I love when you pretend to be obtuse. Yes, back in November the players made an offer in free agency. I don't pretend it didn't exist. I do contend that neither you nor I thought that offer was in any way serious or relevant. The players dropped it overnight because it made them look like lunatics. I picked up the negotiation with the "extra fund" concept because it was the only time that both parties mentioned something both could at least discuss. Players made a ridiculous counteroffer and the owners were insulted. I don't intend to replay every silly offer and counteroffer in order to discuss the current point of discussion. I can assure you my motivation is not to sway your biased position. I don't really think it's relevant that the players make 48 silly offers compared to 16 counteroffers. What is now happening is just how the system works and both parties need to cut the crap and talk about what really matters. Both parties claimed parity was the main thing so let's focus on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, Heads22 said: you don't have a sport without the players You don't have Amazon without the employees. Guess what...those Amazon employees would love to play baseball for a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 Just now, poppysox said: You don't have Amazon without the employees. Guess what...those Amazon employees would love to play baseball for a living. ok you delay the season and cancel games, fans tune out. hurt the sport in 94, hurt the sport in 2020, would hurt even more with a sport that's already hurting owners may not see it as "fair"; a business or a businessperson (same as an employee) has no right to succeed. baseball (and professional sports) are analogous to nothing else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, poppysox said: I love when you pretend to be obtuse. Yes, back in November the players made an offer in free agency. I don't pretend it didn't exist. I do contend that neither you nor I thought that offer was in any way serious or relevant. The players dropped it overnight because it made them look like lunatics. I picked up the negotiation with the "extra fund" concept because it was the only time that both parties mentioned something both could at least discuss. Players made a ridiculous counteroffer and the owners were insulted. I don't intend to replay every silly offer and counteroffer in order to discuss the current point of discussion. I can assure you my motivation is not to sway your biased position. I don't really think it's relevant that the players make 48 silly offers compared to 16 counteroffers. What is now happening is just how the system works and both parties need to cut the crap and talk about what really matters. Both parties claimed parity was the main thing so let's focus on that. The idea that the players' counter-offer was "Ridiculous" and "insulting" and the owners' offer of a salary cut was neither of those, and that it's biased to think anything else is so insulting to the intelligence of the reader that I recommend you try it somewhere else rather than a page where people pay attention to baseball. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulfly Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Heads22 said: you don't have a sport without the players You don't have players without owners and you don't have owners without fans. It's a big circle. Right or wrong on either side, the longer it drags out, the worse it is for the game. Players get paid too much, owners make too much money and the fans pay too much to go to the games. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarava Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 6 hours ago, Jack Parkman said: I hope that the era of public financing of sports stadiums is over. They never pay off. That might depend on whether the team stays or flees if you don't finance the stadium. Didn't Comiskey cost the state of illinois $137 mil? Knowing the alternative was the Sox moving to Tampa, dont you think the Sox have brought more to the state and city than $137 mil over the last 30+years? I suspect it's paid for itself 10x over. Even if the state was too dumb to pay off the actual debt. That's a whole nother story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 7 hours ago, Balta1701 said: The idea that the players' counter-offer was "Ridiculous" and "insulting" and the owners' offer of a salary cut was neither of those, and that it's biased to think anything else is so insulting to the intelligence of the reader that I recommend you try it somewhere else rather than a page where people pay attention to baseball. What salary cut did the owners offer? You just live in your own little universe, don't you? The fact that a half dozen posters want to give it to the owners doesn't make you a baseball authority on what people know about baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 17 hours ago, Balta1701 said: ? So you're going to accuse me of twisting your words here again but I have no idea why you'd say this while simultaneously saying the Union did something wrong. The Union made their counteroffer and the Owners won't. It's what you do. You make every effort to deflect from the point being made with a dozen unrelated counterpoints. People give up because they don't want to write a term paper in order to rebut your BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScootsMcGoots Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours ago, poppysox said: What salary cut did the owners offer? You just live in your own little universe, don't you? The fact that a half dozen posters want to give it to the owners doesn't make you a baseball authority on what people know about baseball. Ending super 2 status, detailed right here for you to ignore for the 4th time because the owners don’t want it pointed out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours ago, poppysox said: What salary cut did the owners offer? You just live in your own little universe, don't you? The fact that a half dozen posters want to give it to the owners doesn't make you a baseball authority on what people know about baseball. Nor does your vehement insistence that the owners aren’t stonewalling or stalling or running out the clock make it any less true. You have your opinions, and everyone does, but you chose not to see what is plainly in front of you. You’re the only person on this site that is so anti-labor as to blindly defend ownership to ridiculous degrees despite all of the evidence posted in this thread that shows ownership to not be operating in good faith. Your furious obtuseness strains credulity and credibility, and your defenses of your position insult the intelligence of those whom you respond. It is tiresome to enter this thread looking for news and see all the the posters repeatedly refute your anti-player nonsense only for you to resort to insult, false assertions, and twisting of words to deflect from what you clearly see but refuse to acknowledge. None of this is normal negotiating despite how adamantly you claim it is. Public support is not on ownership’s side. You are free to die on your hill, but goddamn, please stop insulting the intelligence of even the most nominally informed baseball fans in regards to how ownership has operated since before they themselves initiated an entirely unnecessary lockout. It’s tired. /rant 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Ending super 2 status, detailed right here for you to ignore for the 4th time because the owners don’t want it pointed out. I view the argument about super 2 as a charge that owners manipulate service time. Of course, manipulation is not accurate since the owners simply "manage" in order to use to their advantage the current contract terms. To try and characterize service time management as a salary cut is just not true. Now if you tell me the owners have rejected the player's request for a change from the current contract terms...I would agree. I believe the owners initiated the counteroffer of the pre-arb bonus pool with an offer of 10 million and the players countered with $105 later reduced to $100 when the owners refused what they considered an outlandish counter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 23 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Nor does your vehement insistence that the owners aren’t stonewalling or stalling or running out the clock make it any less true. You have your opinions, and everyone does, but you chose not to see what is plainly in front of you. You’re the only person on this site that is so anti-labor as to blindly defend ownership to ridiculous degrees despite all of the evidence posted in this thread that shows ownership to not be operating in good faith. Your furious obtuseness strains credulity and credibility, and your defenses of your position insult the intelligence of those whom you respond. It is tiresome to enter this thread looking for news and see all the the posters repeatedly refute your anti-player nonsense only for you to resort to insult, false assertions, and twisting of words to deflect from what you clearly see but refuse to acknowledge. None of this is normal negotiating despite how adamantly you claim it is. Public support is not on ownership’s side. You are free to die on your hill, but goddamn, please stop insulting the intelligence of even the most nominally informed baseball fans in regards to how ownership has operated since before they themselves initiated an entirely unnecessary lockout. It’s tired. /rant I know you think the overwhelming numbers on this site favor your viewpoint. However, of the over 6000 members of these forums only approximately 15 members have participated in the recent days of posting on this subject. Many good posters have given up because they don't like the gang tackle approach used by a few. Sadly, half of those 15 posters are admin who should welcome opposing viewpoints but instead attempt to steamroll those with opposing views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppysox Posted February 5, 2022 Share Posted February 5, 2022 I believe the Admin should go out of their way to be fair and balanced in presenting both sides of most issues. Instead, many of the Admin join in the bully sessions that frequently break out on a daily basis. It's reminiscent of how a pack of Hyenas attacks a buffalo calf. It is not my intention to paint all admin with the same brush. Texsox for example goes out of his way to show both sides of the argument. I probably agree with him on 90% of his content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.