The MLB lockout is lifted!

[ChiSox59]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

From listening to the negotiations, I don't think this is correct. I think the players are holding fast to increasing the pay for the younger, pre-arb players. 

I mean, that's quite obviously not the reason.  They got what they asked for on the pre-arb raises (sans $25k, I mean cmon - thats not the reason).  They got the never before seen bonus pool, and while I don't doubt they'd like to be closer to $85M than $30M, they did get their bonus pool.  They got the full year of service for top 2 ROY the finalists.  I don't doubt that the size of the bonus pool is 2nd biggest holdup, but its quite obvious to me that the CBT threshold is the main issue.  Sorry, but the CBT threshold has nothing to do with younger pre-arb players at all, and everything with stars wanting to get paid more on their mega deals. 

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Is there any indication the sides are meeting or talking today?  Don't have the energy to read the last 24 hours or so of posts. 

A couple of leaders are talking on the phone.

[Two-Gun Pete]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

But you’ve just listed 6 teams where it obviously matters. If they have support of an extra owner like Reinsdorf who probably won’t vote for any agreement unless the union agrees to decertify, then they have sufficient votes to block any agreement. That gives those teams a ton of leverage.

 

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Oh I am aware.  The lack of consensus amongst all 30 owners is a problem in its own right.

This is the entirety of the issue, IMO. MLB does not truly share the bulk of revenues across their league. Instead, each franchise has to make due with whatever resources [TV contracts and tickets sold especially] that they can generate locally.

By extension, the entirety of the MLB owners are not in lockstep in terms of what they want. The yankmees, NYM, bahsten, scrubs and dodgers want to spend because they have better local resources than the others; the 6 teams listed want the opposite. JR just wants to make money, and will side with the small market teams.

As a result, miniscule green bay is a perennial contender in the NFL, and the bucks can win the NBA championship, but milwaukee will struggle most years in MLB. Shittsburgh can compete in the NFL and NHL, but they're fetid turds in MLB.  

 

So, looking around the sporting environment in north america, MLB is behind the other major sports, insofar as how their leagues are constituted. As a result, other leagues are growing in fan interest and importance, while MLB is dying off a bit. Instead of the owners partnering with each other and with the players to fix actual issues within the game, you've got owners at war with each other, and with the players.

 

I just hope they figure this out in time for us to enjoy what should be a good team, and perhaps, a special year for our SOX.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Two-Gun Pete

[ptatc]

11 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

I mean, that's quite obviously not the reason.  They got what they asked for on the pre-arb raises (sans $25k, I mean cmon - thats not the reason).  They got the never before seen bonus pool, and while I don't doubt they'd like to be closer to $85M than $30M, they did get their bonus pool.  They got the full year of service for top 2 ROY the finalists.  I don't doubt that the size of the bonus pool is 2nd biggest holdup, but its quite obvious to me that the CBT threshold is the main issue.  Sorry, but the CBT threshold has nothing to do with younger pre-arb players at all, and everything with stars wanting to get paid more on their mega deals. 

Ok. So back to his statement. He said this would all end if the owners agreed to continue with the terms of the last CBA. You just listed even more things that the players wanted. So again, i don't think the players would have agreed to play under the previous CBA terms.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

 

This is the entirety of the issue, IMO. MLB does not truly share the bulk of revenues across their league. Instead, each franchise has to make due with whatever resources [TV contracts and tickets sold especially] that they can generate locally.

By extension, the entirety of the MLB owners are not in lockstep in terms of what they want. The yankmees, NYM, bahsten, scrubs and dodgers want to spend because they have better local resources than the others; the 6 teams listed want the opposite. JR just wants to make money, and will side with the small market teams.

As a result, miniscule green bay is a perennial contender in the NFL, but milwaukee will struggle most years. Shittsburgh can compete in the NFL and NHL, but they're fetid turds in MLB.  

 

So, looking around the sporting environment in north america, MLB is behind the other major sports, insofar as how their leagues are constituted. As a result, other leagues are growing in fan interest and importance, while MLB is dying off a bit. Instead of the owners partnering with each other and with the players to fix actual issues within the game, you've got owners at war with each other, and with the players.

 

I just hope they figure this out in time for us to enjoy what should be a good team, and perhaps, a special year for our SOX.

I don't think this is totally true. The other sports aren't partnering with the players, they dominate them. MLB is the only league without a true hard salary cap and the only one with guaranteed contracts. The other unions aren't as strong which is why there is no labor issues. If the MLBPA agreed to a hard salary cap and no guaranteed contracts, I'll bet the owners would run to sign that deal.

[southsider2k5]

22 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Ok. So back to his statement. He said this would all end if the owners agreed to continue with the terms of the last CBA. You just listed even more things that the players wanted. So again, i don't think the players would have agreed to play under the previous CBA terms.

Based on the initial owners offerings, I have no doubt the players would have kept playing under the old system.

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

 

[ChiSox59]

27 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Ok. So back to his statement. He said this would all end if the owners agreed to continue with the terms of the last CBA. You just listed even more things that the players wanted. So again, i don't think the players would have agreed to play under the previous CBA terms.

They wouldn't.  The players are lying.   The deal put in front of them is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the previous CBA.   

[southsider2k5]

 

[ChiSox59]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Based on the initial owners offerings, I have no doubt the players would have kept playing under the old system.

Well then why didn't they agree to the deal that is by all intents and purposes a large move in the right direction for the players?  I definitely think there is some spite at play here for sure, but the players saying they would agree to the old deal is complete BS.  

[chitownsportsfan]

18 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Imagine owning something that has gone up more than the SPX (and on top of that with guaranteed dividends around 10-15%) and thinking it's the players that need to concede more revenue.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, ChiSox59 said:

Well then why didn't they agree to the deal that is by all intents and purposes a large move in the right direction for the players?  I definitely think there is some spite at play here for sure, but the players saying they would agree to the old deal is complete BS.  

The players are still trying to make up the losses they have suffered in the last 20 years.  It isn't that complex.  While the owners offered some "improvements", they weren't nearly the improvements which will keep in line with what the revenue gains have been, and certainly will be in the coming years with the revenue streams they are opening.  They players expected more, and asked for more.  So while the owners finally moved off of their small increases to minimum wages, the players asks were even higher.  With 70% of players in that under $1 million per season bracket, those numbers not only become a lot of players defacto paychecks, they also set the middle salaries by establishing a floor.  They wanted move than a "move in the right direction" they wanted a move that is commiserate with the new revenues coming into baseball.  That's a fair ask.

Working under the old deal would have allowed them both to keep negotiating while playing and moving forward.  They weren't going to keep that deal forever.  It is an extremely common technique in labor negotiations which aren't poisoned to work under the conditions of the old deal until a new one can be reached.  The typical action after that is to go back and make up the differences once that deal is reached.

It wasn't about keeping the old deal, it was about not unnecessarily stopping baseball to force the player negotiations capitulation, which has now failed.  We are now at Day 92, and having had the first cancellation of baseball in 27 years.

[bmags]

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

I mean, that's quite obviously not the reason.  They got what they asked for on the pre-arb raises (sans $25k, I mean cmon - thats not the reason).  They got the never before seen bonus pool, and while I don't doubt they'd like to be closer to $85M than $30M, they did get their bonus pool.  They got the full year of service for top 2 ROY the finalists.  I don't doubt that the size of the bonus pool is 2nd biggest holdup, but its quite obvious to me that the CBT threshold is the main issue.  Sorry, but the CBT threshold has nothing to do with younger pre-arb players at all, and everything with stars wanting to get paid more on their mega deals. 

I don’t think it’s just star mega deals. It will help all players in free agency if the high spending teams have more room before being tapped out (look at the Sox).

Especially - as I keep alluding to - with so many teams moving to their competitive window.

[bmags]

I really can’t get over how stupid all of the league rule changes both sides are arguing about are (with the exception of pitch clocks).

[chitownsportsfan]

5 minutes ago, bmags said:

I really can’t get over how stupid all of the league rule changes both sides are arguing about are (with the exception of pitch clocks).

When Rob "I hate baseball" Manfred is part of the discussions nothing surprises me.

[iWiN4PreP]

15 minutes ago, bmags said:

I really can’t get over how stupid all of the league rule changes both sides are arguing about are (with the exception of pitch clocks).

What's wrong with banning shifts and oversized bases?

Playing a little devil's advocate here... but I don't paint these rule changes in the light that you seem to.

Oversized bases = supposed to be safer and enable more steals. I'm OK with that for sure if those claims hold up.

Banning shift = I don't think people want to 100% ban the defensive moves, but they just don't want infielders turning into 4th outfielders etc. There's a slimit some people would say to the shift. If it makes the game better to watch, maybe its worth discussing.

[bmags]

4 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

What's wrong with banning shifts and oversized bases?

Playing a little devil's advocate here... but I don't paint these rule changes in the light that you seem to.

Oversized bases = supposed to be safer and enable more steals. I'm OK with that for sure if those claims hold up.

Banning shift = I don't think people want to 100% ban the defensive moves, but they just don't want infielders turning into 4th outfielders etc. There's a slimit some people would say to the shift. If it makes the game better to watch, maybe its worth discussing.

I don't think it will enable more steals and I think the less rules in games the better. What are going to have challenges on players too many inches past their allotted position? 

It won't make the game better to watch. Making pitchers throw less hard will make the game better to watch.

[caulfield12]

36 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The players are still trying to make up the losses they have suffered in the last 20 years.  It isn't that complex.  While the owners offered some "improvements", they weren't nearly the improvements which will keep in line with what the revenue gains have been, and certainly will be in the coming years with the revenue streams they are opening.  They players expected more, and asked for more.  So while the owners finally moved off of their small increases to minimum wages, the players asks were even higher.  With 70% of players in that under $1 million per season bracket, those numbers not only become a lot of players defacto paychecks, they also set the middle salaries by establishing a floor.  They wanted move than a "move in the right direction" they wanted a move that is commiserate with the new revenues coming into baseball.  That's a fair ask.

Working under the old deal would have allowed them both to keep negotiating while playing and moving forward.  They weren't going to keep that deal forever.  It is an extremely common technique in labor negotiations which aren't poisoned to work under the conditions of the old deal until a new one can be reached.  The typical action after that is to go back and make up the differences once that deal is reached.

It wasn't about keeping the old deal, it was about not unnecessarily stopping baseball to force the player negotiations capitulation, which has now failed.  We are now at Day 92, and having had the first cancellation of baseball in 27 years.

Commensurate?  Otherwise, strong post.

[Saufley]

Now they want a pitch clock. I guess Bill Veeck was right all along.

[Texsox]

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Fox tv annual playoff contract: $500 million per year.

TBS annual playoff contract: $470 million per year.

ESPN pays some for wild card games but they’re included with the Sunday night Package. Also $500 million a year for that package.

Ticket sales for playoff games alone everywhere but Tampa is 40,000 seats at > $100 a ticket average, for up to 50 games. Without counting ad sales or next years season tickets or food that’s easily another $200 million.

Players share last year: $90 million.

Which part gets called out? That 8%. Nope, no bias here.

Great opportunity for the union members to negotiate a bigger take. The union accepts expansion in exchange for a cut of the TV. Easier when they are already receiving some compensation then agreeing to a new revenue stream.

[Texsox]

The last agreement was in 2016 and was for five years. As much as this process sucks and we all want it to be over, I wonder if a two or three year deal couldn't be worked out with smaller, incremental, changes.

[Tnetennba]

 

[hi8is]

3 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

 

Good Manspread wasn’t there. Fucker.