The MLB lockout is lifted!

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

This sounds like a big negative for the players? A few positive parts to the details here but with a big negative that offsets a bunch.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Just quick numbers, guess roughly 500 players on minimum contracts, $30,000 times 500 is $15 million. 

That seems to be worth less than one single super 2 arbitration deal. And I’m pretty sure I overguessed on players affected.

[poppysox]

2 hours ago, hi8is said:

The players counter offer should be given today and should simply read:

”Make us a real offer. We’re still waiting.”

Why??  What was the offer?

[Tnetennba]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Cool.  So how do we aid/incentivize small market teams so they are better able to keep their own stars?

[southsider2k5]

 

[Tnetennba]

 

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Eugene Freedman is crushing the owners because of this horse shit proposal.  This guy is the best at explaining what is really happening in the negotiations.

 

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

All this sounds fine, but how do you determine the 2nd one?

It’s like their proposal to outsource arbitration to Fangraphs - rely on some sportswriters.

“Everyone I have wonderful news. Keith Law will determine whether or not the White Sox get an extra draft pick next year. “

[Texsox]

I like the idea of  rewarding teams for not manipulating service time but a system that eliminates the possibility would be better. I still like the X years from the draft or X years old format.  

[poppysox]

Mets have a payroll of $236 million and Cleveland $29 million.  Someone needs to address this ridiculous disparity or these negotiations will still be going on in July.

[Balta1701]

33 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I like the idea of  rewarding teams for not manipulating service time but a system that eliminates the possibility would be better. I still like the X years from the draft or X years old format.  

The owners are offended that you would give such an unprecedented and extreme proposal.

Quote

We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.

 

[Balta1701]

Just now, poppysox said:

Mets have a payroll of $236 million and Cleveland $29 million.  Someone needs to address this ridiculous disparity or these negotiations will still be going on in July.

The owners’ proposal would make Cleveland’s payroll about $30 million.

[poppysox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

The owners’ proposal would make Cleveland’s payroll about $30 million.

Well...that's something...but I think the owners should sweeten the pot next month when they talk again.

[Tnetennba]

 

[Tnetennba]

 

[RTC]

Manfred to media:

Quote

We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more

Manfred to owners:

Damnit boys, I miss the days when Tony Clark was their lead negotiator.

 

Owners to Manfred:

You mean we can’t walk all over them this time?!?  WTF Rob!!!!

[Jack Parkman]

It's really simple, Rob. Tell your owners to open up the damn checkbook if they want to be competitive. It's not the players fault billionaires want to pinch pennies. 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[chetkincaid]

9 hours ago, poppysox said:

Mets have a payroll of $236 million and Cleveland $29 million.  Someone needs to address this ridiculous disparity or these negotiations will still be going on in July.

Good God this is disgusting. 

[Balta1701]

So I think the most important point I have is this one.

That proposal is basically the status quote, with a few minor tweaks. There is zero reason that proposal couldn’t, and in fact shouldn’t have been made in October. There’s no revolutionary idea that will reshape the game or even reshape negotiations, nothing that required months of work to prepare. Pieces of it could well wind up in a final deal, but it doesn’t address the Union’s biggest issues. If it was presented in October then the sides could have been working to take pieces from it and pieces from the Union’s proposals to come up with an actual agreement.

There is only 1 reason why they would wait through a 43 day lockout before presenting that type of a proposal and it’s a nasty one. The owners have every intention of extending this through much of the season, hoping that the union will crack and the regular players will vote to accept an offer like that. They knew it wouldn’t be accepted in October without them having to compromise and they’re willing to gamble that upping the pressure through loss of games will cause the Union to break.

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

So I think the most important point I have is this one.

That proposal is basically the status quote, with a few minor tweaks. There is zero reason that proposal couldn’t, and in fact shouldn’t have been made in October. There’s no revolutionary idea that will reshape the game or even reshape negotiations, nothing that required months of work to prepare. Pieces of it could well wind up in a final deal, but it doesn’t address the Union’s biggest issues. If it was presented in October then the sides could have been working to take pieces from it and pieces from the Union’s proposals to come up with an actual agreement.

There is only 1 reason why they would wait through a 43 day lockout before presenting that type of a proposal and it’s a nasty one. The owners have every intention of extending this through much of the season, hoping that the union will crack and the regular players will vote to accept an offer like that. They knew it wouldn’t be accepted in October without them having to compromise and they’re willing to gamble that upping the pressure through loss of games will cause the Union to break.

Re-opening “negotiations” with this proposal really reveals the level to which ownership has had no intention of negotiating in good faith from the start.  Locking players out was never necessary if they actually had intentions of hashing out anything fair.  It was clear from the beginning that ownership wanted to use the threat of lost games as leverage to pressure players into capitulating into a regressive deal.  Thursday’s proposal was laughable and the optics of them going through the motions of negotiating makes them look so much worse.  It couldn’t be more clear which side is trying to do the other dirty. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Tnetennba

[Texsox]

13 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The owners’ proposal would make Cleveland’s payroll about $30 million.

Or bring the Mets payroll to $35 million. If competition is really the goal, that would work also. What the players want is to use competition as a means to increase payrolls. The owners also want to use competition as an excuse to hang onto profits. The Luxury tax was going to be the solution to keep teams from buying a championship, which fans dearly wanted so many years ago. Until players show a willingness to go to small market, currently losing teams (which is unreasonable I think to ask) more time, not less time, with the teams that drafted them will help the lesser teams to be competitive.   

[Texsox]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

So I think the most important point I have is this one.

That proposal is basically the status quote, with a few minor tweaks. There is zero reason that proposal couldn’t, and in fact shouldn’t have been made in October. There’s no revolutionary idea that will reshape the game or even reshape negotiations, nothing that required months of work to prepare. Pieces of it could well wind up in a final deal, but it doesn’t address the Union’s biggest issues. If it was presented in October then the sides could have been working to take pieces from it and pieces from the Union’s proposals to come up with an actual agreement.

There is only 1 reason why they would wait through a 43 day lockout before presenting that type of a proposal and it’s a nasty one. The owners have every intention of extending this through much of the season, hoping that the union will crack and the regular players will vote to accept an offer like that. They knew it wouldn’t be accepted in October without them having to compromise and they’re willing to gamble that upping the pressure through loss of games will cause the Union to break.

Are you surprised that the owners have a strategy that helps their side? Do you think the union has been sitting around doing nothing? Both sides have a strategy. Spoiler alert - the players want to use you in a PR battle. 

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

Or bring the Mets payroll to $35 million. If competition is really the goal, that would work also. What the players want is to use competition as a means to increase payrolls. The owners also want to use competition as an excuse to hang onto profits. The Luxury tax was going to be the solution to keep teams from buying a championship, which fans dearly wanted so many years ago. Until players show a willingness to go to small market, currently losing teams (which is unreasonable I think to ask) more time, not less time, with the teams that drafted them will help the lesser teams to be competitive.   

A cap and floor would also help competitive balance and might help smaller market teams be more attractive to stars and other free agents.  Not sure how that math would work though.  It would also probably cut too deeply into the profits of lower payroll teams for the owners to agree to.