The MLB lockout is lifted!

[Balta1701]

Just now, Bob Sacamano said:

Yeah. It was cool they talked earlie this week but in all honesty, nothing was accomplished.

The players gave the owners back a dramatically different proposal on Monday, one much closer to something the owners might be able to accept as the #1 point the owners said no to was removed. It shouldn't be surprising that it is taking them a few days to respond on the core issues. 

[Texsox]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

The players gave the owners back a dramatically different proposal on Monday, one much closer to something the owners might be able to accept as the #1 point the owners said no to was removed. It shouldn't be surprising that it is taking them a few days to respond on the core issues. 

The owners could have accepted any of the offers the players made and still made money. It's b.s. they are still dragging their feet trying to win every petty point. 

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Yeah. It was cool they talked earlie this week but in all honesty, nothing was accomplished.

Pretty much all for show.  I'm of the belief that ownership wants to look like they are trying while also still running out the clock.  Forcing players into losing game checks was always part of their plan IMO.

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

The owners could have accepted any of the offers the players made and still made money. It's b.s. they are still dragging their feet trying to win every petty point. 

That's what really burns me about the whole thing.  Ownership is still going to make money hand over fist in whatever new CBA is signed.  But here we are two months into a lockout with no resolution on the horizon and time rapidly running out before the season is delayed, no closer today than we were in November.

[Texsox]

16 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

That's what really burns me about the whole thing.  Ownership is still going to make money hand over fist in whatever new CBA is signed.  But here we are two months into a lockout with no resolution on the horizon and time rapidly running out before the season is delayed, no closer today than we were in November.

I think they are closer. Each new agreement will continue to level between players and others. I just don't care if it takes over year or fifty. 

[Balta1701]

42 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

That's what really burns me about the whole thing.  Ownership is still going to make money hand over fist in whatever new CBA is signed.  But here we are two months into a lockout with no resolution on the horizon and time rapidly running out before the season is delayed, no closer today than we were in November.

We are absolutely closer than we were 3 weeks ago, let alone November. When the owners made what was basically their first non-ludicrous proposal, the MLBPA came back with a much closer to a compromise offer than I thought they would. There has been progress. Whether it stalls or not I won't guess, but progress was made.

If you want to be pissed at the owners waiting 43 days to make an offer they could have made in November, that would be totally fair.

[Tnetennba]

30 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think they are closer. Each new agreement will continue to level between players and others. I just don't care if it takes over year or fifty. 

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

We are absolutely closer than we were 3 weeks ago, let alone November. When the owners made what was basically their first non-ludicrous proposal, the MLBPA came back with a much closer to a compromise offer than I thought they would. There has been progress. Whether it stalls or not I won't guess, but progress was made.

If you want to be pissed at the owners waiting 43 days to make an offer they could have made in November, that would be totally fair.

Perhaps I should rephrase and say it seems like we are no closer, but you are both right in that some progress has been made.  I haven't seen any reports that they have talked about the core economic issues yet, just talks on the periphery, which is probably why I am not at all optimistic that real progress is being made and we are any closer to a deal today than we were in November.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Perhaps I should rephrase and say it seems like we are no closer, but you are both right in that some progress has been made.  I haven't seen any reports that they have talked about the core economic issues yet, just talks on the periphery, which is probably why I am not at all optimistic that real progress is being made and we are any closer to a deal today than we were in November.

 

This about sums it up from an MLBTR chat earlier this week and pretty much how I feel:

Urban Shocker

12:02

After this week's labor discussions, are you more optimistic a deal will get done by mid-February?

 

Steve Adams

12:04

I'm less optimistic. The more people we talk to in and around the game, the less likely it seems. It's great that the two sides talked, but what actual progress was there? MLB said OK to a bonus pool for pre-arb players, but they countered with $95MM less than the players wanted in that pool. (Admittedly, the players' $105MM pool seems ... aggressive.)

MLB is willing to up the minimum salary, but barely at all. The proposed increase doesn't even match inflation. When you consider that the min. salary should've been expected to rise to ~$580K this year anyhow, in keeping pace with the prior CBA, they're offering about $35K extra -- less than a 6% increase. That's in no way proportional to the increase in MLB revenues since the onset of the prior CBA.

 

12:05

That doesn't even get into the league's apparent offer of a lottery pick for the top three spots in the draft, which is mostly a nothingburger. No team that tanks right now is doing so under the guarantee it'll get the top pick. Tanking teams are happy to land in the top three, so that changes nothing really.

 

12:06

It just doesn't feel like there's been anything meaningful other than the fact that the two parties actual sat down Monday and weren't SO pissed off at one another that they refused to do it a second time.

 

 

The "progress" that's been made is extremely minimal.

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Bob Sacamano

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, Bob Sacamano said:

This about sums it up from an MLBTR chat earlier this week and pretty much how I feel:

Urban Shocker

12:02

After this week's labor discussions, are you more optimistic a deal will get done by mid-February?

 

Steve Adams

12:04

I'm less optimistic. The more people we talk to in and around the game, the less likely it seems. It's great that the two sides talked, but what actual progress was there? MLB said OK to a bonus pool for pre-arb players, but they countered with $95MM less than the players wanted in that pool. (Admittedly, the players' $105MM pool seems ... aggressive.)

MLB is willing to up the minimum salary, but barely at all. The proposed increase doesn't even match inflation. When you consider that the min. salary should've been expected to rise to ~$580K this year anyhow, in keeping pace with the prior CBA, they're offering about $35K extra -- less than a 6% increase. That's in no way proportional to the increase in MLB revenues since the onset of the prior CBA.

 

12:05

That doesn't even get into the league's apparent offer of a lottery pick for the top three spots in the draft, which is mostly a nothingburger. No team that tanks right now is doing so under the guarantee it'll get the top pick. Tanking teams are happy to land in the top three, so that changes nothing really.

 

12:06

It just doesn't feel like there's been anything meaningful other than the fact that the two parties actual sat down Monday and weren't SO pissed off at one another that they refused to do it a second time.

 

 

The "progress" that's been made is extremely minimal.

 

Yes.  Sums up my perceptions/feelings quite well.  Peripheral progress but still quite far apart on the core economic issues.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Perhaps I should rephrase and say it seems like we are no closer, but you are both right in that some progress has been made.  I haven't seen any reports that they have talked about the core economic issues yet, just talks on the periphery, which is probably why I am not at all optimistic that real progress is being made and we are any closer to a deal today than we were in November.

 

The owners proposal on/about January 15 included their first attempt at realistic core economics proposals. It included things like making arbitration worse for players, but it was a legitimate proposal including all the core economic details. The players responded in a professional way last Monday - by giving a core economics proposal that they would accept, which included the major concession of dropping the request for shorter paths to free agency which the owners held up as the players' most unreasonable request. 

This is legitimate progress on the core economic issues. They are far closer than they were in early January, where the players had made a full and detailed proposal and the owners had only given piecemeal ideas back in November. Again, they could stall today. It's the owners' turn to counter things, and their next proposal could be to repeat their last proposal giving no ground or they could wait another 43 days before offering it. But it is wrong to say that they haven't talked about the core economic issues. 

[Texsox]

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Perhaps I should rephrase and say it seems like we are no closer, but you are both right in that some progress has been made.  I haven't seen any reports that they have talked about the core economic issues yet, just talks on the periphery, which is probably why I am not at all optimistic that real progress is being made and we are any closer to a deal today than we were in November.

 

I'm not optimistic either. I'm not certain we really know at this date the areas that will ultimately be the core issues. Two months ago I would have guessed details surrounding free agency were going to drag out. 

It still seems like the owners are touching the line of not bargaining in good faith. Until they really show a willingness to end this I'm remaining pessimistic about a full spring training.

[chitownsportsfan]

Season will start in June or possibly even be cancelled. The entire process so far has indicated that owners are completely fine with that. Question is if the players are. Unless they cave completely I'm just seeing it they aren't the NFLPA.

[Dick Allen]

I didn’t realize Gio was the Union rep. No way JR is going to break the bank for him.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Season will start in June or possibly even be cancelled. The entire process so far has indicated that owners are completely fine with that. Question is if the players are. Unless they cave completely I'm just seeing it they aren't the NFLPA.

The last two weeks saw far more movement than I expected if the season was going to be canceled.

[chitownsportsfan]

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The last two weeks saw far more movement than I expected if the season was going to be canceled.

It's easy to "make progress" when you're as far apart as these sides appear to be. I expect negations to completely break down as we get closer to March and probably there will be plans for replacement players before the union comes back to the table in April or so.

On a selfish personal note this time of year is so hard on so many folks including myself. With the COVID surge it's been especially trying and usually we'd be full of excitement for pitcher and catchers in two weeks with everything to look forward to as a playoff contender once again.

So much for all that.

Edited January 28, 2022 by chitownsportsfan

[poppysox]

7 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

You want to eliminate playoffs entirely in favor of the top two winning teams facing off in a WS?  Are you being serious?

What do you find so shocking about the best team in each league having qualified for the WS?  I understand that baseball wants the money generated by playoff baseball so we will never go back in time.  In 1959 we were undeniably the best team in the AL.  Some fluky .500 team didn't get to represent the AL in those days.  

[poppysox]

9 hours ago, Bob Sacamano said:

There was talk of expansion prior to Covid so if they eventually add two teams, each league could have 16 teams. Still, I don't think they would do away with interleague play. I would keep it consistent though and just have it be the same every year (ALC vs NLC, ALE vs NLE, etc.). There probably have to be some re-alignment to make it work though.

Approximately 25% of current teams can't draw enough interest to compete.  Expansion should not be discussed in your lifetime.  

[Bob Sacamano]

7 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Approximately 25% of current teams can't draw enough interest to compete.  Expansion should not be discussed in your lifetime.  

Then get rid of 2 teams and then realign. Either way you can’t do no inter league with the current setup.

[Kyyle23]

58 minutes ago, poppysox said:

What do you find so shocking about the best team in each league having qualified for the WS?  I understand that baseball wants the money generated by playoff baseball so we will never go back in time.  In 1959 we were undeniably the best team in the AL.  Some fluky .500 team didn't get to represent the AL in those days.  

This is so regressive man.  Why have divisions, just put all the teams in one lump and the team with most wins at the end is champ the end bye.

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, poppysox said:

Approximately 25% of current teams can't draw enough interest to compete.  Expansion should not be discussed in your lifetime.  

Bullplop. Those teams are extremely profitable and well run teams with low payroll are regularly competitive. None of them are filing bankruptcy, even despite actual and significant losses due to COVID. Furthermore, the Royals won a World Series recently. Cleveland and Tampa Bay made World Series appearances. They don’t want to compete, they want to take home a big paycheck for the owners.

 

[poppysox]

11 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

This is so regressive man.  Why have divisions, just put all the teams in one lump and the team with most wins at the end is champ the end bye.

I prefer to do away with divisions and play a "balanced schedule" in each league and yes...the team with the most wins is the champ.  Why is it more entertaining to play the same 4 bad teams 18 times each?    Yes, I prefer the way it was done prior to the playoffs system where some team gets lucky and knocks off the far superior team.  If you think that's "regressive" ...fine with me.

[poppysox]

11 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Bullplop. Those teams are extremely profitable and well run teams with low payroll are regularly competitive. None of them are filing bankruptcy, even despite actual and significant losses due to COVID. Furthermore, the Royals won a World Series recently. Cleveland and Tampa Bay made World Series appearances. They don’t want to compete, they want to take home a big paycheck for the owners.

 

Yeah...let's have more of those owners who don't want to compete.

[Texsox]

11 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Bullplop. Those teams are extremely profitable and well run teams with low payroll are regularly competitive. None of them are filing bankruptcy, even despite actual and significant losses due to COVID. Furthermore, the Royals won a World Series recently. Cleveland and Tampa Bay made World Series appearances. They don’t want to compete, they want to take home a big paycheck for the owners.

 

You are exactly right. And go a step further. We need a cap on corporate profits. The owners and executives of Amazon, Apple, and even your local dry cleaners shouldn't be allowed to run their businesses just to get big paychecks. The top tax rates should go back to 98% to discourage people from starting businesses just to make themselves wealthy.

[Kyyle23]

52 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I prefer to do away with divisions and play a "balanced schedule" in each league and yes...the team with the most wins is the champ.  Why is it more entertaining to play the same 4 bad teams 18 times each?    Yes, I prefer the way it was done prior to the playoffs system where some team gets lucky and knocks off the far superior team.  If you think that's "regressive" ...fine with me.

what is your opinion on DH in both leagues?

[Balta1701]

36 minutes ago, Texsox said:

You are exactly right. And go a step further. We need a cap on corporate profits. The owners and executives of Amazon, Apple, and even your local dry cleaners shouldn't be allowed to run their businesses just to get big paychecks. The top tax rates should go back to 98% to discourage people from starting businesses just to make themselves wealthy.

So you are ok with the Pirates and Rockies and Marlins just not caring? It’s ok if they win 65 games a year forever? No downside to The league if they don’t develop fans over time? As long as they’re profitable I shouldn’t dare judge them because profitability is the highest morality? Because that’s what you’re arguing with this malarkey.