The MLB lockout is lifted!

[southsider2k5]

41 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Of course they can spend an extra ten million. 

But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. 

I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. 

It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this. 

Each team in MLB has at least 100 million in cash flow before they sell a single ticket or jersey.  

[Tnetennba]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

So far neither side has made an offer that they thought had a snowballs chance of being accepted. But since this is a lockout and not a strike, I blame the owners more. You started it, it's up to you to end it. 

This is true.  But honestly which side has come to the table with earnest intent to find a fair deal?  I can’t say for certain the players have, but the owners sure as hell haven’t.  And while they are sitting on record revenues and valuations, they’ve stonewalled and hard-balled and feigned frustration through a media eager to both-sides the framing.  I am 100% pro labor, and I’m not saying they are perfect.  Far from it in fact.  But the ownership side has been far far worse.  They could end this today with a modicum of concessions but instead they are pulling PR stunts and crying in the press about lack of progress all while the off-season rapidly elapses and the season is in real jeopardy.  Labor didn’t start this shit and they aren’t the ones that need to concede to find a middle ground. 

[Tnetennba]

11 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I know you would prefer a forum where everyone agrees with you.  

Yes, thanks for another dismissive oversimplification.  I’m not arguing for you to agree with me.  But I’m not going to scroll past your pro billionaire drivel without critique or debunking.  

[Texsox]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Each team in MLB has at least 100 million in cash flow before they sell a single ticket or jersey.  

Exactly. Like I said revenue and profits are why they should spend more.

It wouldn't go far but I believe any team receiving revenue sharing should have their profits capped and it shouldn't be much. Those funds should augment their spending not replace their spending.

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

This is true.  But honestly which side has come to the table with earnest intent to find a fair deal?  I can’t say for certain the players have, but the owners sure as hell haven’t.  And while they are sitting on record revenues and valuations, they’ve stonewalled and hard-balled and feigned frustration through a media eager to both-sides the framing.  I am 100% pro labor, and I’m not saying they are perfect.  Far from it in fact.  But the ownership side has been far far worse.  They could end this today with a modicum of concessions but instead they are pulling PR stunts and crying in the press about lack of progress all while the off-season rapidly elapses and the season is in real jeopardy.  Labor didn’t start this shit and they aren’t the ones that need to concede to find a middle ground. 

I was agreeing 100% until the last sentence. It seems like you are saying once the owners locked out the players, whatever proposal the union made should be a take it or leave it without any room to concede. I don't think that's realistic for either side. 

[Tnetennba]

26 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I know you would prefer a forum where everyone agrees with you.  

You’ve been called out multiple times in this very thread for making many false and misleading assertions in defense of ownership w/o a single shred of evidence to back it up.  You don’t have to agree with my views, but you don’t get to spout repeated falsehoods unchecked.  

[buckweaver]

Since it took so long for them to come to the table, why not agree to a set, scheduled 10-month negotiation period (with a mediator kicking in at, say, the 6-month mark) and playing the 2022 season under the old agreement, with the new negotiated agreement beginning on 1/1/2023? Knowing nothing about how this works...any chance for such an agreement happening? 

[Tnetennba]

11 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I was agreeing 100% until the last sentence. It seems like you are saying once the owners locked out the players, whatever proposal the union made should be a take it or leave it without any room to concede. I don't think that's realistic for either side. 

No, you’re right, there does need to be some wiggle room to compromise from the players side.  I’m just not going to let ownership off the hook for greedily pretending that the labor has outlandish demands and are the ones being unreasonable. 

[Texsox]

To a much earlier point I made about not shedding any tears for players earning millions.

Amazon is posting record profits while increasing the cost of a Prime membership and fighting all efforts by their employees to unionize. It is so much easier for me to care about their plight than players struggling to get by on $500,000 a year. 

And because I'm a hypocrite, I smiled when I opened my Schwab app this morning. Would  I be selling in protest or just grabbing profits? 

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

I miss baseball. ?

[poppysox]

24 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

You’ve been called out multiple times in this very thread for making many false and misleading assertions in defense of ownership w/o a single shred of evidence to back it up.  You don’t have to agree with my views, but you don’t get to spout repeated falsehoods unchecked.  

You have a unique view of what are falsehoods and what is a fact.  JR has displayed his loyalty to players and alumni since he came on the scene.  I don't think he is evil incarnate as you apparently do.   Feel free to post your in-depth analysis of how negotiations work and I will continue to post my drivel as I see fit.

[Texsox]

41 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

No, you’re right, there does need to be some wiggle room to compromise from the players side.  I’m just not going to let ownership off the hook for greedily pretending that the labor has outlandish demands and are the ones being unreasonable. 

I believed both sides have made offers that they knew would not be accepted. I guess we could call that outlandish and unreasonable but that may too extreme.

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, poppysox said:

You have a unique view of what are falsehoods and what is a fact.  JR has displayed his loyalty to players and alumni since he came on the scene.  I don't think he is evil incarnate as you apparently do.   Feel free to post your in-depth analysis of how negotiations work and I will continue to post my drivel as I see fit.

I could take the time to dig back through this thread for itemised receipts, but it’s easier to let the thread debunk you the next time a headline breaks.  

It’s cute that you equate my disdain for ownership with a presumption that I think JR is evil despite his well documented and lauded loyalty to those in his organisation-loyalty to a fault at times-but commendable levels of loyalty nonetheless.  There is plenty to critique JR on and I do so when it’s called for, but that certainly isn’t top the list.

Additionally, I’m not putting words in your mouth as a defensive mechanism unlike what you’ve tried to do here again.  I can make a nuanced critique while acknowledging the good on the side of opposition and admitting the bad on the side in which I defend.  I also don’t need to make false assertions in defense of previous false assertions atop my indefensible position. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Tnetennba

[Tnetennba]

47 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I believed both sides have made offers that they knew would not be accepted. I guess we could call that outlandish and unreasonable but that may too extreme.

Owners sitting on record profits and revenues and pretending nothing has changed for them financially over the last decade is a pretty outlandish and unreasonable starting position IMO.  The non-starter offers are a reflection of that.  Owners stalling to run out the clock and then feigning at an impasse is also pretty unreasonable.  As is the extreme tactic of attempting to stonewall players into a quick capitulation of every reasonable confession they have asked for. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Tnetennba

[Tnetennba]

 

[Texsox]

37 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Owners sitting on record profits and revenues and pretending nothing has changed for them financially over the last decade is a pretty outlandish and unreasonable starting position IMO.  The non-starter offers are a reflection of that.  Owners stalling to run out the clock and then feigning at an impasse is also pretty unreasonable.  As is the extreme tactic of attempting to stonewall players into a quick capitulation of every reasonable confession they have asked for. 

Agreed. It also seemed like the union's starting position was put out there knowing it wasn't close to being something MLB would accept. I'm not suggesting the union was wrong in my their strategy. Just the opposite, it made perfect sense. I think we saw both extremes. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

Agreed. It also seemed like the union's starting position was put out there knowing it wasn't close to being something MLB would accept. I'm not suggesting the union was wrong in my their strategy. Just the opposite, it made perfect sense. I think we saw both extremes. 

Correct. Which is exactly what both sides should do to start a negotiation. 

The union put out its full, detailed offer in November. An appropriate response would then be a full, detailed offer by the owners, which should take little time to prepare since it’s an opening offer and they should know their starting position.

The union then should provide a counter offer with significant changes, and the owners should provide a counteroffer with significant changes in response.

This cycle should continue until an appropriate compromise is reached. 

Where did this process break? Hmm…

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Correct. Which is exactly what both sides should do to start a negotiation. 

The union put out its full, detailed offer in November. An appropriate response would then be a full, detailed offer by the owners, which should take little time to prepare since it’s an opening offer and they should know their starting position.

The union then should provide a counter offer with significant changes, and the owners should provide a counteroffer with significant changes in response.

This cycle should continue until an appropriate compromise is reached. 

Where did this process break? Hmm…

I think we can also agree that the middle of each issue isn't always a fair settlement. One side may get 70% of one issue while giving 70% in another. Plus if one side's initial position is too extreme and is countered by something reasonable, the middle wouldn't be fair but something closer to the reasonable would be. 

[chitownsportsfan]

48 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

 

So not working feverishly on a deal? Go figure.

[Balta1701]

15 hours ago, Texsox said:

Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing?

This was pointed out on January 13 when the owners made their offer. Since the owners have refused any counteroffers, it is the best information I have.

The owners have proposed removing super-2 status and replacing it with their $10 million bonus package, the players have proposed both expanding super 2 status and adding in a bonus package.

Super 2 status allows 20% of arbitration eligible players a 4th year of arbitration eligibility. Rather than a minimum contract, they can receive a large deal. For one example player, Kris Bryant replaced a league minimum year with a $19.5 million year. Other players may reach FA early if a team chooses not to offer arbitration or this may be included as a point in contract extensions. 

Doing this would cost the players $10s of millions per year, with an offsetting $10 million money pool.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think we can also agree that the middle of each issue isn't always a fair settlement. One side may get 70% of one issue while giving 70% in another. Plus if one side's initial position is too extreme and is countered by something reasonable, the middle wouldn't be fair but something closer to the reasonable would be. 

That’s fine. 

Which side refused to present their first offer?

Which side presented an offer that was 70% of what they wanted, and which side said there would be no further counteroffers? 

[Texsox]

29 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

That’s fine. 

Which side refused to present their first offer?

Which side presented an offer that was 70% of what they wanted, and which side said there would be no further counteroffers? 

The owners. For the fifth time. The owners could end this right now and have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. 

Has the union been perfect in this?

[Balta1701]

13 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The owners. For the fifth time. The owners could end this right now and have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. 

Has the union been perfect in this?

I have no idea what has been said behind closed doors, but I have no issues with the way the Union has handled their negotiations based on what is publicly known. I will admit I don't know enough about labor law to know why they would have rejected a federal mediator yesterday, if you would like to fill me in on that I would be happy to learn more.

As far as I can tell from what is public, the Union has taken the appropriate steps to reach a fair deal. They presented their initial offer in a timely way. They provided a timely counteroffer once they received a response from the owners, which removed the part the owners had objected to most strenuously (the earlier path to free agency). They edited their counteroffer during the last meeting despite the owners showing no willingness to provide a response to the union's counter offer. The union has effectively been met by a group of owners who have no interest in a deal that is fair for both sides, and they will use every legal and illegal but not enforced means to try to force the Union to accept those owners' one and only proposal. 

To my eyes, the union is willing to negotiate, and the owners are using the threat of a lost season (hurting all the other employees) to try to beat them into caving. What issue do you have with the way the Union has handled their negotiations other than that they haven't fully agreed to the owners' initial proposal?

[southsider2k5]

 

[Texsox]

I'm just trying to understand both sides. I don't have any disagreement in how the union has handled the negotiations, I have disagreements with the owners and how they are negotiating just not as severe as yours. I think what gets lost is within the CBA the union has not been asked to give up anything. Yes, MLB profits have increased faster than expenses, but that isn't something covered in the CBA (but I would hope so in future negotiations). So isn't it a lot easier to negotiate when the only uncertainty is how much you will gain? And isn't it more difficult when the only question is how much you will give up? 

We'll offer you $10,000,000 (I'm not saying that was excessively generous) 

Get lost- We want $110,000,000 (and I'm NOT saying that the owners can't or shouldn't pay the $110,000,000) 

I can see how that leads to an impasse with both sides feeling they are being more than fair.  

My example of the 70% is I'm not certain if splitting the difference is fair or perhaps one side picked a more reasonable number. In this example that could be $90,000,000 or maybe $25,000,000. We could take it issue by issue but I honestly am more interested in a settlement. 

The other reason I can't feel too bad for the union is they are way down the list of where I would like to see those team profits go. MiLB players and staff, communities who footed the bill for stadiums, hourly worker salaries, taxes are all higher on my list than making certain a player earning $6,000,000 will now earn $8,000,000. Do I think some teams place profits over being competitive - yes. Do I think that is bad for baseball? - Yes. Do I want to see players receive more of the profits? Yes.