Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MLB Attempting to Start Season in May

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post

    I don't think any fans feel the players are being cheated here. Well, maybe you do. These guys are making more in one season than the average worker make in a career. The 194 strike was too long ago for some of these memories, and this very much is beginning to feel like a strike. It's not as if the owners proffered an "unfair offer" to begin with in this process. In the end everyone knows it's a negotiation, and the only loser is the fan and the game itself.
    You missed my point. I think the players want to get the books open before negotiating the new CBA. They viewed giving up the grievance option as a major concession to get a few more games. If they are going to get the games, why give up that potentially helpful option that could help get the better longterm deal? It would be stupid to give up something for nothing..I have said before, there is blame on both sides,, you guys just put all the blame on the players..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

      You missed my point. I think the players want to get the books open before negotiating the new CBA. They viewed giving up the grievance option as a major concession to get a few more games. If they are going to get the games, why give up that potentially helpful option that could help get the better longterm deal? It would be stupid to give up something for nothing..I have said before, there is blame on both sides,, you guys just put all the blame on the players..
      No, I think most are putting the blame on both sides. You seem determined that the players are angelic. You aren't getting the owners books more open without good faith negotiations. Postponing a vote for several days based upon a relatively nominal delta while ownership is still trying to help improve the deal isn't good faith negotiations. The players don't NEED the books more open than they presently are. The players are winning. Revenues are spiking and so are contract values and payrolls.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

        Any grievance isn't about winning for the players. They know they will lose, but a grievance forces the owners to open their books just ahead of the new cba negotiations. And for whatever reason, the owners are terrified to show their actual numbers. I still think it goes back to the cry poor small market teams not actually being poor at all and having to reveal to their fans that they have been lying for years..
        Eh i doubt very seriously any arbitrator forces the league to open much of anything.. Now if we were in a revenue sharing debate it would be vital but players themselves are on record saying revenue has never and will never effect players salaries. One of many stupid statements that will kill them..

        An arbitrator is going to evaluate the agreement and determine who violated that if anybody.

        *I do agree with you though.. "poor teams" have always been an issue and they routinely lie to fans about being broke. Funny thing is so do the Yankee's and New York who could easily support 300 million payrolls. It just wont be the factor players think it is here because it's irrelevant to the argument at hand. Like most of the players stances they have more to do with public perception than they actually apply to the negotiations.
        Last edited by RefugeeZ; 06-22-2020, 11:50 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tmac13 View Post

          You missed my point. I think the players want to get the books open before negotiating the new CBA. They viewed giving up the grievance option as a major concession to get a few more games. If they are going to get the games, why give up that potentially helpful option that could help get the better longterm deal? It would be stupid to give up something for nothing..I have said before, there is blame on both sides,, you guys just put all the blame on the players..
          Well again that's not really true there... Players can't have it both ways. They don't want revenue to impact their salaries negatively but want to use it as an argument for more money. That stance is just littered with hypocrisy.

          and i don't put all the blame on players.. Owners haven't been particularly easy to negotiate with and have always prioritized their bottom line above all else but like with a lot of things int his debate the players have simply used that as an excuse not to play ball at all and that's going to kill any arbitration ruling.
          Last edited by RefugeeZ; 06-22-2020, 11:56 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RefugeeZ View Post

            Eh i doubt very seriously any arbitrator forces the league to open much of anything.. Now if we were in a revenue sharing debate it would be vital but players themselves are on record saying revenue has never and will never effect players salaries. One of many stupid statements that will kill them..

            An arbitrator is going to evaluate the agreement and determine who violated that if anybody.

            *I do agree with you though.. "poor teams" have always been an issue and they routinely lie to fans about being broke. Funny thing is so do the Yankee's and New York who could easily support 300 million payrolls. It just wont be the factor players think it is here because it's irrelevant to the argument at hand. Like most of the players stances they have more to do with public perception than they actually apply to the negotiations.
            I don't think the Mets can handle the payroll. The Wilpons lost a fortune to Madoff. They just don't have the liquidity to compete at that level, and that's why they're selling the club.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RefugeeZ View Post

              Well again that's not really true there... Players can't have it both ways. They don't want revenue to impact their salaries negatively but want to use it as an argument for more money. That stance is just littered with hypocrisy.

              and i don't put all the blame on players.. Owners haven't been particularly easy to negotiate with and have always prioritized their bottom line above all else but like with a lot of things int his debate the players have simply used that as an excuse not to play ball at all and that's going to kill any arbitration ruling.

              ...and the owners, with 8 small market clubs drawing the line at 60 games, could easily have handled the matter "internally" by agreeing to the 70 games and sharing more revenue to "buy" the votes they lacked. This thing should have been resolved in May. Of course, politics, too....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post

                I don't think the Mets can handle the payroll. The Wilpons lost a fortune to Madoff. They just don't have the liquidity to compete at that level, and that's why they're selling the club.
                I meant the Yankees.. The major markets are actually profiting more than anybody. They can throw out a 200 million payroll and pretend to be big spenders but ignore it's a much lower % of actual revenue than Atlanta or other teams in our range. I don't really blame them but there is a huge financial disparity in the league right now.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post


                  ...and the owners, with 8 small market clubs drawing the line at 60 games, could easily have handled the matter "internally" by agreeing to the 70 games and sharing more revenue to "buy" the votes they lacked. This thing should have been resolved in May. Of course, politics, too....
                  I have no doubt they felt like they needed to draw the line somewhere.. With only one side really willing to negotiate it had basically turned into MLB making offer after offer with little in response. Problem is by then they had walked themselves into a place to make a bad deal and needed to hit the breaks. I don't particularly like them drawing the line at 60 games but at this point in the calendar that's about all there is. Even when they made the offer it would have required 70 games in 71 days or something like that.

                  I'm 100% against extending the season.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RefugeeZ View Post

                    I have no doubt they felt like they needed to draw the line somewhere.. With only one side really willing to negotiate it had basically turned into MLB making offer after offer with little in response. Problem is by then they had walked themselves into a place to make a bad deal and needed to hit the breaks. I don't particularly like them drawing the line at 60 games but at this point in the calendar that's about all there is. Even when they made the offer it would have required 70 games in 71 days or something like that.

                    I'm 100% against extending the season.
                    Add that Eminent Fauci wants MLB finished with post season by the end of September.

                    Comment


                    • Now MLBPA is back to voting today. Doubt they approve. There seems to be a split within the players representation, and Tony keeps having the rug pulled out from under him. How to you file a grievance when you yourself are making no effort to display any urgency to get something one?

                      Comment


                      • Add, I just don't see this thing working outside of the "bubble structure" of competition. So I again believe the players will vote this down, and then MLB will make a 50 game attempt, and that will be shut down by the players over concerns about safety.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post

                          Add that Eminent Fauci wants MLB finished with post season by the end of September.
                          And that's a HUGE factor.. People can downplay it all they like but agree or not if you have medical professionals saying you shouldn't be playing and you do you open yourself up to all kinds of liability. That's also ignoring the simple risk of an October 2nd wave that wipes out the playoffs and leaves owners with enormous loses on the season.

                          Comment


                          • So, I guess we are getting baseball? Still a little confused. IMO, players fucked up voting down the last proposal. Vote was 33-5, which shows at least some wanted to accept it..Would love to know how many of the no votes were under Boras influence. I have talked to 4 different folks that feel Boras worked really hard to sabotage any agreement but they don't know his motives for doing so..

                            So, the players voted down the 60 game with all the good stuff(universal dh, expanded playoffs, etc) but will now be forced to play 60 without the good stuff..All in order to preserve their right to file a grievance..I think they outsmarted themselves..

                            Comment


                            • To keep an avenue open for grievance they had to vote it down knowing the 60 game season would result even with a no vote. Owners couldn’t drop to 50 after proffering 60.

                              No DH. 10 team post season instead of 16. Lower post season bonus pool.

                              if the vote was between what was offered and what they got? Gotta take what was offered but then no grievance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rtrafford View Post
                                To keep an avenue open for grievance they had to vote it down knowing the 60 game season would result even with a no vote. Owners couldn’t drop to 50 after proffering 60.

                                No DH. 10 team post season instead of 16. Lower post season bonus pool.

                                if the vote was between what was offered and what they got? Gotta take what was offered but then no grievance.
                                The owners were smart to go 60..If I was an owner, I would still push for the universal DH and expanded playoffs. Expanded playoffs means more money for everybody, and the universal DH just makes sense this year..The last thing a team like the Braves need is for a Fried or Soroka to get hurt running the bases in a short season..I can't imagine the players rejecting a chance for more playoff bonus money and the DH..But who the fuck knows..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X