ptatc

A law degree might help? Trying to make the owners look bad? Something tells me the union has a few lawyers in the room to make sense of the proposals.

True. Could be just my bias against Boras. but its out there and the negotiations seems to be following that path.

Of course it won't happen. It's set that the owners get paid in the playoffs and the players during the regular season. It was just a hypothetical of how the negotiation might change if the roles were reversed.

Interesting compromise. I like it.

A strike now would hurt the players more than the owners. The players probably would have strung out the negotiations until the playoffs to really hurt the owners, if they hadn't been locked out.

It fits with his MO of negotiation tactics. i haven't seen him refute it. It makes sense for negotiations.

i think much of this is a matter of timelines. The owners have the leverage now. Thus they has a lockout prior to the season before the players could strike at the end of the season. The owners have set each final offer prior to significant loss of games. ie. opening day, being able to play 162 etc. The owners are using their leverage when they have it. The players would have it at the end of the season. If they strike prior to the playoffs, the players get their money, the owners lose a substantial part of their revenue. The players would have and should used their leverage now if the roles were reversed. If the players only received payments in the post season and the owners got the majority of their money during the season, you would see the reverse of the situation and the players would strike now. The players are showing this by the comments of, if we wait another week we will get more concessions from the owners. My entire point is, neither are the great evil being, neither are the angels from heaven. Both are using what leverage they have in negotiations. And both are taking my baseball away, and I very strongly dislike both side for doing that. But I understand the negotiations.

with Boras and his clients leading the union, I think it's overly optimistic to say much of this. He just stated they think if they wait another week, they can get more concessions. Nothing about that comment makes me think it would have been only a couple of weeks of haggling.

This is the point. However, if the negotiators do hold those grudges, it makes the negotiations worse. This is why when we do it, there are different levels of negotiation teams. The lead negotiator, usually a lawyers. Then the union president and cabinet members, then a group of 8-12 union employees. This allows a rotation of people to allow cooler heads to be involved to limit this type of animosity.

I think it was more the fact that they need to cancel games more than the owners move. The "final offer" was the final one before they had to cancel opening day. This "final offer" is before they can't fit in 162 games. Each "final offer" is before a significant game cancelling events occurs. Which, again, are just negotiating ploys that will hurt each side in different ways. And both sides by PR for the game.

Ideally, yes. But as you can see, when there is a contentious negotiation, nothing gets done until consequences are relevant. Losing games is the only thing that has spurred true negotiations.

True. But now it looks like Boras and the players are doing it as well. And who knows if the players would have responded to earlier proposals by the ay they are reacting now.

Isn't this true in the NHL as well? They seem to figure it out. It's been that way as long as I can remember in hockey.

no doubt. And no doubt they will continue with those tactics. Although I think Boras also has something to do with that delays based on the previous comments someone posted. Boras thinking it will payoff if there is anther week delay and the players will get more concessions. He has been right so far as the owners have given more concessions, at least reported this time around.

Agreed. Why treat the international players any different. The % of players in those countries is increasing so just include them in the regular draft. I think that is the best option. I think the big difference, although some here disagree, is how MLB clubs are allowed to have "pre-selection" deals with 12 year olds as stated in one of the tweets.

Boras thinks it will pay off. We knew this was going to be a delay for the season when he and his clients were leading the union. Not that they don't have that right. But he is known for dragging out negotiations and waiting when he represents players for contracts.

Really, They way Ortiz and the international FA group are fighting it, it seems more plausible to me. The ability to pick a team for the culture would seem less plausible. But again you could be right, it's only my guess from previous discussions with foreign players.

i think the legit dollars is the key phrase. Again my supposition.

The players had a 62% share of the revenue after the last deal? How does that equate to them getting kicked in the balls and the last deal being bad. That was a heck of a deal for the players.

It's all about the negotiations. If the players really harbor resentment from their last agreement, then we won't see baseball this year. And that's their right.

No but that's where it is and you can't change it. That's the negotiation leverage the owners have and they are using it.

That could be the issue. However, I would bet it's more the money issue.

Still doesn't mean this isn't a better deal. I never implied the players should accept it. I stated that Rongey can't say "The owners will win this negotiations no matter how it turns out. And don't let them tell you differently."

There is for the complexity of the negotiations. If more games are cancelled, then you need to add how many games the players are going to be paid for and how much service time the players will get for this year. The owners will ask the players to give up something to get 162 games paid and the whole process starts over again.

Makes sense. However, that also promotes abuse and corruption of very young kids and their parent who aren't used to that type of business culture.