ptatc

The players as a whole yes. But they also can get cut as an individual and not make the money. Many players are cap casualties in the NFL because only the stars make the big money. The middle class players lose their money. The MLB will never have a revenue split because the players won't agree to a hard cap so the owners won't open the books. The guaranteed contract is a better deal for the players as they all get their money with no possibility of losing it for any reason including getting cut which is so common in the NFL.

That's the key. There is no guaranteed 7-8% earnings. When contracts are not guaranteed, they may not get it. Remember the Manny rumors dies he go for the guaranteed 300 million from san Diego or the 285 guaranteed with incentives to go to 325. He went with the 300 guaranteed. Why? It's guaranteed, injuries don't play a factor, poor play doesn't matter.

Job security is one thing many unions negotiate for. Just look at how crazy the NFL reports is about Rogers getting 153 out of 200 million actually guaranteed. Guarateed contracts are immensely important and a huge advantage for the MLB players.

Its written on the wall in the locker room.

Got it. I knew someone posted something about that number somewhere.

I thought someone posted a source earlier stating MLB players get 47% of revenues.

I'm surprised the union rejected the robo umps. Unless it is just a bargaining chip.

It's easier to control a damp ball when you lick the fingers. Not a wet ball like in the rain.

I would bet most owners had businesses prior to buying into the legal monopoly.

Good PR.

I believe Carlton Fisk and Million Dollar Floyd Bannister were in this category as well.

Maybe it's past the limit of his revenues?

Same here. She only goes from mid-May to August. This includes Bears games.

I agree. I like the outdoor environment for sports. Even the 10 degree Bears games.

Some are simple. The MLB one is not. If the owners lockout the employees. Odds are it has already started with animosity and won't be simple.

I don't think this is totally true. The other sports aren't partnering with the players, they dominate them. MLB is the only league without a true hard salary cap and the only one with guaranteed contracts. The other unions aren't as strong which is why there is no labor issues. If the MLBPA agreed to a hard salary cap and no guaranteed contracts, I'll bet the owners would run to sign that deal.

Ok. So back to his statement. He said this would all end if the owners agreed to continue with the terms of the last CBA. You just listed even more things that the players wanted. So again, i don't think the players would have agreed to play under the previous CBA terms.

An informal meeting between the 2 lead negotiators.

Could be. Can't say I follow all of them. Did they have a lock out as in this situation?

From listening to the negotiations, I don't think this is correct. I think the players are holding fast to increasing the pay for the younger, pre-arb players.

Of course they don't all end in a strike or lockout. A strike authorization isn't a strike. It's a vote by the union members to authorize the union leaders to call a strike. The union leaders use this authorization as a bargaining chip showing the union resolve and he possibility of a strike. Everything you say about Manfred is true. I'm just saying that every collective bargaining negotiation has the same person saying the same things. He hasn't failed yet. If he gets the players to agree to a deal that the owners think is acceptable, he succeeded in his job. If the players get too many concessions from the owners then he fails.

Authorizing a strike is just that. It gives the union leaders the permission from the union to strike if they decide to. We've never actually gone on strike. It's just a bargaining tool for the union leaders. The playbook is the same, just depends on how for each side decides to take it. If it goes long enough you'll hear about the union voting to authorize a strike, doesn't mean it will happen but it gives the union leaders more bargaining power.

Again, I would like to say it's only him but in all of the negotiations I've been in, that's the playbook. For us, it always came down to voting to authorize a strike, force more negotiations, then settle for what we can get. Everytime. All 6 of them.

They never start early. It just the way it works. It's always the manufactured deadline to get people seriously negotiating. Nothing is seriously negotiated until the last minute. Again, the irrationality of negotiations.

Unfortunately when you get to collective bargaining, rational people become irrational and it becomes only about getting something from the other side. Having been involved in a number of them on both sides, it's all about what you can get. It all depends on how long and how far the employees/players want to push it. This is why we all knew that with Boras and his players leading the union this time around it was going to last awhile.