ptatc

You must not have read much of the thread I dont think there has been one person who has said the owners are right and the players are wrong.

That's good. Someone should make t-shirts.

The owners are taking the majority of the risk,economically, by the chance there wont be playoffs. If the players had a proposal of deceased prorated pay if there were no playoffs but full prorated pay if there were playoffs it would be different. But the players didnt want that risk. Which is there right but I'm sure the union just turned up the tension for the CBA which they can do as well. When the state did not give the university money during the budget impasse a few years ago we did renegotiate our CBA. The union realized that if we dont help out there could be serious consequences for the university. We did take a pay cut to ensure that instructors and staff were not laid off. We also took no raises for 2 years in an attempt to make up those lost millions. Both sides gave some for the benefit of the students and the university.

That is the philosophy of WHY the players shouldn't take a paycut. Not the fact that they arent getting more of the money. And all of this is based on the revenues from the playoff money. If there are playoffs the players are getting more of the money if there are no playoffs than it's a huge loss for the owners and the players don't seem to care. Which of course is there right. However if the owners lose that much dont think that there arent going to be significant issues down the road when bargaining for the CBA begins. As it stands now the way the union and Boras (he finally has 3 out of 8 clients on the union executive committee) are hardlining this, it looks to be a better than average chance of some kind of work stoppage for the next CBA.

I disagree. The players are essentially getting a pay raise as it is with a bigger piece of the revenue "pie." For my simple medical brain that cant deal with big numbers If the revenue from a usual game is 10 million. If it's a 60/40 split the owners get 6 million the players 4 million. If the fans bring in 3 million, a little less than 1/3, the overall revenue is now now 7 million, 4 million to the players, 3 million to the owners. This means the players went from 40% of the revenue pie to 57% of the pie. At full prorated pay they get a substantial more of the revenues than when there were fans.

It probably would but I dont think the players will give the owners the extra playoffs if the owners will only give them 60 games.

Yes. But they aren't currently. I thought that is what you meant by that statement.

The players arent taking a cut on their normal rate. The are getting their normal rate. They also arent the only ones working under the harazdous conditions. All of the staff and medical personnel will be there too. Which are miniscule costs compared to the players and the staff doesnt have the option to opt out and still get paid. Regardless if all this comes to fruition and there are no playoffs the players will still make money and then owners will lose a ton and then players wouldnt give the owners any concessions to make this an "economically feasible" season. I think this gives the players enough fault to say that both sides are culpable in creating this fiasco of a season that didnt need to be this bad.

Yep. Since there wouldnt be an expanded playoffs, it could happen now.

No. But it would help. This is the owners point. They are willingly to deal to prevent them from losing to much. It gives them a little protection.

Trying to figure out when that spike will happen is tough. I'm not sure shortening the season would help.

That was his scenario not mine. As for the previous statement. You truly think that if the owners pay the full prorated salaries for the season with no fans and there arent playoffs that the owners wont lose a ton of money?

Not in his scenario where the only reason they are playing fewer games is to the playoffs faster.

From the owners point of view the extra round of playoffs doesnt make it "economically feasible" In order to make it economically feasible they need to have the players to take a 20% cut in pay. Playing games where the players are making full salary but the owners do not have the revenue from the fans for those games isn't economically feasible. This is why they can say the players weren't bargaining in good faith. This is with the playoffs. If there are no playoffs the owners will not get most of their revenue. So, the players not giving any leeway for there not being playoffs really gives the owners more issue with the players. Its is all about the numbers of those games without the revenue from the fans especially if there are no playoffs.

It's not that they want the playoff money faster, they want fewer regular season games to pay less of the full prorated salary.

I haven't seen the actual agreement just what I read in those articles. It seems to me that there is enough interpretation of that language as where there is a possibility of the agreement. Because what other economic negotiation would be possible from the players other than the prorated salary. The extra playoffs may have made some difference but it still looks like there is enough there for an interpretation difference.

No doubt. This is the issue with most union/management negotiations. There are too many people in the room focusing on what the other side did to them 10 years ago and not focusing on the current issues and how to make the best agreement for the situation going forward.

True. But as far as the agreement is concerned they wouldnt back off of the full prorated salary. Which is why a grievance in the possiblity. The owners also offered an 80% of prorated salary for 80 games without playoffs and a 70% plus playoff money if there were playoffs. Both sides offered a version of negotiating a deal. It will just depend on the interpretation.

Yes. It sounds like each side will have a "bargaining in good faith issue" The players issue is that the owners are not going to try to play as many games as possible, they are trying to keep the number down. The owners issue is that the players wouldnt bargain off of the full prorated salary with no fans allowed.

From the articles in the Athletic and Tribune , they said that there is language that says if it is determined that fans will not be allowed in stadia the player need to bargain in good faith to reduce the prorated salary. It may be a difference in interpretation of language but that is the cause of many grievances.

I agree. If they have any talent at all, go to school and get back into the draft in a few years.

Smart by the players, hopefully some get good deals.

Yep, they both at fault for this fiasco. It will be intersting to see which grievances will be filed and the results of them.

Could be the case but ets look at facts. Everything that came out of the union was "we are only going to play at full prorated salary, we are not taking further paycuts. " at one point one of the owners proposal was for 80% of prorated with playoffs and 70% without playoffs. So there was an off of a 20% cut. Obviously the players didnt think that was worth having a discussion.

If the owners say tomorrow that the players should go to camp by Saturday and the do a shortened 3 week "spring training" they could probably start games by July 6th maybe. If that were the case, in the Sox regular season they would have had 69 games left in the season. Take away a few off days and the absolute maximum games is probably 73 or so.