Balta1701

Was clearing everything off his Instagram page not just football stuff.

Well they're the ones who asked for mediation, coming up with a mediator they didn't like might be a positive.

I have no idea what this means for the negotiations. Anyone here have any insight into this?

If there was something that any owner thought would improve the atmosphere at their games and lead to more ticket sales, and it was cost effective, they would do so right now and would need no additional funds to do it. If there was something that could do those things, but it either did not lead to more ticket sales or cost more than they thought it would make, it wouldn't matter how much money you gave the owner, they would not do it.

Rob Manfred couldn’t tie his shoes if a majority of the owners told him not to.

Ending super 2 status, detailed right here for you to ignore for the 4th time because the owners don’t want it pointed out.

The idea that the players' counter-offer was "Ridiculous" and "insulting" and the owners' offer of a salary cut was neither of those, and that it's biased to think anything else is so insulting to the intelligence of the reader that I recommend you try it somewhere else rather than a page where people pay attention to baseball.

The players’ original offer was made in November and included reduced time to free agency. It was a full and complete offer, you don’t get to pretend it doesn’t exist and then assume people on Soxtalk are too stupid to call you on it. The owners said “this will ruin small clubs” and countered with a big cut to arbitration and that $10 million fund. This was the owners first full and complete offer, submitted on January 13. The players took a week and submitted a counter offer, dropping their free agency time request and adopting the owners “extra fund” concept at $105 million. The owners then refused to counter, which is why you are giving details from the January 13 offer here. I don’t know your motivation, but if you want to defend the owners and you cannot do so without telling things that are factually incorrect, then you are pointing out that the owners cannot be defended.

The players last offer was made in response to…their previous offer. They never received an offer from the owners after putting $105 down. I don’t know that I’d describe what you just posted as a lie, but it’s certainly misleading. Only one side countered.

I can’t imagine very many true baseball fans saying “who cares if they only play a short season”. Not only is baseball supposed to be a grind, but wanting to watch baseball is kinda the point. I like that first time in March I find a spring training game on MLB network and my wife just says “oh no”.

The owners shouldn't just accept the union offer! They should conduct a fair negotiation and counter-offer!

The owners' first offer was fine for a first offer. It should have been made in November rather than January, but it was an appropriate opening offer for them. Aside from that, literally everything they've done has been an effort to use the season as a hostage, including all of the other employees.

? So you're going to accuse me of twisting your words here again but I have no idea why you'd say this while simultaneously saying the Union did something wrong. The Union made their counteroffer and the Owners won't.

So I asked this earlier, if anyone sees this explained on Twitter or anything I'm happy to learn this. Why would MLBPA reject a request for mediation? What benefit do the owners expect to get from mediation that the players are trying to deny them?

Yes, the union should make a counter offer that doesn't include that salary cap. That is exactly how negotiations are supposed to work. The owners should then counter-offer themselves. If they wanted to hold to a salary cap being included, then they would have to start sweetening their offer elsewhere. If they gave a salary cap offer that included a 60/40 revenue split (as opposed to the current 38/62), the union might not like it, but they'd be fools not to consider it. If the owners held firm to a salary cap and would not give that up nor make any concessions elsewhere...they would be found in violation of federal law regarding collective bargaining, which is exactly what happened in 1995. The players gave an initial offer that included a shorter path to free agency. The owners highlighted this as their biggest objection and highlighted what it would do to low-revenue teams. The players dropped that from their revised contract ask, and instead adopted the framework from the Owners' offer, with more money to balance out the revenue distribution. That's what negotiations are supposed to be like.

First of all, if earnings have not kept up with revenues, then yes it is 100% appropriate for the union to ask for things that would balance that out. That is exactly how labor negotiations usually go. The opposite can happen to. If...for example, there was something that caused a dramatic decrease in revenues, like a Viral pandemic, and the owners asked players to cancel a portion of the season decided by the owners and cut their pay based on the number of games actually played rather than based on their full contracts, do you think that is something the players would agree to? I bet they would. Second of all, your statement that the union has not been asked to give up anything was replied to an hour ago with a specific example of the owners asking the players to take a pay cut on the order of tens of millions of dollars per year. Technically I think I've said it twice, the last time was more detailed. Here's the post: Third, let's say "one side demands 100%, the other side offers 0%. The first side says we will accept 70%, the other side counters again with 0%". One side is trying to split the difference as you say, the other side is not doing so. If you're interested in a settlement, if you're interested in hourly workers having their jobs and all those things, you should also be focusing on the owners as they are the ones refusing to negotiate.

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?

I eventually figured out every part of this except who the hand picked vet refers to.

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?

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.

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…

for anyone missing him…