Texsox

Your example is spot on but doesn't quite match. You have the option to leave and take your talents somewhere else. Something players don't have. Basically all real world examples seem to fail when looking at this. Bottom line, the owners are fleecing fans, their employees, and their communities. Sadly in my mind, the only group with leverage are the employees who are doing the best. I just hope that no city gives in to a MLB team when they cry poor and want a stadium.

Bettman publicly excuses Wirtz, says we saw his frustration. Goodbye NHL

So which will get MLB moving, fans saying we don't care if the season starts on time to take away any pressure players might feel to get the season started or fans talking boycott if the season starts late. If MLB is using the threat of starting late it seems fans should take the opposite approach. Who cares if they only play a short season?

I'm surprised the owners even try to get any fan support.

I don't believe anything in hearing, good or bad.

I believe the odds of the season starting on time was helped by the union rejecting the mediator. It's 100% back in MLB's court. Knowing that both sides could accept the other side's offer and still work in safe working conditions for a high salary or have more money the 98% of the population keeps me optimistic. I think the pressure is on MLB to make this next offer more than window dressing. If MLB does make a reasonable offer my guess is it could take less than ten days to iron out everything. But if they make another offer just testing the waters it could be weeks or months. Why would the union even bother to counter an offer that doesn't show substantial movement?

I believe it is 100% the truth. They just left out "but only if it doesn't cost us millions of dollars". I wholeheartedly believe the union has the same goal to start the season on time, but only if they get most of what they want.

Read the line after the part you bolded. Are you suggesting that Microsoft or Amazon routinely borrows funds to meet payroll? FYI too much debt lowers company values especially if you are borrowing to meet payroll. Again, their revenue and profits will allow them to increase payrolls, there isn't even a need to borrow to meet reoccurring expenses.

I'm annoyed just seeing his face.

I loved watching him call a game the Sox were not involved in. I'm hoping for a Jomboy retrospective on West's career.

The point is MLB could accept and it wouldn't kill their business. They made a counter offer of getting a federal mediator involved which was (rightfully in my mind) rejected. Now the ball is back in their court.

Yes. The owners could end this right now by accepting any of the union offers and still have generational wealth to hand down to their grandchildren's children but choose not to do so. For the most part they are putting their interest and the interest of their future generations above those of the players, their employees, and fans.

I'm not saying the union did anything wrong. I don't believe I ever have. The ball is and always will be in MLB's court. The owners could settle this right now by accepting any offer the union made and they will still have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. You see it as binary - everything MLB has done is evil. I don't agree. That doesn't mean I think the union has done anything wrong.

Depends on your point of view. The mediator doesn't necessarily know baseball or the business aspect, only the negotiation process. They do not under most situations make a recommendation on specifics points and a compromise. Some would say it is merely a ploy by MLB to force yet another delay putting more pressure on the union. (I tend to agree and would throw a delay of game flag and penalize the owners).

Exactly.

I agree 100%. Let's add that to the CBA a salary minimum based on revenues. And I feel vindicated for defending agents like Boras all these years. Yes, revenues are increasing faster than salaries. With the team profits where they are we should have been screaming that Garcia signed for too little. We should have been livid that Grandall is so poorly paid. But we didn't. Why? We kept hearing things like those big contracts will hold back the team and keep them from making a deal or they overpaid for that guy. Hopefully fans have seen the light and will demand higher contracts for players. The items in the CBA won't come close to closing the gap. Only more agents like Boras willing to really fight for their players can make the really big difference. Hopefully fans will stop bitching when a Boras client signs for mega bucks. I have always been a Boras fan. Yes, he seems to only care about getting the biggest contract he can for his clients.

@Balta1701 Here's an example of where your example wouldn't hold true. If the owners demanded a salary cap of $200,000,000 the union should have to make a counter instead of saying no? If the owners demanded a limit on contracts at 7 years and $250,000,000 the union has to counter? I think that would be unfair to the union.

I'm just trying to understand both sides. I don't have any disagreement in how the union has handled the negotiations, I have disagreements with the owners and how they are negotiating just not as severe as yours. I think what gets lost is within the CBA the union has not been asked to give up anything. Yes, MLB profits have increased faster than expenses, but that isn't something covered in the CBA (but I would hope so in future negotiations). So isn't it a lot easier to negotiate when the only uncertainty is how much you will gain? And isn't it more difficult when the only question is how much you will give up? We'll offer you $10,000,000 (I'm not saying that was excessively generous) Get lost- We want $110,000,000 (and I'm NOT saying that the owners can't or shouldn't pay the $110,000,000) I can see how that leads to an impasse with both sides feeling they are being more than fair. My example of the 70% is I'm not certain if splitting the difference is fair or perhaps one side picked a more reasonable number. In this example that could be $90,000,000 or maybe $25,000,000. We could take it issue by issue but I honestly am more interested in a settlement. The other reason I can't feel too bad for the union is they are way down the list of where I would like to see those team profits go. MiLB players and staff, communities who footed the bill for stadiums, hourly worker salaries, taxes are all higher on my list than making certain a player earning $6,000,000 will now earn $8,000,000. Do I think some teams place profits over being competitive - yes. Do I think that is bad for baseball? - Yes. Do I want to see players receive more of the profits? Yes.

The owners. For the fifth time. The owners could end this right now and have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. Has the union been perfect in this?

I think we can also agree that the middle of each issue isn't always a fair settlement. One side may get 70% of one issue while giving 70% in another. Plus if one side's initial position is too extreme and is countered by something reasonable, the middle wouldn't be fair but something closer to the reasonable would be.

Agreed. It also seemed like the union's starting position was put out there knowing it wasn't close to being something MLB would accept. I'm not suggesting the union was wrong in my their strategy. Just the opposite, it made perfect sense. I think we saw both extremes.

I believed both sides have made offers that they knew would not be accepted. I guess we could call that outlandish and unreasonable but that may too extreme.

To a much earlier point I made about not shedding any tears for players earning millions. Amazon is posting record profits while increasing the cost of a Prime membership and fighting all efforts by their employees to unionize. It is so much easier for me to care about their plight than players struggling to get by on $500,000 a year. And because I'm a hypocrite, I smiled when I opened my Schwab app this morning. Would I be selling in protest or just grabbing profits?

I was agreeing 100% until the last sentence. It seems like you are saying once the owners locked out the players, whatever proposal the union made should be a take it or leave it without any room to concede. I don't think that's realistic for either side.

Exactly. Like I said revenue and profits are why they should spend more. It wouldn't go far but I believe any team receiving revenue sharing should have their profits capped and it shouldn't be much. Those funds should augment their spending not replace their spending.