Texsox

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.

So far neither side has made an offer that they thought had a snowballs chance of being accepted. But since this is a lockout and not a strike, I blame the owners more. You started it, it's up to you to end it.

Of course they can spend an extra ten million. But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this.

Further to my point, the current financial situation in baseball is so one sided towards the owners that in these negotiations they do not need any concessions from the players. This isn't a situation where if I do this for you I need you to do this for me. I'm seeing it as proof how good the owners have it. But as I've also stated, I'm pro settlement. If the union accepted the last offer I wouldn't shed any tears for a player at the league minimum.

Where is this addressed in the CBA? I'm looking but I can't find anything.

Agreed. I never said they were asking for anything crazy. What I said was looking at the last CBA and this one, the players aren't being asked to give up anything, it will all be a much deserved, easily absorbed for most teams, gain for the players. I don't see any points in the CBA that the players were asked to accept less than the last CBA. Yes, profits grew faster than salaries and players deserve higher salaries. For at least the third time. Once again I will say, the owners could end this today by accepting the union's last offer and still retain generational wealth that will outlive their children's children. If the players accepted the last offer from the owners they will have a gain. I don't believe they should take the last offer, they would be leaving a lot of money on the table. I place 100% of the blame on the owners that this hasn't been settled. They have made offers that are ridiculous in scope. They locked out the players, it's up to them to make a serious offer.

So the owners were violating the CBA? And the union can't get a court to decide in their favor?

Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing?

They just want to give the fans a better product. Those guys on teams like the Dodgers and Tampa Bay realize them winning 100+ games isn't a good product for the fans and want their teams to win less and Baltimore to win more.

No, it's more like the car company having record profits and the salesperson says we want a 10% raise and the company counters with a .02% raise. No one is asking the players to give back anything they earned in the last CBA.

It's a small win but at least so far it seems like the players haven't had to give anything up that they already have. Basically this is all about how much of what the owners currently have can be switched to the players. If the players were being asked to give something up that they already have I doubt this could ever be settled.

Maybe he's struggling because whatever they say will expose the organization. We're going to start following the law? We're going to start doing what any decent human being would have done? He reminds me of an eight year old having a tantrum,covering his ears and screaming, I can't hear you!!