5 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I hate the idea of a 50 game season. Gross.

Depends on the format of the extended playoffs this year. As stated before the most they could realistically play is 80 games. The current season format the sox would have 76 games left if the season starts July 1. If they expand the playoffs by 1 week, that leaves 70 regular season games unless they go deeper into November. I agree 50 is too few hopefully it comes up some.

15 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I hate the idea of a 50 game season. Gross.

Yeah, but I hate the idea of no baseball more.  Let's hope they end up agreeing on 70-80 games.

13 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Depends on the format of the extended playoffs this year. As stated before the most they could realistically play is 80 games. The current season format the sox would have 76 games left if the season starts July 1. If they expand the playoffs by 1 week, that leaves 70 regular season games unless they go deeper into November. I agree 50 is too few hopefully it comes up some.

FWIW---Normal spring training lasts 6 weeks. I would guess they will cut it back to 4 weeks.So I think even if they come to a resolution by this weekend we could be looking at starting around July 15th or 70 games.  Maybe add a few extra pitchers to roster to adjust for pitchers needing to build up innings. Since we are quickly getting into the heat of summer, we could see starters build up more quickly than a normal season.    

So sad, we could have had an amazing 110 game season, except the owners won't fit the bill.  Woulda helped our country at this time, too, having baseball. Instead just more tiring conflict.  https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/06/mlb-rejects-mlbpa-proposal-no-counter.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

34 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I hate the idea of a 50 game season. Gross.

Terrible. It's like the homestretch of the regular season in a normal year. We could have had over 100 games with the players proposal. Shame on the owners. For this one year they could have bitten the bullet and had severe losses. One year to get things back on track.

1 minute ago, SCCWS said:

FWIW---Normal spring training lasts 6 weeks. I would guess they will cut it back to 4 weeks.So I think even if they come to a resolution by this weekend we could be looking at starting around July 15th or 70 games.  Maybe add a few extra pitchers to roster to adjust for pitchers needing to build up innings. Since we are quickly getting into the heat of summer, we could see starters build up more quickly than a normal season.    

All of the proposals have had 3 week ST's.

Whether the big spike in cases in Arizona interferes...well...

20 minutes ago, greg775 said:

So sad, we could have had an amazing 110 game season, except the owners won't fit the bill.  Woulda helped our country at this time, too, having baseball. Instead just more tiring conflict.  https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/06/mlb-rejects-mlbpa-proposal-no-counter.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

How does playing baseball in Chicago in Novemeber make any damn sense to you.

19 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Terrible. It's like the homestretch of the regular season in a normal year. We could have had over 100 games with the players proposal. Shame on the owners. For this one year they could have bitten the bullet and had severe losses. One year to get things back on track.

Yeah the home stretch in a close end is always the most boring part......... Said no one ever.

32 minutes ago, SCCWS said:

FWIW---Normal spring training lasts 6 weeks. I would guess they will cut it back to 4 weeks.So I think even if they come to a resolution by this weekend we could be looking at starting around July 15th or 70 games.  Maybe add a few extra pitchers to roster to adjust for pitchers needing to build up innings. Since we are quickly getting into the heat of summer, we could see starters build up more quickly than a normal season.    

Most agree that pitchers really need 4 weeks and hitters 3. The longer spring training is for money for the facilities in spring training.

31 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

All of the proposals have had 3 week ST's.

Whether the big spike in cases in Arizona interferes...well...

Many clubs are talking about using the home parks for their spring training sites. This spring training will be more about getting physically ready for the season more than games.

23 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

How does playing baseball in Chicago in Novemeber make any damn sense to you.

Warm weather sites of course. No fans this season.

24 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Yeah the home stretch in a close end is always the most boring part......... Said no one ever.

The homestretch in a regular baseball season is important for those who have positioned themselves to be there through excellence. Fifty games is just too small a sample. If we go 50 games I want radical experimentation to make it one crazy half season. For instance don't even play a regular season, have tournaments of some kind and the winners of the tournaments go to the WS. I'd have to think of specific guidelines for the tourneys. 50 games? Cmon. If we do that, just blow it up one year and make it crazyball. Now 110 games? Nirvana.

1 hour ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

How does playing baseball in Chicago in Novemeber make any damn sense to you.

Neutral site playoff games would make sense. Keep everything in domes or south. It really doesn't matter, especially if no fans are in attendance. 

Baseball is a sport where if you're playing fewer than a half season(80-82) worth of games, the results become meaningless. 

They have to agree on at least 80 games otherwise the season is a joke. The owners are basically saying "we have to guarantee ourselves a profit in order to operate" That's not how business works. This is probably a temporary situation, and if it becomes permanent they can negotiate it in the next CBA. You want to negotiate now? Open up the CBA. Otherwise, fuck off. 

Most businesses don't close after one year of losses. They're throwing a fucking temper tantrum over one fucking year of losses. They can get off their high horse and go fuck themselves. 

Edited June 3, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Baseball is a sport where if you're playing fewer than a half season(80-82) worth of games, the results become meaningless. 

They have to agree on at least 80 games otherwise the season is a joke. The owners are basically saying "we have to guarantee ourselves a profit in order to operate" That's not how business works. This is probably a temporary situation, and if it becomes permanent they can negotiate it in the next CBA. You want to negotiate now? Open up the CBA. Otherwise, fuck off. 

Most businesses don't close after one year of losses. They're throwing a fucking temper tantrum over one fucking year of losses. They can get off their high horse and go fuck themselves. 

Most businesses do close after a year of loses. Most businesses are like your local dry cleaners, plumber, or restaurant. But we aren't talking most businesses here. We are talking huge businesses, which you are correct, they can withstand a loss for a year. So too can players who are making millions to play. Could they play a season for only a million? And I don't see either side throwing a temper tantrum. They both know the point where they don't want to participate. This negotiations has been a part of every sport since Curt Flood ushered in free agency and the business side exploded. 

19 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Most businesses do close after a year of loses. Most businesses are like your local dry cleaners, plumber, or restaurant. But we aren't talking most businesses here. We are talking huge businesses, which you are correct, they can withstand a loss for a year. So too can players who are making millions to play. Could they play a season for only a million? And I don't see either side throwing a temper tantrum. They both know the point where they don't want to participate. This negotiations has been a part of every sport since Curt Flood ushered in free agency and the business side exploded. 

Sorry, I meant most huge, established businesses.
Even with small businesses, sometimes it takes a few years for them to become profitable. You don't invest in a small business without giving it the time to become profitable. It depends on the size of the losses and how much loss the owner can personally take before they shut it down. 

I'll have to agree to disagree on the owners not throwing a temper tantrum. If the owners are going to take a loss, it's going to be two years at most. Then the CBA is up, and they'll be able to re-negotiate based on the new economics. If you have enough money to own a sports team, they can operate at a loss for a season. The Players are correct to stand their ground on the pro-rated salaries with deferments. The owners are throwing a temper tantrum because they're saying that they won't play unless they can make a profit.....like they're going to lose money forever. Fans will be back eventually, and they'll be able to re-negotiate the CBA following the 2021 season to recoup their losses. 

Edited June 3, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

Bottom line millionaires are fighting with billionaires over how to divide the fan's money. I'm not going to choose sides because I'm at the point I want both sides to lose. 

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Bottom line millionaires are fighting with billionaires over how to divide the fan's money. I'm not going to choose sides because I'm at the point I want both sides to lose. 

I disagree....it's labor vs. management. Unless Labor is asking for something completely ridiculous and unreasonable, which they're not in this case......then I side with labor as a general rule. 

The owners can't ask for any type of revenue split without opening their books. The MLB Owners haven't opened them in 50 years of collective bargaining. the Players are justified in calling bullshit unless they see it for themselves, and have an independent accounting firm examine them. 

Edited June 3, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman

OK it's millionaire labor versus billionaire management arguing over how to split up the barely surviving fan's money. I believe that calling a millionaire playing a game as "labor" gives them more of an underdog status than they deserve. The only labor I see in this is the labor the fans do to afford going to a game or buying the products that are advertised. I'll side with the fans and their pocketbook also as a general rule. I find it obscene that either side wants to cry poor. 

 

20 minutes ago, DirtySox said:

 

But how is an agreement very close if the owners just struck down the proposal (which, might I add, didn't seem realistic honestly), and refused to counter offer? Sounds like MLB just basically took over.

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

I disagree....it's labor vs. management. Unless Labor is asking for something completely ridiculous and unreasonable, which they're not in this case......then I side with labor as a general rule. 

The owners can't ask for any type of revenue split without opening their books. The MLB Owners haven't opened them in 50 years of collective bargaining. the Players are justified in calling bullshit unless they see it for themselves, and have an independent accounting firm examine them. 

The players know the owners operate on a very slim margin. Boras said in an interview that the owners dont  have much net profit after paying all expenses including loans. The owners make their money in building asset value in the team and profit when they sell. Which he says isn't shared with the players, in which he is correct.

Naive question/crackpot theory: what if the owners didn't counter offer and intend to go with Manfred's right to make it a 50-game season expecting the players to refuse (strike) to play? 

The CBA has penalties that prohibit a strike, right? Would that put the owners in a better position to negotiate from strength for next year's CBA? Like, admitting that this season isn't going to happen anyway so they force the players' hand now to make them out to be the bad guys so the owners get more of what they want next year?

40 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Naive question/crackpot theory: what if the owners didn't counter offer and intend to go with Manfred's right to make it a 50-game season expecting the players to refuse (strike) to play? 

The CBA has penalties that prohibit a strike, right? Would that put the owners in a better position to negotiate from strength for next year's CBA? Like, admitting that this season isn't going to happen anyway so they force the players' hand now to make them out to be the bad guys so the owners get more of what they want next year?

Good questions. Hopefully, someone has answers.

3 hours ago, ptatc said:

The players know the owners operate on a very slim margin. Boras said in an interview that the owners dont  have much net profit after paying all expenses including loans. The owners make their money in building asset value in the team and profit when they sell. Which he says isn't shared with the players, in which he is correct.

Then why haven't they opened their books in 50 years of negotiations? It may be true...... but then wouldn't it help the owners in their negotiations? Or are they more concerned about the team values going down the shitter? 

I'd imagine the other 3 sports that have instituted salary caps and percentage of sport related revenue with the players had to open their books to their respective player's unions in order to achieve that goal. 

Edited June 4, 20205 yr by Jack Parkman