4 hours ago, NWINFan said:

I don't remember it that way. I know the Sox took a big hit in attendance and the fan backlash was intense. It led to Ozzie Guillen's famous "we don't owe the fans anything" remark. Guillen said he was responding to fans yelling racial taunts at Frank Thomas. Some fans also thought that Thomas was a hypocrite for using non-union labor to build a home. MLB loved it when Sosa and McGwire had their home run race. The sport needed something there was damage being done to the golden goose. The players and the owners completely misjudged fan reaction. The late 90's were a very dark time, especially for the White Sox. 

 

Giolito throwing a bullpen on Saturday fwiw.

It's pretty obvious the players won't cave in. Compromise? It'll either be 80 games or no season, right? I think the owners should be ashamed of themselves for not agreeing on the 110-game plan for the good of the country. Billionaires could take a one-year hit. We shoulda had an agreement last week and already been well into second spring training. Sad.

Edited June 8, 20205 yr by greg775

7 hours ago, greg775 said:

It's pretty obvious the players won't cave in. Compromise? It'll either be 80 games or no season, right? I think the owners should be ashamed of themselves for not agreeing on the 110-game plan for the good of the country. Billionaires could take a one-year hit. We shoulda had an agreement last week and already been well into second spring training. Sad.

There will most likely be a season, but it's looking more and more like it's going to be the mandated short season at full pro-rated salaries.  A 50-60 game season is better than no baseball, but it's not nearly enough games.  Plus, the already strained relations between the owners and players could be worsened, and that doesn't bode well for the CBA expiring and subsequent new agreement.

Both sides need to give a little here and come to an agreement on an 80-game season that'll start in early July.  If nothing happens this week, I think we'll see MLB step in and mandate a short season.

2 hours ago, hogan873 said:

There will most likely be a season, but it's looking more and more like it's going to be the mandated short season at full pro-rated salaries.  A 50-60 game season is better than no baseball, but it's not nearly enough games.  Plus, the already strained relations between the owners and players could be worsened, and that doesn't bode well for the CBA expiring and subsequent new agreement.

Both sides need to give a little here and come to an agreement on an 80-game season that'll start in early July.  If nothing happens this week, I think we'll see MLB step in and mandate a short season.

I doubt it will be the mandated season. If the owners mandate the length of the season, they can't expand the playoffs. They really need to expand the playoffs. My guess is 65 games and expanded playoffs. I've been wrong throughout this process though. 

19 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I doubt it will be the mandated season. If the owners mandate the length of the season, they can't expand the playoffs. They really need to expand the playoffs. My guess is 65 games and expanded playoffs. I've been wrong throughout this process though. 

What has made you change your guess from around 80 games to 65 games? Just the lack of a deal so far?

 

1 minute ago, KrankinSox said:

 

I really hope Bob is wrong on this regarding how the union is reacting to this offer. Each side has to give a little.

Let's get this thing done.

10 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

 

Just looking at the math here, they can play 50 games for 50 games pay, or they can play 76 games for 57 games worth of pay.  MLB is asking them to play 26 more games, to take home 7 more games worth of pay.  I would definitely call that a step back.

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Just looking at the math here, they can play 50 games for 50 games pay, or they can play 76 games for 57 games worth of pay.  MLB is asking them to play 26 more games, to take home 7 more games worth of pay.  I would definitely call that a step back.

The players simply are not going to get full pro-rated salary for 80 games. It isn't happening. They're going to concede to a certain percentage of full pay at some point, it's just a matter of how many games they settle on.  

1 minute ago, KrankinSox said:

The players simply are not going to get full pro-rated salary for 80 games. It isn't happening. They're going to concede to a certain percentage of full pay at some point, it's just a matter of how many games they settle on.  

They have an agreement for prorated pay for 50 games already.  So at worst that is in their pockets.

Im selfish, but I don't want to see 50 games played. That'd be embarrassing to me. I despise football due to its small sample size. 

 

4 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

What has made you change your guess from around 80 games to 65 games? Just the lack of a deal so far?

I doubt they will  actually play 80 games at this point. Even if you reached an agreement this week and started 7/13, that would mean 3 weeks of spring training vs the normal 6. I doubt they will play 12 weeks of 7 games so I think 6 per week(72 total) would be the max not counting any rainouts. 

10 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Im selfish, but I don't want to see 50 games played. That'd be embarrassing to me. I despise football due to its small sample size. 

 

A small sample size of a game where guys bash their heads in every game?

2 hours ago, KrankinSox said:

I really hope Bob is wrong on this regarding how the union is reacting to this offer. Each side has to give a little.

Let's get this thing done.

 

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Just looking at the math here, they can play 50 games for 50 games pay, or they can play 76 games for 57 games worth of pay.  MLB is asking them to play 26 more games, to take home 7 more games worth of pay.  I would definitely call that a step back.

So is 75% prorated salary, meaning they get 75% of the full season pay (for 76 games).  Or what you all re saying where they play 76 games for 57 worth of pay (in which case - yeah, this is all far worse than I thought in terms of how the sides are digging in).  

16 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Im selfish, but I don't want to see 50 games played. That'd be embarrassing to me. I despise football due to its small sample size. 

 

What?

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Just looking at the math here, they can play 50 games for 50 games pay, or they can play 76 games for 57 games worth of pay.  MLB is asking them to play 26 more games, to take home 7 more games worth of pay.  I would definitely call that a step back.

Depends on the amount of the additional playoff pool money. Its a reasonable deal where it protects the owners if there is no playoffs and the players benefit if there are playoffs. Decent compromise.

14 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

A small sample size of a game where guys bash their heads in every game?

Yeah, that's another element to how bad football is. Football is a ridiculous game.

My point in terms of this thread is: A 50 game baseball season would suck. Very little interest in that. I'd strongly prefer them to cancel the season at that point. My breaking point is 80 games.

Just now, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, that's another element to how bad football is. Football is a ridiculous game.

My point in terms of this thread is: A 50 game baseball season would suck. Very little interest in that. I'd strongly prefer them to cancel the season at that point. My breaking point is 80 games.

Huh? Some baseball > no baseball.

3 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

 

So is 75% prorated salary, meaning they get 75% of the full season pay (for 76 games).  Or what you all re saying where they play 76 games for 57 worth of pay (in which case - yeah, this is all far worse than I thought in terms of how the sides are digging in).  

Pro-rated means they get paid for the games they play as compared to a full season.  Play half of the season, get half of your agreed upon salary.  So if they get 75% of that for the games they play are essentially getting paid to play 3 games, and playing 1 free.

14 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Depends on the amount of the additional playoff pool money. Its a reasonable deal where it protects the owners if there is no playoffs and the players benefit if there are playoffs. Decent compromise.

Doesn't the playoff money only go to playoff teams?  Is the compromise going to get some of that to the players who lose out?

4 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, that's another element to how bad football is. Football is a ridiculous game.

My point in terms of this thread is: A 50 game baseball season would suck. Very little interest in that. I'd strongly prefer them to cancel the season at that point. My breaking point is 80 games.

I'd rather have 50 games with the World Series winner having an asterisk identifying it was a short season (would want this if it was 50 games or 100 games) than no season at all.

Our young players also need the development to keep our rebuild on track.  I'd prefer more games to fewer, but zero games would be a disaster from a development perspective (in addition to a whole lot of others).

One key point in all of this is the expanded playoffs. If they can't "agree on something", there are no expanded playoffs. Manfred could essentially dictate a 50 game season right now. Players would get prorated pay but the league wouldn't get expanded playoffs and the owners would take in all the revenue from the 10 team playoffs. The league doesn't want to unilaterally dictate a season for this reason. They probably will though which would suck. 

33 minutes ago, DirtySox said:

Huh? Some baseball > no baseball.

Yeah, that's a no-brainer.  No sense to cancel a season and lose on development of some of the younger players (especially with the Sox).  50 games would kind of suck, but no games would really suck.