The first sentence couldn't be further from the truth.

1 minute ago, Tnetennba said:

The first sentence couldn't be further from the truth.

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. 

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? 

They used a federal mediator during the 1994 strike. It didn't work out so well. In fact, it rarely does with professional sports.  The NBA and NHL have used them without much success. Do you really think it matters to the owners if a mediator tells them the unions proposal is fair, and vice versa?

This was a ploy by the owners to try to win some public support. They showed their hand when they refused counter proposals. Isn't that what negotiating is?

Edited February 4, 20224 yr by Dick Allen

30 minutes ago, Texsox said:

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. 

Right, qualifying caveats.  Take the statement at face value though coupled with their actions all winter and its truth is greatly diminished.

44 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

The first sentence couldn't be further from the truth.

THEN WHY DID YOU REFUSE TO MEET FOR SIX F@#$ing WEEKS?!?!?!?

It must suck for the owners now that they can't pull this shit because the entire world knows what they are doing as opposed to 94 when we all were at the mercy of newspapers

15 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Right, qualifying caveats.  Take the statement at face value though coupled with their actions all winter and its truth is greatly diminished.

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

22 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

They used a federal mediator during the 1994 strike. It didn't work out so well. In fact, it rarely does with professional sports.  The NBA and NHL have used them without much success. Do you really think it matters to the owners if a mediator tells them the unions proposal is fair, and vice versa?

This was a ploy by the owners to try to win some public support. They showed their hand when they refused counter proposals. Isn't that what negotiating is?

They obviously wanted to wait out the clock and then try to get the pressure on the players to cave, much like happened when it came to setting the 2020 season in which the owners got exactly what they wanted.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They obviously wanted to wait out the clock and then try to get the pressure on the players to cave, much like happened when it came to setting the 2020 season in which the owners got exactly what they wanted.

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

 

44 minutes ago, Texsox said:

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? 

To answer your last sentence...the 1200+ players represented by the union will start to weaken very fast once the checks start being missed IMO.  As many pro-union forum members have pointed out....not all players are filthy rich.  Keeping those 30 owners unified will be a much easier job.  I want the season to start on time as much as anyone but I am not at all optimistic at this point.  Like you, I hope the MLB makes what they think is a fair offer and the players agree to take it.  If the owners make a reasonable attempt at compromise and the players overplay their hand we could lose the season.

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

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.

This is exactly what was happening. The MLBPA has made concessions. The owners have made none. Anyone thinking the owners are negotiating in good faith is smoking some good shit. 

Edited February 4, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman

24 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They obviously wanted to wait out the clock and then try to get the pressure on the players to cave, much like happened when it came to setting the 2020 season in which the owners got exactly what they wanted.

If the owners wanted to wait out the clock they could make a nothing offer and then another.  I think both sides want to settle and start the season.

1 minute ago, poppysox said:

If the owners wanted to wait out the clock they could make a nothing offer and then another.  

That's exactly what they're doing. 

Edited February 4, 20224 yr by Jack Parkman

 

11 minutes ago, poppysox said:

To answer your last sentence...the 1200+ players represented by the union will start to weaken very fast once the checks start being missed IMO.  As many pro-union forum members have pointed out....not all players are filthy rich.  Keeping those 30 owners unified will be a much easier job.  I want the season to start on time as much as anyone but I am not at all optimistic at this point.  Like you, I hope the MLB makes what they think is a fair offer and the players agree to take it.  If the owners make a reasonable attempt at compromise and the players overplay their hand we could lose the season.

I think you are underestimating the players. They stuck together in 1994-1995 strike when they lost plenty of pay checks. As far as the owners making a reasonable attempt at a compromise, they can do that any time they want. No one is stopping them.

12 minutes ago, poppysox said:

If the owners wanted to wait out the clock they could make a nothing offer and then another.  I think both sides want to settle and start the season.

They pretty much did exactly that.  They didn't negotiate for six weeks, then made an offer.  Then the players made a counter offer and they walked away.

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?

58 minutes ago, Texsox said:

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 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”.

A poster on The Athletic (not an article writer), said that in his experience as a contract lawyer, parties that propose bringing in arbitors are most often having difficulties bringing their own members/constituents into accord. An interesting POV if nothing else. Arbitor's roles are largely concerned with procedural processes anyway and have little to do with resolving specific issues. I don't know that the owners aren't just tossing out a MacGuffin with the arbitration offer.

<--- Imagining a Fans Association and the role it could play in a true 3-way forum. The owners and players say this and that about 'the fans' best interests and welfare which comes across to me as little more than crocodile tears.  

Edited February 4, 20224 yr by FoxForce2

55 minutes ago, Texsox said:

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 don't accept the premise that the players are negotiating in good faith while the owners are stonewalling.  Like most labor negotiations both sides proposed unrealistic things and both sides countered with something equally uninspiring.  The player's last proposal offered was to reduce their original $105 million pool ask to $100 which the owners took as insulting and not worthy of a counter offer.  My informal poll of people indicates they feel the whole lot of them (both owners and players) are a bunch of spoiled rich jerks.  Delay in starting the season won't help either side in the battle of winning the fan support IMO.

16 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

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”.

You are correct.  I don't care that owners "win" at the cost of losing part or all of the season.  I don't imagine the pro-union fans want to lose games in order to "win" either.  If we can get heated over this stuff...imagine what it's like when the negotiators take the meeting results back to their respective constituents.

I don't find the owners having a lot of credibility on the revenue issues. They have to share the wealth and get this done. Disappointing.