9 minutes ago, BigHurt3515 said:

I feel like these assholes are going to meet once a week 

That’s optimistic in my naive opinion. ?

1 hour ago, hi8is said:

That’s optimistic in my naive opinion. ?

They’ll meet in 2 weeks, owners will put out the same BS offer, say they tried, and will go silent again until June-ish.  

24 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

They’ll meet in 2 weeks, owners will put out the same BS offer, say they tried, and will go silent again until June-ish.  

This sucks.

2 hours ago, hi8is said:

This sucks.

Yes it does. 

This is fascinating. Basically it's mutual destruction with each side having time to actual plan their demise. They would prefer to lose fan money than to lose money to each other. In other words they would prefer to continue to fight over a smaller and smaller pie than to figure out how to share a really big pie. 

As a spectacle, this is like watching wrestling. There is clearly a villain that not many are cheering for and the good guys. 

So let's cover this like we would a game. Could someone with more details give us today's lineup and positions? 

29 minutes ago, Texsox said:

This is fascinating. Basically it's mutual destruction with each side having time to actual plan their demise. They would prefer to lose fan money than to lose money to each other. In other words they would prefer to continue to fight over a smaller and smaller pie than to figure out how to share a really big pie. 

As a spectacle, this is like watching wrestling. There is clearly a villain that not many are cheering for and the good guys. 

So let's cover this like we would a game. Could someone with more details give us today's lineup and positions? 

Good guys? They're all a bunch of D-bags.

I don't find any of this fascinating.  

7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

I don't find any of this fascinating.  

Human behavior. My fascination probably harkens back to my psychology studying undergrad days. 

My give a fucks are for the innocent bystanders affected. The businesses who pay taxes around the ballparks and expect profits from the largely untaxed, taxpayer supported, stadiums and teams that will sit empty. 

A have several give a fucks for any team employees who aren't being compensated or employed during their lockout.

The last couple are with the players. There just aren't any left for MLB. If there was a way to support the union workers while punishing MLB I would.

 

 

So while I am now firmly on the players side, it is only on the divvying up of this CBT to an acceptable level and the min salary.

In Passans article, taking seriously the players goals of reducing tanking and increasing competitiveness, I find the players solutions lacking. Lottery (does nada), more handouts to small market teams (this reduces tanking? What?). Just a bunch of garbage.

And the idea that more playoff teams disincentivizes teams to spend seems like something one person said once and everyone decided to parrot. It doesn’t seem to pass an inch of scrutiny.

Honestly 7 playoff teams makes more sense to me to disincentivize tanking than a lottery. Tanking was needed because you needed an overwhelming talent and depth advantage to be win divisions. If you can get into playoffs as a less balanced team you may go after one last piece to get you to 82-86 wins.

id bet getting front offices in to create these incentives would lead to more interesting solutions than this garbage from owners/players.

(and obviously the players don’t want 7 playoff teams because it merely grants additional revenue to owners and should come with appropriate concessions to labor. Not because it disincentivizes signing players, GMAFB)

Remember players share in the revenue of playoff games.

An increase in salary doesn't equal an increase in talent. It just pays the existing talent more. To balance competitiveness the playoff teams like the Sox need to lose good players to the non playoff teams. Moving talent from the haves to the have nots is what is required. The union wants that to happen when Pittsburgh outbids the Sox for a 2nd baseman or right fielder. The union wants Roberts to become a free agent quickly so he can sign with Miami for more than the Sox will offer. 

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Remember players share in the revenue of playoff games.

An increase in salary doesn't equal an increase in talent. It just pays the existing talent more. To balance competitiveness the playoff teams like the Sox need to lose good players to the non playoff teams. Moving talent from the haves to the have nots is what is required. The union wants that to happen when Pittsburgh outbids the Sox for a 2nd baseman or right fielder. The union wants Roberts to become a free agent quickly so he can sign with Miami for more than the Sox will offer. 

The union wants Bobby Witt Jr to get out of his first contract earlier to sign with the Yankees. 
 

It wants the royals to sign second contract guys instead of them being forced to retire.

The CBT should go up. But it’s hard to see either side actually improving the game based on these negotiations.

13 minutes ago, bmags said:

So while I am now firmly on the players side, it is only on the divvying up of this CBT to an acceptable level and the min salary.

In Passans article, taking seriously the players goals of reducing tanking and increasing competitiveness, I find the players solutions lacking. Lottery (does nada), more handouts to small market teams (this reduces tanking? What?). Just a bunch of garbage.

And the idea that more playoff teams disincentivizes teams to spend seems like something one person said once and everyone decided to parrot. It doesn’t seem to pass an inch of scrutiny.

Honestly 7 playoff teams makes more sense to me to disincentivize tanking than a lottery. Tanking was needed because you needed an overwhelming talent and depth advantage to be win divisions. If you can get into playoffs as a less balanced team you may go after one last piece to get you to 82-86 wins.

id bet getting front offices in to create these incentives would lead to more interesting solutions than this garbage from owners/players.

(and obviously the players don’t want 7 playoff teams because it merely grants additional revenue to owners and should come with appropriate concessions to labor. Not because it disincentivizes signing players, GMAFB)

After following the White Sox, I can totally see how an owner would say “no we don’t need to sign that extra outfielder all you have to do is get to 84 wins and we are in true playoffs”.

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

This is fascinating. Basically it's mutual destruction with each side having time to actual plan their demise. They would prefer to lose fan money than to lose money to each other. In other words they would prefer to continue to fight over a smaller and smaller pie than to figure out how to share a really big pie. 

As a spectacle, this is like watching wrestling. There is clearly a villain that not many are cheering for and the good guys. 

So let's cover this like we would a game. Could someone with more details give us today's lineup and positions? 

I have said several times that neither side can be dumb enough to kill the golden goose.  Not so sure about that anymore.

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

After following the White Sox, I can totally see how an owner would say “no we don’t need to sign that extra outfielder all you have to do is get to 84 wins and we are in true playoffs”.

Exactly! I think experiencing the 2009-2016 white sox was good his very experiment. And it kinda sucked! I’m pro tanking, even 2018 was better than 2015.

Expanded playoffs is the players only bargaining chip and they're using it the same way the owners used the universal DH.  Both sides want it or understand that's it's inevitable but the other side wants it more. They're using the 12 game playoffs to get other things they want for this cba (higher min, arb, higher cbt) and save the 14 team playoff for the next cba.  No reason to give up your biggest and pretty much only bargaining chip all at once.  I hope they hold out as long as it takes to get it.  

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

Exactly! I think experiencing the 2009-2016 white sox was good his very experiment. And it kinda sucked! I’m pro tanking, even 2018 was better than 2015.

Tanking for the sake of a rebuild isn’t a bad thing IMO.  Unless you’re a talent factory like StL or Tampa or always has $$ to sign big names & ring chasers, your system needs a reset every so often.  Perpetually tanking simply to bank luxury tax dollars is a big problem that needs a solution.  I’m not sure any of the proposals really solve that though.  And when a group of cheap owners can veto ideas that would require them to spend nothing gets fixed.  

4 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Tanking for the sake of a rebuild isn’t a bad thing IMO.  Unless you’re a talent factory like StL or Tampa or always has $$ to sign big names & ring chasers, your system needs a reset every so often.  Perpetually tanking simply to bank luxury tax dollars is a big problem that needs a solution.  I’m not sure any of the proposals really solve that though.  And when a group of cheap owners can veto ideas that would require them to spend nothing gets fixed.  

Who are the perpetually tanking teams though?

38 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Remember players share in the revenue of playoff games.

An increase in salary doesn't equal an increase in talent. It just pays the existing talent more. To balance competitiveness the playoff teams like the Sox need to lose good players to the non playoff teams. Moving talent from the haves to the have nots is what is required. The union wants that to happen when Pittsburgh outbids the Sox for a 2nd baseman or right fielder. The union wants Roberts to become a free agent quickly so he can sign with Miami for more than the Sox will offer. 

Fox tv annual playoff contract: $500 million per year.

TBS annual playoff contract: $470 million per year.

ESPN pays some for wild card games but they’re included with the Sunday night Package. Also $500 million a year for that package.

Ticket sales for playoff games alone everywhere but Tampa is 40,000 seats at > $100 a ticket average, for up to 50 games. Without counting ad sales or next years season tickets or food that’s easily another $200 million.

Players share last year: $90 million.

Which part gets called out? That 8%. Nope, no bias here.

 

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

 

This informal sit down needs to lead to some actual progress.  But I doubt we'll see much movement for a while.

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

Who are the perpetually tanking teams though?

I was probably conflating cheap ownership manifesting as perpetual tanking but perhaps this isn’t accurate.  I think of the Pittsburghs of the world that never seem to spend and are rarely competitive for long.  But I think your right and calling them perpetual tankers wouldn’t be accurate. 

1 minute ago, Tnetennba said:

I was probably conflating cheap ownership manifesting as perpetual tanking but perhaps this isn’t accurate.  I think of the Pittsburghs of the world that never seem to spend and are rarely competitive for long.  But I think your right and calling them perpetual tankers wouldn’t be accurate. 

Right, I guess that’s my overall point. I think players think “anti-tanking” wins the public over, but reality is they want Oakland, Pitt, Balt to spend more. 
 

I think those teams that have been competitive despite low payrolls should get windfalls. Competitive balance team tha makes playoffs? You get an additional $10 mill toward player salaries. Can only be used on payroll though.

Non competitive balance team in bottom 10 of payrolls? You lose 2nd round pick.

Do I think that would get sign off? Maybe not, but it’s more worth fighting for than a damn lottery, my god.

9 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

This informal sit down needs to lead to some actual progress.  But I doubt we'll see much movement for a while.

Over/under 11 minutes?

By now, rational people would have come up with some kind of deal. Each side would not like parts of it, but they would be able to live with it especially when the industry is doing well and most are making money.

But we're dealing with greed and short sightedness. Not to mention power plays. 

I don't agree with everything posted here, but I can see the rationale behind things I don't agree with. I probably could have a conversation with many people here. What is missing in these talks?

2 hours ago, zisk said:

Good guys? They're all a bunch of D-bags.

Agreed. It's a collective bargaining where both sides are trying to get al they can. 

Just get back to playing baseball.