I wonder if players would start demanding lockout clauses or cba clauses in their contracts. Something like "If your bitchass locks me out, my ass still gets my money"

35 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Really?  I can't look away at the beginning of the season.  So damn excited to watch baseball again.  Then again, I probably watch 155+ Sox games a year, so month doesn't matter much. 

This is me.  If I am not watching, I have the radio on, or am looking at my phone...  Maybe all of the above.

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is me.  If I am not watching, I have the radio on, or am looking at my phone...  Maybe all of the above.

Yeah I at least follow. Bare minimum, I know how they did before going to sleep (unless the game is going really late and I need sleep).

Today: Nobody likes the games in April anyways, too cold.

April: Nobody likes the games in June anyways, too hot.

August: Nobody likes the games in October anyways, too cold.

7 hours ago, bmags said:

Maybe, but a big reason why this turned into games lost is because perceived lack of respect. You don't lean into that by doing what manfred did. He's truly, truly a moron.

Instead he should have tried to give so little in continuous negotiations the players walked away so he could say "See! The players walked away!"

Ptatc is correct that urgency can't be created 3 months ahead of time.  Backs up against the wall urgency is always the way it is played.  Once in a great while, it can happen early if there is zero animosity and that will never be the case with baseball.

But I was told the players would fold.

19 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is me.  If I am not watching, I have the radio on, or am looking at my phone...  Maybe all of the above.

Yeah - mlb.tv on the phone for sure if I can't actually park in front of a tv. 

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

Really?  I can't look away at the beginning of the season.  So damn excited to watch baseball again.  Then again, I probably watch 155+ Sox games a year, so month doesn't matter much. 

Same!

I’ll keep saying it, but we’re fucked with Manfred as commissioner.  He’ll never get the small market owners to agree with the large market owners, which means he’ll never have a serious offer to present to the players.  It’s going to take a month of lost games for one side to concede IMO.

5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Based on the initial owners offerings, I have no doubt the players would have kept playing under the old system.

I agree that players would have agreed to play under the old contract until mid to late season.  The threat of strike carries much more weight at that time of year.

38 minutes ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I wonder if players would start demanding lockout clauses or cba clauses in their contracts. Something like "If your bitchass locks me out, my ass still gets my money"

Although insurance against strikes/lockouts on private markets used to be a thing, I'm pretty sure that type of clause would actually be illegal. 

(Pretty sure the owners had strike insurance in 1994, and since they used that as a key thing in driving the labor dispute, people stopped offering that product as commonly. Not sure if it still exists at all).

3 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I agree that players would have agreed to play under the old contract until mid to late season.  The threat of strike carries much more weight at that time of year.

So the owners would rather cancel the season than be put in a spot where they would be under pressure to come to an agreement?

5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’ll keep saying it, but we’re fucked with Manfred as commissioner.  He’ll never get the small market owners to agree with the large market owners, which means he’ll never have a serious offer to present to the players.  It’s going to take a month of lost games for one side to concede IMO.

I keep saying it back - I don't see how things are any different a month from now. When there was no deadline, the owners went 43 days with no offers and then 19 days before their second revision. 

The next deadline isn't until about June, and that's the "2020 style season" and loss of the full year for them. 

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

 

So they never pushed the owners up to the point where 7 would vote against it?

18 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But I was told the players would fold.

No...you were told the players have a harder time holding all the players together when this game goes into extra innings.  More than 50% of players are not going to gain because they already are not affected by raising the minimum and the CBT max is more a factor for the top guys.  You can only miss so many paychecks before it wears thin.  I will say the players have held surprisingly strong in the face of a reasonably strong offer.  That $700M offered for minimum wage affects a lot of players.

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So the owners would rather cancel the season than be put in a spot where they would be under pressure to come to an agreement?

I don't think either side wants to cancel the season.  That will certainly be killing the "Goldern Goose" no matter which side you favor.  Given the choice, it would be my belief that owners feel they have much more control of the situation now than in the July/August timeframe.  I think most people would think this will be worked out in at least 2 or 3 months if not sooner.  So from the owner's perspective losing the first two months of the season is much better than losing the last two months.  

This is good. Happ is a smart and thoughtfull dude. 

 

5 hours ago, bmags said:

I don't think it will enable more steals and I think the less rules in games the better. What are going to have challenges on players too many inches past their allotted position? 

It won't make the game better to watch. Making pitchers throw less hard will make the game better to watch.

I used to be very anti-banning shift, but after seeing discourse on it, I'm at least open to it.

I don't think it would be as bad as you are making it out to be. I think Joey Gallo brought this discussion to life over on twitter recently. Hitting is extremely hard. We can't be telling the hitters to 'just BeAt ThE ShIfT' because it's incredibly difficult to do. So the idea of banning the shift might be a way to workaround it. It's not as simple as 'ban all shifts' but there can be distinct rules to follow.

I'm... at least open to the idea and I think we all should be. 

 

The bigger bases have proven to increase steals in the minor leagues where they were enacted.

 

28 minutes ago, poppysox said:

I don't think either side wants to cancel the season.  That will certainly be killing the "Goldern Goose" no matter which side you favor.  Given the choice, it would be my belief that owners feel they have much more control of the situation now than in the July/August timeframe.  I think most people would think this will be worked out in at least 2 or 3 months if not sooner.  So from the owner's perspective losing the first two months of the season is much better than losing the last two months.  

There is a ton of reporting about owners being willing to cancel at least a months worth of games that states otherwise.  But the best way to get there is to start canceling games to prove a point. Now the players aren't the bad guys for holding out for what they want because the owners l9cked them out.

41 minutes ago, poppysox said:

No...you were told the players have a harder time holding all the players together when this game goes into extra innings.  More than 50% of players are not going to gain because they already are not affected by raising the minimum and the CBT max is more a factor for the top guys.  You can only miss so many paychecks before it wears thin.  I will say the players have held surprisingly strong in the face of a reasonably strong offer.  That $700M offered for minimum wage affects a lot of players.

That's thousand, not million. And also you know what affect low wages players even more?  Getting the number the players are asking for.

I also am curious why literally with the people with the most to lose and the highest costs to absorb have no pressure here?  Players have mortgages,  but owners have bond payments and debt service with a lot more zeros. They will also start losing TV contracts and ad dollars. 

Possible dispute for service time regarding cancelled games. Considering it was the owners who initiated the lockout, the players probably should get the service time.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/canceled-regular-season-games-raise-the-possibility-for-a-dispute-regarding-service-time.html

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

There is a ton of reporting about owners being willing to cancel at least a months worth of games that states otherwise.  But the best way to get there is to start canceling games to prove a point. Now the players aren't the bad guys for holding out for what they want because the owners l9cked them out.

Please re-read what I wrote.  I very much think the owners are willing to lose a month or two as I stated.  What do you mean "that states otherwise"?  No one is saying anyone is the bad guy.  I am explaining from the owner's perspective that a lockout now is in the owner's best interest.  A strike in late Summer would be advantageous to the players.  Both sides will lose a ton of money every day that this continues.  This can't be handled like kids on the playground saying they can stay out all year if they need to.  Neither side will have a game to come back to...at least not a game that has this size pie to divide.

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That's thousand, not million. And also you know what affect low wages players even more?  Getting the number the players are asking for.

I also am curious why literally with the people with the most to lose and the highest costs to absorb have no pressure here?  Players have mortgages,  but owners have bond payments and debt service with a lot more zeros. They will also start losing TV contracts and ad dollars. 

You are correct about the K.  I am not implying that owners have nothing to lose and didn't say that.  I gave the reason why the owners prefer now vs later in the Summer.  Every day of these delays costs players, owners, fans, vendors, and hundreds of people who live off the game money that won't be re-earned anytime soon.  To be clear...I don't care what the final settlement is because I won't get a nickel from either side.  I want to have baseball as soon as I can get it.

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

I keep saying it back - I don't see how things are any different a month from now. When there was no deadline, the owners went 43 days with no offers and then 19 days before their second revision. 

The next deadline isn't until about June, and that's the "2020 style season" and loss of the full year for them. 

My understanding is missing April games doesn’t cost the owners TV money, but it will once the calendar hits May.  As for the players, they will eventually break once they realize the owners will not make them whole for a shortened season and they start to run out of reserves.  Give it a month and I think both sides get serious, but for now just us fans suffer.

Edited March 4, 20224 yr by Chicago White Sox

10 minutes ago, poppysox said:

Please re-read what I wrote.  I very much think the owners are willing to lose a month or two as I stated.  What do you mean "that states otherwise"?  No one is saying anyone is the bad guy.  I am explaining from the owner's perspective that a lockout now is in the owner's best interest.  A strike in late Summer would be advantageous to the players.  Both sides will lose a ton of money every day that this continues.  This can't be handled like kids on the playground saying they can stay out all year if they need to.  Neither side will have a game to come back to...at least not a game that has this size pie to divide.

And yet, here we are