March 9, 20224 yr Author Just now, Texsox said: @southsider2k5 the players are locked out, what would threatening a strike do? There was a time period before the owners locked them out where they could have threatened a strike.
March 9, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: See that's the crux of the whole problem. Only one side has been using leverage to try to create high pressure situations through this whole process. The owners didn't have to lock the players out. Negotiations could have continued without a lockout, as could the entire off-season. They could have also attempted to offer to negotiate in good faith while working under the structure of the old deal until which team that a new deal could have replaced it. The owners didn't have to sit on a players offer for 43 days and not negotiate at all during that time frame. The owners have cried "last and final" on now four different occasions, and yet here we still are. I have yet to see the players threaten to strike, or refuse to negotiate for long periods of time. The longest response time I can recall to an owners proposal was two days. The closest thing I have seen to a threat from the players I have seen was that if the full regular season wasn't played, an expanded playoffs wasn't going to happen. i think much of this is a matter of timelines. The owners have the leverage now. Thus they has a lockout prior to the season before the players could strike at the end of the season. The owners have set each final offer prior to significant loss of games. ie. opening day, being able to play 162 etc. The owners are using their leverage when they have it. The players would have it at the end of the season. If they strike prior to the playoffs, the players get their money, the owners lose a substantial part of their revenue. The players would have and should used their leverage now if the roles were reversed. If the players only received payments in the post season and the owners got the majority of their money during the season, you would see the reverse of the situation and the players would strike now. The players are showing this by the comments of, if we wait another week we will get more concessions from the owners. My entire point is, neither are the great evil being, neither are the angels from heaven. Both are using what leverage they have in negotiations. And both are taking my baseball away, and I very strongly dislike both side for doing that. But I understand the negotiations.
March 9, 20224 yr 6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Did Boras actually say that, or was that just Sampson using Boras as a Boogeyman, because I have yet to see a quote like that directly from him. Not saying he couldn't have said it, but the only place I have seen it was from an Ex-MLB owner. It fits with his MO of negotiation tactics. i haven't seen him refute it. It makes sense for negotiations.
March 9, 20224 yr Author https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ https://tw itter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ
March 9, 20224 yr 2 minutes ago, ptatc said: i think much of this is a matter of timelines. The owners have the leverage now. Thus they has a lockout prior to the season before the players could strike at the end of the season. The owners have set each final offer prior to significant loss of games. ie. opening day, being able to play 162 etc. The owners are using their leverage when they have it. The players would have it at the end of the season. If they strike prior to the playoffs, the players get their money, the owners lose a substantial part of their revenue. The players would have and should used their leverage now if the roles were reversed. If the players only received payments in the post season and the owners got the majority of their money during the season, you would see the reverse of the situation and the players would strike now. The players are showing this by the comments of, if we wait another week we will get more concessions from the owners. My entire point is, neither are the great evil being, neither are the angels from heaven. Both are using what leverage they have in negotiations. And both are taking my baseball away, and I very strongly dislike both side for doing that. But I understand the negotiations. ... but players didn't strike before the playoffs... and owners did lock them out. I don't understand your point.
March 9, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: There was a time period before the owners locked them out where they could have threatened a strike. A strike now would hurt the players more than the owners. The players probably would have strung out the negotiations until the playoffs to really hurt the owners, if they hadn't been locked out.
March 9, 20224 yr Author 3 minutes ago, ptatc said: i think much of this is a matter of timelines. The owners have the leverage now. Thus they has a lockout prior to the season before the players could strike at the end of the season. The owners have set each final offer prior to significant loss of games. ie. opening day, being able to play 162 etc. The owners are using their leverage when they have it. The players would have it at the end of the season. If they strike prior to the playoffs, the players get their money, the owners lose a substantial part of their revenue. The players would have and should used their leverage now if the roles were reversed. If the players only received payments in the post season and the owners got the majority of their money during the season, you would see the reverse of the situation and the players would strike now. The players are showing this by the comments of, if we wait another week we will get more concessions from the owners. My entire point is, neither are the great evil being, neither are the angels from heaven. Both are using what leverage they have in negotiations. And both are taking my baseball away, and I very strongly dislike both side for doing that. But I understand the negotiations. I have yet to see this actually happen. I have definitely yet to see players do things to artificially create leverage and shorten the negotiations window.
March 9, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ https://tw itter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ Interesting compromise. I like it.
March 9, 20224 yr Author 2 minutes ago, ptatc said: It fits with his MO of negotiation tactics. i haven't seen him refute it. It makes sense for negotiations. I have yet to see someone actually attribute the quote to him either. Usually when he talks, 50 people are tweeting it.
March 9, 20224 yr Author 3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: ... but players didn't strike before the playoffs... and owners did lock them out. I don't understand your point. This.
March 9, 20224 yr Just now, southsider2k5 said: I have yet to see this actually happen. I have definitely yet to see players do things to artificially create leverage and shorten the negotiations window. Of course it won't happen. It's set that the owners get paid in the playoffs and the players during the regular season. It was just a hypothetical of how the negotiation might change if the roles were reversed.
March 9, 20224 yr 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Well then the owners should stop trying to sneak shit in at the last minute so they can manipulate it down the road.
March 9, 20224 yr 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: I have yet to see someone actually attribute the quote to him either. Usually when he talks, 50 people are tweeting it. True. Could be just my bias against Boras. but its out there and the negotiations seems to be following that path.
March 9, 20224 yr 14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: There was a time period before the owners locked them out where they could have threatened a strike. That makes sense. MLB could have pushed that by trying to get started without an agreement in place and wait for the union to strike. That may have been one of the few PR moves here that MLB got right. Make certain MLB are the villians and have the fans continue to support the players by going to games, watching games, merch, etc.
March 9, 20224 yr 17 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: There was a time period before the owners locked them out where they could have threatened a strike. There was? Didn't the lockout begin at the exact second the CBA expired, so the first legal second that a labor impasse could have begun?
March 9, 20224 yr 10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: ... but players didn't strike before the playoffs... This would have been illegal.
March 9, 20224 yr 2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: There was? Didn't the lockout begin at the exact second the CBA expired, so the first legal second that a labor impasse could have begun? That's how I remember it. But we know you just can't trust a boomer's memory.
March 9, 20224 yr 14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ https://tw itter.com/BNightengale/status/1501688188506574849?s=20&t=fDuyODcl7ZCKlvPYnSNauQ This seems fair to me. It means the designing of a system wouldn't be rushed.
March 9, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said: Well then the owners should stop trying to sneak shit in at the last minute so they can manipulate it down the road. Can we stop characterizing the making of proposals and options as trying to "sneak shit in." As far as everything that's being reported, it sounds like MLB is trying to be flexible and creative to get a deal done. And yes, of course some of these things benefit their side. That's a negotiation. I think a lot of people have become so anti-owner in this whole thing that they can't see what's happening objectively.
March 9, 20224 yr Meanwhile somewhere I hope the front office is lining up calls to make, players to target. Perhaps some intermediaries are carrying secret messages between the club, potential players, and their agents. It would be so cool if within 48 hours of a deal players were being signed to massive contracts.
March 9, 20224 yr Just now, Perfect Vision said: Can we stop characterizing the making of proposals and options as trying to "sneak shit in." As far as everything that's being reported, it sounds like MLB is trying to be flexible and creative to get a deal done. And yes, of course some of these things benefit their side. That's a negotiation. I think a lot of people have become so anti-owner in this whole thing that they can't see what's happening objectively. Exactly. But maybe they are hoping the other side doesn't read all the details, but I really doubt it.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.