February 4, 20224 yr Author 53 minutes ago, Texsox said: No, it's more like the car company having record profits and the salesperson says we want a 10% raise and the company counters with a .02% raise. No one is asking the players to give back anything they earned in the last CBA. They have already given it up.
February 4, 20224 yr 43 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: They have already given it up. Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing?
February 4, 20224 yr 57 minutes ago, Texsox said: Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing? The silence is deafening.
February 4, 20224 yr Author 1 hour ago, Texsox said: Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing? They have been taking a larger and larger share of revenues. The players are losing both share and dollars.
February 4, 20224 yr 1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said: They have been taking a larger and larger share of revenues. The players are losing both share and dollars. So the owners were violating the CBA? And the union can't get a court to decide in their favor?
February 4, 20224 yr Author 25 minutes ago, Texsox said: So the owners were violating the CBA? And the union can't get a court to decide in their favor? The idea that the players are asking for something crazy just isn't true. The owners have already been taking a larger share of revenues and now want to grow the pie even larger are still not make the players get to where they were. They are down 5 full percentage points (or around 10%) of where they were in 2008 from 52 to 47% of revenues. In 2003 it was 63%. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2020/05/12/mlb-players-revenue-sharing-fight-coronavirus-pandemic/3110292001/
February 4, 20224 yr Author As revenues have gone up, salaries are down. https://www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it
February 4, 20224 yr 8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: The idea that the players are asking for something crazy just isn't true. The owners have already been taking a larger share of revenues and now want to grow the pie even larger are still not make the players get to where they were. They are down 5 full percentage points (or around 10%) of where they were in 2008 from 52 to 47% of revenues. In 2003 it was 63%. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2020/05/12/mlb-players-revenue-sharing-fight-coronavirus-pandemic/3110292001/ Agreed. I never said they were asking for anything crazy. What I said was looking at the last CBA and this one, the players aren't being asked to give up anything, it will all be a much deserved, easily absorbed for most teams, gain for the players. I don't see any points in the CBA that the players were asked to accept less than the last CBA. Yes, profits grew faster than salaries and players deserve higher salaries. For at least the third time. Once again I will say, the owners could end this today by accepting the union's last offer and still retain generational wealth that will outlive their children's children. If the players accepted the last offer from the owners they will have a gain. I don't believe they should take the last offer, they would be leaving a lot of money on the table. I place 100% of the blame on the owners that this hasn't been settled. They have made offers that are ridiculous in scope. They locked out the players, it's up to them to make a serious offer.
February 4, 20224 yr 8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: As revenues have gone up, salaries are down. https://www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it Where is this addressed in the CBA? I'm looking but I can't find anything.
February 4, 20224 yr Further to my point, the current financial situation in baseball is so one sided towards the owners that in these negotiations they do not need any concessions from the players. This isn't a situation where if I do this for you I need you to do this for me. I'm seeing it as proof how good the owners have it. But as I've also stated, I'm pro settlement. If the union accepted the last offer I wouldn't shed any tears for a player at the league minimum.
February 4, 20224 yr 47 minutes ago, Texsox said: Further to my point, the current financial situation in baseball is so one sided towards the owners that in these negotiations they do not need any concessions from the players. This isn't a situation where if I do this for you I need you to do this for me. I'm seeing it as proof how good the owners have it. But as I've also stated, I'm pro settlement. If the union accepted the last offer I wouldn't shed any tears for a player at the league minimum. Pro settlement seems right when the parties involved are millionaires and billionaires. This isn't Piggly Wiggly vs the cashiers union.
February 4, 20224 yr 21 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Of course they can spend an extra ten million. But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this.
February 4, 20224 yr 4 minutes ago, Texsox said: Of course they can spend an extra ten million. But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this. Excellent points.
February 4, 20224 yr 10 minutes ago, poppysox said: Pro settlement seems right when the parties involved are millionaires and billionaires. This isn't Piggly Wiggly vs the cashiers union. No, this isn't a Piggly Wiggly vs, the cashiers union. It is much more complicated than that. Very few people can hit a 95 MPH fastball or throw one. But you expect the "millionaires" to automatically cave into the "billionaires." I remember when JR and his group bought the White Sox. He wanted a new stadium with the state paying for it. He wanted that stadium to have skyboxes and fancy restaurants. He wanted all parking lot revenue. Then free TV was going way. He said he needed all of this and basically got it. Then he decided he wanted to break the union because this wasn't enough. Yes, this is different from a normal collective bargaining situation, but the idea behind it is the same. The employers get everything and the employees get nothing. And the owners know what they can do with their expanded playoffs.
February 4, 20224 yr 7 minutes ago, Texsox said: Of course they can spend an extra ten million. But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this. Oh I completely agree with everything in your response. Valuations and revenue are both way up, which is why framing matters here. It will cost more than $10m from each owner to end this, and it should. But ownership can more that afford to find a more even split and still rake in cash, but they are pretending like they’ve made fair offers when it’s blatantly obvious to most that they haven’t.
February 4, 20224 yr 29 minutes ago, poppysox said: Pro settlement seems right when the parties involved are millionaires and billionaires. This isn't Piggly Wiggly vs the cashiers union. Coming from the most pro-ownership sycophant on this site, this is rich. I would chuckle if I weren’t dizzy from rolling my eyes at the continual nonsensical framing.
February 4, 20224 yr 13 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Oh I completely agree with everything in your response. Valuations and revenue are both way up, which is why framing matters here. It will cost more than $10m from each owner to end this, and it should. But ownership can more that afford to find a more even split and still rake in cash, but they are pretending like they’ve made fair offers when it’s blatantly obvious to most that they haven’t. So far neither side has made an offer that they thought had a snowballs chance of being accepted. But since this is a lockout and not a strike, I blame the owners more. You started it, it's up to you to end it.
February 4, 20224 yr 5 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Coming from the most pro-ownership sycophant on this site, this is rich. I would chuckle if I weren’t dizzy from rolling my eyes at the continual nonsensical framing. I know you would prefer a forum where everyone agrees with you.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.