Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[cavebird]

so the players wanted 114 games and the owners wanted 48 - and if there are 60 to 66, and with the expanded playoffs the owners mainly wanted, and if they don't have to open the books, then the players won.

got it.

do you think owners care who won "the battle of public opinion?" (which is quite debatable, anyway, if one looks beyond the navel-gazing social media bubble - which people often forget is a terrible guide to actual reality). these are businessmen.

Of course they care---if they weren't getting smoked on that count, Manfred doesn't fly out to meet Clark. If it was going the other way around, Clark flied to NYC.

[cavebird]

You don't see bad faith there?

You and I are haggling on the price of a car, we go back and forth - and your offers are terrible - and finally I say, "fine I'll take the original offer we discussed, you just write up the paperwork and get me the keys", when what I really mean is "I'm just waiting for you to hand over paperwork so I can hand it to my lawyers to sue you". You don't think that's bad faith?

And no, especially when they tell the dealership that they intend to do that--which they did. While they didn't tweet it, MLB definitely knew it. MLBPA decided that MLB wasn't negotiating in good faith (probably because the offers never really got better), and said, we'll argue it to the arbitrator, just impose what you want. That isn't bad faith negotiations, that's just giving up on negotiations.

[Ken]

Anyone who was paying attention knew they would file a grievance in that circumstance; it is not like they ever denied it.

Odd, if anyone who was paying attention knew it, why not include that in the public announcements - "just tell us when and where ... and then we'll sue you"? This is a joke, you are dug in and that's fine. The owners are clearly at fault overall here, but the "whoa is me, just tell me when, we just want to play" line that the players tried to pass off to the public was a sham too. I'm not sure why it's so hard to see that.

Also, it very much isn't like buying a car. The car dealership can't impose a deal on you within certain parameters with your only recompense being to file a grievance---you can just walk away.

It's always funny to me when someone presents an analogy and the opposite side can't see the correlation. Right, there's differences, that's why its an analogy and not a description of the actual event. Analogies bring to light commonality, focusing on the differences completely whiffs on the point. The analogy wasn't related to "imposing a deal". But forget it, you aren't actually interested in discussing the topic here, you just want to attack the analogy. That's fine. Carry on!

But if you want to go with a car sales analogy, here is how I see it in a car sales analogy. The MLBPA goes into a used car dealership looking to buy a car that is worth about $7,500. The dealership offers it at $10,000 with 0% interest. Annoyed, the buyer (MLBPA), says, okay, $5,000 in cash (this is the 114-game offer). The dealer counters with an offer of $9,500 with a 3% interest rate, which comes out to close to the same thing as the first offer. The buyer, wanting to move negotiations on, makes a real move and offers $6,250 (this is the 89-game offer). The dealership counters with $9,000 and 7% interest. Buyer says screw it and walks away. Dealer, afraid of losing the sale, comes running out and offers $8,500 with 0% interest (current MLB offer). Now, the question is what the MLBPA will do.

.... your analogy is fine generally, but it leaves out the point we were actually discussing which was the concept of agreeing to an offer but then suing. In your description, the "buyer says screw it and walks away" portion is a terrible description of this scenario - instead it should read - "buyer agrees to the $9,500 with 3% interest deal and asks for the paperwork so he can take it to his lawyer to find ways to sue the dealership for false advertising.

But sure, I don't disagree that the owners offers were bad and they operated in bad faith. I've said that previously in this thread.

[Judge Jude]

Of course they care---if they weren't getting smoked on that count, Manfred doesn't fly out to meet Clark. If it was going the other way around, Clark flied to NYC.

you forgot to respond to this part:

"so the players wanted 114 games and the owners wanted 48 - and if there are 60 to 66, and with the expanded playoffs the owners mainly wanted, and if they don't have to open the books, then the players won.

got it."

[KnuckleBalls]

And no, especially when they tell the dealership that they intend to do that--which they did. While they didn't tweet it, MLB definitely knew it. MLBPA decided that MLB wasn't negotiating in good faith (probably because the offers never really got better), and said, we'll argue it to the arbitrator, just impose what you want. That isn't bad faith negotiations, that's just giving up on negotiations.

Exactly!!!! In my opinion this IS negotiating in good faith. In a negotiation that was clearly being delayed by the owners to get it closer to the 50 games without "imposing" a season, Clark called "bullshit". This is a common way to force a conclusion to negotiations going nowhere. It put the ball in owners court and it looks like it may work. I hope anyway. As for misleading the public, it was clear to me what "tell us where and when meant". It was very clear to the owners what it meant.

I'll say it again, I really think this needs to get done by Fathers Day.

[Ken]

you forgot to respond to this part:

"so the players wanted 114 games and the owners wanted 48 - and if there are 60 to 66, and with the expanded playoffs the owners mainly wanted, and if they don't have to open the books, then the players won.

got it."

Isn't that just called negotiation? If you want me to give you $100 for something and I only want to give $50, I'm going to offer $30, not $50. 114 was negotiation number.

[Ken]

Exactly!!!! In my opinion this IS negotiating in good faith. In a negotiation that was clearly being delayed by the owners to get it closer to the 50 games without "imposing" a season, Clark called "bullshit". This is a common way to force a conclusion to negotiations going nowhere. It put the ball in owners court and it looks like it may work. I hope anyway. As for misleading the public, it was clear to me what "tell us where and when meant". It was very clear to the owners what it meant.

I'll say it again, I really think this needs to get done by Fathers Day.

that's fine! You guys trust greedy millionaires A LOT more than I do.

[Judge Jude]

Isn't that just called negotiation? If you want me to give you $100 for something and I only want to give $50, I'm going to offer $30, not $50. 114 was negotiation number.

so was 48

[KnuckleBalls]

Don't get me wrong Ken. I do think they are both at fault. I just think that the Clark statement finally put an end to the bullshit to get this thing going. Believe me, I may offer Snell for 10 cents on the dollar for his duecebgag comments. Trying to get millionaires and Billionaires to see through our eyes is futile so I am just going with the latest common sense negotiation ploy.

[Sour Masher]

My interpretation of the "Tell us where and when" statement was "since you don't want to budge and this is going nowhere, just do what you want to do, but know we are not gonna be happy about it and we are gonna make you pay later." That second implicit bit is what got the owners finally moving. If the owners thought it meant, "you know what, we don't care anymore, we are cool, just tell us when we will play, thanks" there is no way they would have budged from their initial proposal. That may not be what the casual observer would have read into, though.

[DMT]

My interpretation of the "Tell us where and when" statement was "since you don't want to budge and this is going nowhere, just do what you want to do, but know we are not gonna be happy about it and we are gonna make you pay later." That second implicit bit is what got the owners finally moving. If the owners thought it mean, "you know what, we don't care anymore, we are cool, just tell us when we will play, thanks" there is no way they would have budged from their initial proposal.

That may not be what the casual observer would have read into, though.

Agreed. The owners were the ones who wanted to leak their offers and have their dirty laundry aired out in public. The players turning that tactic against them by tweeting only part of their offer in no way brings them down to the same level IMO.

[Sour Masher]

I think a point of confusion here now though is the assumption that players might now hold out or delay or not play. That is not my take on it. My take is that the owners want new things. They want expanded playoffs and no grievances. Those are not what the players had agreed to when they said "let's just play." I believe the players would go and play 48 right now if the owners didn't demand those two things.

[TranaGreg]

I think a point of confusion here now though is the assumption that players might now hold out or delay or not play. That is not my take on it. My take is that the owners want new things. They want expanded playoffs and no grievances. Those are not what the players had agreed to when they said "let's just play." I believe the players would go and play 48 right now if the owners didn't demand those two things.

this is a very good point. This could be how some things get pushed thru that have been simmering for a very long time (universal DH, expanded playoffs, etc)

[revo]

[Judge Jude]

Eric Fisher spent decades working for Sports Journal, yet clearly he needs to be educated by RJ Bullpen:

Eric Fisher
@EricFisherSBG
· 39m
Time has been an enemy of this whole thing, and there's really not room anymore to even contemplate the 114 games in the union's original proposal. But between that offer and this latest one, the union has shaved more than a billion dollars in total player compensation.

Eric Fisher
@EricFisherSBG
·
23m
In guaranteed money, the owners’s total rise is more in $200 million range