Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[revo]

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

Huh? There was never any serious consideration even remotely given to a 114 game season.

And BTW, JJ, the owners are once again making themselves look terrible by insisting their last offer was "agreed upon" even with Manfred releasing a statement saying it was just the "framework for an agreement."

[revo]

According to Bob Nightengale, the owners are "incensed" about the players' counter, which really just increased the number of games from 60 to 70. WTF??

[cavebird]

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.

The when and where line was obviously PR the second it was uttered---hell, it was originally in a press release (a different sort of PR). Of course, that won't include then we'll sue you. It was actually decent PR from the MLBPA for a change. At least their PR wasn't actually lies about the profitability of MLB.

[cavebird]

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!



.... 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.

My basic problem with the analogy is that it works fine right up until the important point. My walks away part isn't exactly accurate. Your suing for false advertising after accepting the offer isn't exactly accurate---the players weren't agreeing to anything. The players were just acknowledging that MLB could force certain things, got sick of MLB's tactic of trying to make them negotiate against themselves, and got sick of the clock wasting, so they said no deal is going to happen, do what you have to do. There just isn't any car buying scenario where there is something similar since you can always just go to another dealership.

[cavebird]

Huh? There was never any serious consideration even remotely given to a 114 game season.

And BTW, JJ, the owners are once again making themselves look terrible by insisting their last offer was "agreed upon" even with Manfred releasing a statement saying it was just the "framework for an agreement."

If something is ever agreed upon, there would be a press conference, probably joint. Trying to insist there was an agreement without that looks silly---I agree.

[Sour Masher]

According to Bob Nightengale, the owners are "incensed" about the players' counter, which really just increased the number of games from 60 to 70. WTF??

I haven't followed closely enough, but isn't getting a 50 mil in playoff bonuses and a 50/50 cut of the new postseason money a new thing? The owners probably figured they'd get to keep all the extra money. That is what I assumed--that owners would pay full prorated rate and use the expanded playoff money to still come out ahead.

[cavebird]

I haven't followed closely enough, but isn't getting a 50 mil in playoff bonuses and a 50/50 cut of the new postseason money a new thing? The owners probably figured they'd get to keep all the extra money. That is what I assumed--that owners would pay full prorated rate and use the expanded playoff money to still come out ahead.

There were always playoff bonuses for this year. I think there are in most years as part of the CBA. The owner's proposal was 33 mil in playoff bonuses, I think. (The most recent one.)

[revo]

There were always playoff bonuses for this year. I think there are in most years as part of the CBA. The owner's proposal was 33 mil in playoff bonuses, I think. (The most recent one.)

It was $25m in postseason bonuses and $33m in forgivable money from the $170m they gave them in March.


Before it was reported that the owners were “livid” with a Union counter, but Manfred just came out and stated that he “invited” a counter. The right hand of the owners doesn’t know what the left is doing. *sigh*

[Ken]

Before it was reported that the owners were “livid” with a Union counter, but Manfred just came out and stated that he “invited” a counter. The right hand of the owners doesn’t know what the left is doing. *sigh*

Or worse, there's internal strife within the ownership room

[cavebird]

Or worse, there's internal strife within the ownership room

Yeah, that seems to be exactly what is going on. If the Manfred side holds sway, we should have a deal in a day or two---they aren't far apart now--a few million bucks and 10 games. But if he can't control the room, the whole thing gets blown up quickly.

[Erik]

Or worse, there's internal strife within the ownership room

There have been reports that 6-8 owners would prefer to cancel the season. If that's true, it explains a lot about the incoherent messaging we've been hearing from that side.

[GwynnInTheHall]

And so it begins, multiple teams reporting players and staff have tested positive for Covid-19.

See ya in 2022.

[Ken]

And so it begins, multiple teams reporting players and staff have tested positive for Covid-19.

See ya in 2022.

Maybe all this back and forth was actually for the best after all.... if they had started earlier like the EPL I wonder how many more cases we'd have.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Maybe all this back and forth was actually for the best after all.... if they had started earlier like the EPL I wonder how many more cases we'd have.

My wife mentioned something I had overlooked--Because the athletes are testing daily, the cases are springing up with more frequency--Imagine if we ALL tested once a week or so--Cases might spike everywhere.

[revo]

And so it begins, multiple teams reporting players and staff have tested positive for Covid-19.

See ya in 2022.

Just skipping next year?

Also, 2022 is the strike year, so we could forget about that season too.