Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[cavebird]

If the union files a grievance is there a possibility then that there is no season?

No, that will be about money. And, hell, I don't even know if they care if they win it. If the owners' defense is losing money, they can argue back that the owners can't prove that without showing the real books, which helps them for 2022.

[madducks]

All the owners want is the postseason, that's all this has ever been about. Postseason is the cash cow, and the players hardly get a taste.

Pirates players are used to hardly getting a taste.

[madducks]

No, that will be about money. And, hell, I don't even know if they care if they win it. If the owners' defense is losing money, they can argue back that the owners can't prove that without showing the real books, which helps them for 2022.

That's what i was thinking. Just how much of this 2020 battle are they willing to sacrifice to better position themselves for the upcoming 2022 war.

[chancellor]

And the owners may well grieve over the "players not bargaining in good faith". Had I remembered to buy beer yesterday, I'd have attributed that to mishearing due to my post-MMA stupor. But I was sober, and when Passan said that on ESPN Sportscenter last night, I couldn't believe it.

I agree with cavebird - I think the union welcomes any grievance at this point where they can possibly pry open the owners books as prep for the 2022 labor wa...I mean negotiation.

[revo]

This is dangerous territory for the owners. If they impose a short season of say 48-52 games, and the union wins its grievance, the owners could potentially be on the hook for repaying as much as 20-24 games in back pay, or ~$500m.

If they're smart, which they're not, they would just go with a middleground of 60 games.

[KnuckleBalls]

Right on Revo. Tony Clarke dropped the mic with "It's time to get back to work. Tell us where and when". That's all his press conference needed to be. No doubt this is about the next CBA and opening the books. Owners are in it now.

This better get this done by Fathers Day. It'll be like getting an ugly tie from the relative you don't really like but at least it will be a present.

[chancellor]

This is dangerous territory for the owners. If they impose a short season of say 48-52 games, and the union wins its grievance, the owners could potentially be on the hook for repaying as much as 20-24 games in back pay, or ~$500m.

If they're smart, which they're not, they would just go with a middleground of 60 games.

The more I think about the MLBPA's move, the more I admire it. If Manfred imposes a short season, while I doubt they'd win the grievance, they might. But more importantly, they will get a better look at owner finances. If Manfred imposes a 60-game season, then they landed 20% more than expected. If the owners grieve, per ESPN last night, I can't think of a winning scenario for them and the MLBPA may well get better looks at the books. And the players get huge plus PR - I mean, think about it - the commish imposes a short season after the players told them "where and when" and the owners grieve them.

And, gosh, everyone could be smart - Manfred could impose a 60-game season, the players and owners could celebrate the compromise, the short season generates some new teams and a high level of excitement in the playoffs, and viewership is very high. Yeah, I know. That can't happen.

[revo]

The more I think about the MLBPA's move, the more I admire it. If Manfred imposes a short season, while I doubt they'd win the grievance, they might. But more importantly, they will get a better look at owner finances. If Manfred imposes a 60-game season, then they landed 20% more than expected. If the owners grieve, per ESPN last night, I can't think of a winning scenario for them and the MLBPA may well get better looks at the books. And the players get huge plus PR - I mean, think about it - the commish imposes a short season after the players told them "where and when" and the owners grieve them.

And, gosh, everyone could be smart - Manfred could impose a 60-game season, the players and owners could celebrate the compromise, the short season generates some new teams and a high level of excitement in the playoffs, and viewership is very high. Yeah, I know. That can't happen.

I was listening to Jim Bowden the other day, and he said when it comes to arbitrators, you just never know what you're going to get. He felt that sometimes they make decisions on opinions and not facts, and some use facts and not opinions. So it's like 50/50 on how a grievance in front of an arbitrator will work out. Does MLB want to leave it basically up to chance if they'll owe dramatically more than they expect? Knowing them now -- probably.

I'd love to see the owners impose a short season and get smacked around in an arbitration case against them. It's clear as day that they used the leverage of the calendar against the players. It would be poetic justice.

[fuhrdog]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but if/when Manfred comes out with the schedule...can he expand the playoffs this year without the players approval. I'm thinking he can't but not sure. If the players have to agree...well that's not happening...right?

[cavebird]

Not sure if this has already been discussed, but if/when Manfred comes out with the schedule...can he expand the playoffs this year without the players approval. I'm thinking he can't but not sure. If the players have to agree...well that's not happening...right?

No. He cannot expand the playoffs without MLBPA approval. The MLBPA put that in all of their offers, but all were rejected. And no, that's not happening now. Hard stop.

[revo]

[revo]

This proves MLB is in the wrong, as they know the Union will file a grievance against them if Manfred implements a schedule of their choosing, one in which they stand a great chance of losing.

Idiots.

[Ken]

I feel like someone needs to advise Manfred on how percentages work.

[chancellor]

This proves MLB is in the wrong, as they know the Union will file a grievance against them if Manfred implements a schedule of their choosing, one in which they stand a great chance of losing.

Idiots.

That's certainly possible, given that past performance does not necessarily equal future results. Though I still think it's very doubtful the players win this arb case.

I actually think it's a cover for internal dissension among the owners about how many games should be played - I don't think they were ready for Tony Clark to do what he did since the MLBPA has always pretty much folded before in cases like this.

However, your conclusion is succinct and inerrant.

[cavebird]

That's certainly possible, given that past performance does not necessarily equal future results. Though I still think it's very doubtful the players win this arb case.

I actually think it's a cover for internal dissension among the owners about how many games should be played - I don't think they were ready for Tony Clark to do what he did since the MLBPA has always pretty much folded before in cases like this.

However, your conclusion is succinct and inerrant.

This is probably the problem. And why the owners kept offering variations of the same offer. They had to have something where every team breaks even---which makes some teams make tons and skews things heavily in the owners favor. They had to do this because the owners would not agree to share profits, even for this season, and the owners who would lose money wouldn't want to do so. I wonder when the teams that would make money on a season will start putting the pressure on Manfred.