Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[cavebird]

Man, talk about negotiating in bad faith. If that's truly the case, then I'm back to both sides being at fault here. Billionaires arguing with millionaires. No surprise that both are greedy assholes I guess.

Why is that negotiating in bad faith? MLBPA made two offers---the second was a big step in the owners' direction (25 games less, which is $600 million less) while MLB had three offers that didn't change much in total guaranteed salary. If they had continued to go down on their number, they would have fallen into the trap of negotiating against themselves. Since they saw no movement from the other side, they said, fine, do what you have to do, we'll file the grievance. Now, the latest offer is a real move by MLB--if they don't counter, then that would be a lack of good faith negotiating.

[Sour Masher]

Why is that negotiating in bad faith? MLBPA made two offers---the second was a big step in the owners' direction (25 games less, which is $600 million less) while MLB had three offers that didn't change much in total guaranteed salary. If they had continued to go down on their number, they would have fallen into the trap of negotiating against themselves. Since they saw no movement from the other side, they said, fine, do what you have to do, we'll file the grievance. Now, the latest offer is a real move by MLB--if they don't counter, then that would be a lack of good faith negotiating.

I agree. Hard to know if this was a ploy or if players had given up on the process, and that giving up and telling owners, fine, just tell us when and where and just know we are in for a battle later scared them or woke them up that they needed to actually make a real offer, and which point the players decided to begin negotiations again, since a real compromise was being offered at last.

Whatever the case, I hope the players don't haggle themselves out of a deal, but at the same time, if they can get a few more games over the 60 proposed, I'm happy to have more baseball. Whatever it ends up being, I hope they hammer it out within the next day or so. Try to get 12 more games, settle for 46 call it a day, play ball. But at this point with Fauci saying to finish the season by October, it would be really hard to fit even 6 more games in the schedule.

[Ken]

Why is that negotiating in bad faith? MLBPA made two offers---the second was a big step in the owners' direction (25 games less, which is $600 million less) while MLB had three offers that didn't change much in total guaranteed salary. If they had continued to go down on their number, they would have fallen into the trap of negotiating against themselves. Since they saw no movement from the other side, they said, fine, do what you have to do, we'll file the grievance. Now, the latest offer is a real move by MLB--if they don't counter, then that would be a lack of good faith negotiating.

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?

[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?

That's not how buying a car works. And the MLBPA wasn't shy about what their intentions were. They thought that MLB wasn't negotiating in good faith, knew the earlier agreement gave Manfred the power to impose a season but also had requirements to negotiate in good faith and have as long a season as possible, and knew they could file a grievance if it happened. They called MLB's bluff. MLB knows their bluff was called--Manfred flew to see Clark today, not the other way around.

[revo]

That's not how buying a car works. And the MLBPA wasn't shy about what their intentions were. They thought that MLB wasn't negotiating in good faith, knew the earlier agreement gave Manfred the power to impose a season but also had requirements to negotiate in good faith and have as long a season as possible, and knew they could file a grievance if it happened. They called MLB's bluff. MLB knows their bluff was called--Manfred flew to see Clark today, not the other way around.

Agree 100%.

They also knew that if they cancelled the season, where the March agreement is ambiguous as to the reasons why, they also stood a damned good chance of losing a grievance.

Say what you will about him, but Tony Clark, the non-lawyer ex-player, played Manfred, the senior collective bargaining expert lawyer, good.

[Ken]

That's not how buying a car works.

It's an analogy. This isn't hard. Also, yes it's exactly how car buying works. I've been through the process many times. And the last time, they brought me paperwork for the wrong vehicle and tried to get me to take a car I wasn't negotiating for. So I've seen bad faith in negotiating.

And the MLBPA wasn't shy about what their intentions were.

You're still missing it. All the tweets said just tell us when and where - the perception they were giving the public was that they just wanted to play. The reality was they just wanted to sue. Not sure how anyone would think those are the same thing.

[revo]

You're still missing it. All the tweets said just tell us when and where - the perception they were giving the public was that they just wanted to play. The reality was they just wanted to sue. Not sure how anyone would think those are the same thing.

Well, they wanted to play.....and sue.

[Judge Jude]

The players wanted 89 games, and then 114.

they agree to 60 to 66 - and the owners get their expanded playoffs for two years.

and the owners got played?

also, if you think Tony Clark pulled the strings, I have a bridge to sell you....

[Ken]

Well, they wanted to play.....and sue.

Exactly - the information they were sending out to the public was we just want to play. That was not reality. It was a sham.

[revo]

The players wanted 89 games, and then 114.

they agree to 60 to 66 - and the owners get their expanded playoffs for two years.

and the owners got played?

also, if you think Tony Clark pulled the strings, I have a bridge to sell you....

Absolutely. He totally made the owners out to be the bad guys and Rob Manfred out to be the Most Hated Man in America -- and considering the competition, that's a difficult achievement -- in a single sentence.

[Judge Jude]

so the owners got most of what they wanted - and that means they got played?

what would have been the scenario to make you say that the owners came out ahead?

and if you can't think of one...

[gcstomp]

Lot of talking like this is done and we are ready to play, did I miss the big announcement? Per RW about 12 hours ago "The report states that the MLBPA "is adamant that no deal was reached," with Clark informing Manfred that the proposal of a 60-game season was not long enough." We have had the we will play baseball 100% talk, then have had that blow up already. MLB does not want to get sued, that is the big give back to players, so owners dont have to open books? Not a great look for owners as you have to think there is a pile of profits that they dont want disclosed, at least that is perception.

Players are not pushovers this go around, will extract more games than 60, or burn this season down and owners will lose way more than players. This is all very ugly, but I do not see mis steps by players, they are working it as well as they can.

[revo]

so the owners got most of what they wanted - and that means they got played?

what would have been the scenario to make you say that the owners came out ahead?

and if you can't think of one...

First of all, no one has gotten anything yet.

Secondly, there isn't anyone who's been paying attention who believes the owners won the battle of public opinion. They've been shooting themselves in the foot the entire time, from Manfred's stunning walkback, to DeWitt's asinine unprofitable comment, to Ricketts comment about 70% from the gate.

Owners would have come out ahead in a short season of 48-52 games, like Manfred was apt to impose before they suddenly realized they may get sued and lose badly.

Owners would have come out ahead if a season was cancelled and they were able to keep the TV money, and an arbitrator decided in their favor.

Owners would have come out ahead if they didn't historically mangle the March 26th agreement where the return to play clause was so ambiguous that 50 lawyers could give 50 differing summaries.

[Judge Jude]

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.

[cavebird]

It's an analogy. This isn't hard. Also, yes it's exactly how car buying works. I've been through the process many times. And the last time, they brought me paperwork for the wrong vehicle and tried to get me to take a car I wasn't negotiating for. So I've seen bad faith in negotiating.



You're still missing it. All the tweets said just tell us when and where - the perception they were giving the public was that they just wanted to play. The reality was they just wanted to sue. Not sure how anyone would think those are the same thing.

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

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.