MLB Lockout Thread

[wildcard]

25 minutes ago, Ohfan67 said:

I agree that they don't like each other, but disagree about "one wants to beat the other." It's about money. It has always been about money and always will be about money. The players and owners have been headed for a nasty labor dispute for years. They can't agree on how much money there is to split, much less how to split it. I always thought this would be a "real" strike/lockout, not a late spring break kind of thing. Both sides will have to hurt a bit before they are in the mood to compromise. I'm not more pessimistic this week than I was a month ago because I have always been pessimistic.

It can be about money and they still can want to beat each other.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Please understand that a mediator doesn’t make any decisions.   He’s/she’s just an intermediary who helps the two sides get to yes.   The mediator might say to one side, “have you thought about offering X?”   Or, “have you considered conceding X in exchange for Y?”   Or, the mediator might say, “I think you might be wrong about the economic impact of Z, for the following reason…”.   Sometimes, he just shuttles back and forth between the two sides because they can’t stand to be in the same room together.   But the mediator has no power to force either side to agree to anything.   So, fairness isn’t really an issue.   

What makes you think I don't understand what a mediator does? 

The Fairness of having a mediator is that you have a person that is on no ones side and should be looking at the offers and counteroffers and and giving suggestions on how to bring the parties together. 

The fact that the players don't want this tells me they think they can break the owners. I would not doubt of the MLBPA is not colluding with the big market owners on the side. 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Pickles said:

If the owners were supposed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, that changes the situation for me.

Why would this change anything? What is what the players countered with is so off the mark that the owners felt it's best to just bring in mediation?

Anyone who turns down mediation knows they are not trying to get a fair deal, but believe they have a chance of beating the other party. My guess is the MLBPA is secretly negotiating with the big market owners and trying that angle. 

[Pickles]

Just now, Tony-OH said:

Why would this change anything? What is what the players countered with is so off the mark that the owners felt it's best to just bring in mediation?

Anyone who turns down mediation knows they are not trying to get a fair deal, but believe they have a chance of beating the other party. My guess is the MLBPA is secretly negotiating with the big market owners and trying that angle. 

It changes it for me.

If the owners agreed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, and went straight to pushing mediation, then they have broken a promise.

Generally, a bad thing to do in negotiations.

Let them deliver their counter offer- as they promised- first.

[wildcard]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

It changes it for me.

If the owners agreed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, and went straight to pushing mediation, then they have broken a promise.

Generally, a bad thing to do in negotiations.

Let them deliver their counter offer- as they promised- first.

I have not read that the owners agreed to offer a counteroffer.

[LTO's]

4 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

The MLBPA by turning down mediation takes on all blame now for any work stoppage. They MLBPA should be drained of their leadership. They are money hungry idiots who are clueless to the state of the MLB right now.

They have found a way in these "negotiations" make the owners look good, and you know how hard it is to make Billionaire owners look like the fair ones?

It’s pretty astounding how ignorant you are of this dispute in general including the whole idea of mediation. How on earth can the side that literally instituted the “work stoppage” not be responsible for that stoppage. Truly amazing logic there.

One question: why exactly can’t the owners negotiate in good faith with the players without a mediator? Why haven’t they done this even though they expressly said they would? Lying to the public is a good way to grow the game to you?
 

The MLB instituted the lockout to apparently foster discussion and avoid a strike during the season. So why exactly did it take the MLB 43 days since the beginning of the lockout to do literally anything? You don’t understand that in all your handwringing about the future of the sport you are hilariously out of touch. The younger fans, in this social media age, are overwhelmingly on the side of the players. They follow them now closer than ever before and engage with them online in ways they haven’t in the past. Any significant delay will be blamed on the owners.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

I have not read that the owners agreed to offer a counteroffer.

The statement by the MLBPA provided by Sports Guy on the previous page said as much.

I don't know if that is true, but I would be surpised if they would put out such a bald-faced lie.

[Sports Guy]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

I don't like where this is headed.  These two sides hate each other.  Its not about finding an agreement.  Its about one wants to beat the other.

They have always hated each other.  Why do you think this is any different?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I have not read that the owners agreed to offer a counteroffer.

 

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

It changes it for me.

If the owners agreed to deliver a counter offer, and failed to do so, and went straight to pushing mediation, then they have broken a promise.

Generally, a bad thing to do in negotiations.

Let them deliver their counter offer- as they promised- first.

Does it matter if they agree to do it or not?

They didn't counter offer.  That's something sides generally do in this sort of situation.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

The statement by the MLBPA provided by Sports Guy on the previous page said as much.

I don't know if that is true, but I would be surpised if they would put out such a bald-faced lie.

Well, it doesn’t say they were going to make a counter and they didn’t.  It said they refused to.  It’s semantics but there is a big difference between the 2.

If they said, we will definitely counter and then gave them the giant middle finger, I agree it’s bad.

If the players just assumed, through the course of a negotiation, that they would get a counter, that’s different. 

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, it doesn’t say they were going to make a counter and they didn’t.  It said they refused to.  It’s semantics but there is a big difference between the 2.

If they said, we will definitely counter and then gave them the giant middle finger, I agree it’s bad.

If the players just assumed, through the course of a negotiation, that they would get a counter, that’s different. 

The statement explicitly states, "Two days after committing a counter proposal would be made...."

It seems fairly clear-cut.  At least their statement does.

I can't attest to the honesty of their statement.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The statement explicitly states, "Two days after committing a counter proposal would be made...."

It seems fairly clear-cut.  At least their statement does.

I can't attest to the honesty of their statement.

Yep.  Sure does say that.  Completely missed that part.  My bad.

[wildcard]

7 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The statement explicitly states, "Two days after committing a counter proposal would be made...."

It seems fairly clear-cut.  At least their statement does.

I can't attest to the honesty of their statement.

MLBTR says the owners were expected to make a counteroffer, not that they agreed to make a counteroffer.  I guess MLBTR is a neutral observer.

[Tony-OH]

25 minutes ago, LTO's said:

It’s pretty astounding how ignorant you are of this dispute in general including the whole idea of mediation. How on earth can the side that literally instituted the “work stoppage” not be responsible for that stoppage. Truly amazing logic there.

One question: why exactly can’t the owners negotiate in good faith with the players without a mediator? Why haven’t they done this even though they expressly said they would? Lying to the public is a good way to grow the game to you?
 

The MLB instituted the lockout to apparently foster discussion and avoid a strike during the season. So why exactly did it take the MLB 43 days since the beginning of the lockout to do literally anything? You don’t understand that in all your handwringing about the future of the sport you are hilariously out of touch. The younger fans, in this social media age, are overwhelmingly on the side of the players. They follow them now closer than ever before and engage with them online in ways they haven’t in the past. Any significant delay will be blamed on the owners.

Don't respond to me any more. I'm not going to be called ignorant and everything else you throw at me because of your fanboy obsession with the MLBPA. 

I will not be called ignorant on my own site. If you disagree, that's fine, but call me anything else and you will no longer post here. 

[Tony-OH]

27 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Does it matter if they agree to do it or not?

They didn't counter offer.  That's something sides generally do in this sort of situation.

What if they realize they are so far apart that the better action is to bring in a mediator? I don't get how anyone would fault the owners for wanting mediation.