MLB Lockout Thread

[rudyrooster]

Negotiations are a "give and take" situation.  I thus far have seen only the MLBPA make any significant "give" in these negotiations.  The union has reportedly abandoned its proposal on getting players a quicker path to free agency.  I had perceived this particular issue as being one of the main "sticking points" on the way to a new CBA.  I realize there are other major issues to be worked out.  Just wanted to make that point.

 

 

 

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

Negotiations are a "give and take" situation.  I thus far have seen only the MLBPA make any significant "give" in these negotiations.  The union has reportedly abandoned its proposal on getting players a quicker path to free agency.  I had perceived this particular issue as being one of the main "sticking points" on the way to a new CBA.  I realize there are other major issues to be worked out.  Just wanted to make that point.

 

 

 

Making a demand that overturns the 50 year status quo, and then walking back from that demand, isn't much of a concession.

[Can_of_corn]

20 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

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. 

Maybe if I had an ounce of trust in ownership I wouldn't question everything they do looking for how it gives them an edge.

I don't see why anyone should fault the Union for not wanting arbitration this quickly into the process (not counting the six weeks owners ignored things).

[Frobby]

55 minutes ago, 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. 

I disagree with your second paragraph.   There are lots of reasons one side might decline a mediation.  And I certainly don’t think the players are secretly negotiating with the big market owners.   In general, I disagree with your inclination to blame the players’ side for how this has gone so far.   Both sides deserve equal blame IMO.

That said, this is one of the most ludicrous negotiations I’ve ever observed.   The parties hardly spoke for two months when they could have been making progress, and both sides seem to be doing more posturing than actual negotiating.    Whether it’s now or later, I do think it may be necessary to insert a mediator to get a deal done.   
 

[Tony-OH]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I disagree with your second paragraph.   There are lots of reasons one side might decline a mediation.  And I certainly don’t think the players are secretly negotiating with the big market owners.   In general, I disagree with your inclination to blame the players’ side for how this has gone so far.   Both sides deserve equal blame IMO.

That said, this is one of the most ludicrous negotiations I’ve ever observed.   The parties hardly spoke for two months when they could have been making progress, and both sides seem to be doing more posturing than actual negotiating.    Whether it’s now or later, I do think it may be necessary to insert a mediator to get a deal done.   
 

We can disagree, that's fine, but it's clear to me that the MLBPA cares nothing, and I mean nothing, about the fans that ultimate pay their very large contracts. An argument can be made that the owners, particularly the large market owners, don't care either, but at least the owners have offered to bring in a mediator. That to me is a stp in the right direction.

BTW, can you tell us some reasons why the MLBPA does not want mediation on Feb 4 with spring training due to start in two weeks (we know it's not starting on time)? 

 

[rudyrooster]

16 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Making a demand that overturns the 50 year status quo, and then walking back from that demand, isn't much of a concession.

50 years status quo?  Even more reason to update the process.

 

[Tony-OH]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Maybe if I had an ounce of trust in ownership I wouldn't question everything they do looking for how it gives them an edge.

I don't see why anyone should fault the Union for not wanting arbitration this quickly into the process (not counting the six weeks owners ignored things).

This doesn't make sense to me. Why is this "so early in the process?" Look, the only person/group who doesn't want arbitration/mediation are the people who think they can win. 

It's pretty clear they are stale mated. It's pretty clear it's going to take some kind of mediation to help bridge this gap if we have any chance of a full season this year.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

This doesn't make sense to me. Why is this "so early in the process?" Look, the only person/group who doesn't want arbitration/mediation are the people who think they can win. 

It's pretty clear they are stale mated. It's pretty clear it's going to take some kind of mediation to help bridge this gap if we have any chance of a full season this year.

Mediation didn't work the last time they tried it.

How many meeting have they actually had? 

This is non-binding arbitration being discussed.  It isn't a panacea. 

[Can_of_corn]

14 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

50 years status quo?  Even more reason to update the process.

 

How many years did they have the reserve clause?

[Pickles]

21 minutes ago, rudyrooster said:

50 years status quo?  Even more reason to update the process.

 

Well, I won't argue the necessity or wisdom of changing the FA rules.

I will point out that demanding a change favorable to yourself and then walking back from that demand is no real concession at all.

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

We can disagree, that's fine, but it's clear to me that the MLBPA cares nothing, and I mean nothing, about the fans that ultimate pay their very large contracts. An argument can be made that the owners, particularly the large market owners, don't care either, but at least the owners have offered to bring in a mediator. That to me is a stp in the right direction.

BTW, can you tell us some reasons why the MLBPA does not want mediation on Feb 4 with spring training due to start in two weeks (we know it's not starting on time)? 

 

They may think the owners’ last proposal was a bad point to start a mediation.  Putting this in my world, let’s say you’ve offered to settle a case for $2 mm but in your mind you’re willing to go to $3 or $3.5 mm.   The other side’s last offer was $10 mm.   If you go to mediation now, the mediator may push for a “split the baby” that puts you in the $6 mm range.   So, you may not want to go to mediation right now.   Make the other side come back with something more in the ballpark and then agree to mediation.

Now, the flip side is that sometimes you need a mediator to tell the other side that their $10 mm demand is insane and they’d better bring it down significantly if they genuinely want to settle the matter.  

There’s a lot of dynamics to this and a CBA negotiation is a lot more complex since it involves many separate issues, some interrelated and some unrelated to each other.   The MLBPA may feel that a mediator would be helpful when they’re down to 2-3 stubborn issues, but not when there’s 20 issues on the table.   

It also may just be that the MLBPA is seeing the owners cracking a bit and they feel by standing their ground right now they’ll get some concessions.   

 

[Frobby]

From MLBTR:

It’s a wholly unsurprising outcome, given the manner in which meetings between the two sides have played out thus far. Major League Baseball’s suggestion for a federal mediator was always eyebrow-raising, given their lack of any kind of new proposal. There’s nothing to mediate, after all, when one side declines to even bring an offer to the table. As Sheryl Ring points out (Twitter thread), mediation of this nature is generally a measure taken when both sides have submitted a good-faith proposal to resolve a dispute, and a third party then helps foster progress toward a resolution.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/mlbpa-rejects-mlb-federal-mediation.html

[jabba72]

I'd love for them to play 162 games, but if lost games are what it takes for the sides to get serious and negotiate, there's little anyone on the outside can do about that.

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Mediation didn't work the last time they tried it.

How many meeting have they actually had? 

This is non-binding arbitration being discussed.  It isn't a panacea. 

No kidding. Neither is the current process.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

From MLBTR:

It’s a wholly unsurprising outcome, given the manner in which meetings between the two sides have played out thus far. Major League Baseball’s suggestion for a federal mediator was always eyebrow-raising, given their lack of any kind of new proposal. There’s nothing to mediate, after all, when one side declines to even bring an offer to the table. As Sheryl Ring points out (Twitter thread), mediation of this nature is generally a measure taken when both sides have submitted a good-faith proposal to resolve a dispute, and a third party then helps foster progress toward a resolution.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/mlbpa-rejects-mlb-federal-mediation.html

Sounds like a press release from MLBPA. You should be smarter than believing propaganda.