MLB Lockout Thread

[Tony-OH]

19 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

F both sides.  GD children!

 

Neither side is interested in resolving this thing. We're going to miss games this year at the very least. It's childish and embarrassing on both parties.

[Pickles]

Not looking good.

If they can't sit in a room together for more than 15 minutes, perhaps some outside mediation might not be the worst idea.

[Sports Guy]

8 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Neither wide is interested in resolving this thing. We're going to miss games this year at the very least. It's childish and embarrassing on both parties.

It’s really pathetic.  They can’t even agree to meet.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Not looking good.

If they can't sit in a room together for more than 15 minutes, perhaps some outside mediation might not be the worst idea.

If you walk in and the other side says they aren't willing to alter the last offer why hang out?  The cold cuts?

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you walk in and the other side says they aren't willing to alter the last offer why hang out?  The cold cuts?

Thus outside mediation.

[Sports Guy]

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Thus outside mediation.

A mediator isn't a magician.  If one or both sides aren't interested in a reasonable middle ground what's a mediator going to do?

The more I see how ownership is handling this the less I feel that they will be amendable to a reasonable middle ground.

[Sports Guy]

 

[Sports Guy]

This is really the problem with ownership.  They just don’t care about the game.  

[LookinUp]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

A mediator isn't a magician.  If one or both sides aren't interested in a reasonable middle ground what's a mediator going to do?

The more I see how ownership is handling this the less I feel that they will be amendable to a reasonable middle ground.

I mean, the argument from both sides likely isn't whether they can come to a reasonable middle ground, it's whether the middle ground is reasonable.

What I'm not seeing or hearing is what concessions players are offering, or the MLB's asking for, in return for this $100 million. Money's fungible. Is this the union trying to distribute more to younger players or just trying to get more and using younger players as an excuse?

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

I mean, the argument from both sides likely isn't whether they can come to a reasonable middle ground, it's whether the middle ground is reasonable.

What I'm not seeing or hearing is what concessions players are offering, or the MLB's asking for, in return for this $100 million. Money's fungible. Is this the union trying to distribute more to younger players or just trying to get more and using younger players as an excuse?

Both.   The union wants more because that's what unions do.

But given that right now, the younger players are the ones that are getting much less than their true "value", most of their proposals funnel that extra $ to the younger players (the exception being the significant raise in the luxury tax cap that they want).

[LookinUp]

Just now, SteveA said:

Both.   The union wants more because that's what unions do.

But given that right now, the younger players are the ones that are getting much less than their true "value", most of their proposals funnel that extra $ to the younger players (the exception being the significant raise in the luxury tax cap that they want).

So I'd say to you that the owners have a serious PR deficiency. It'd be easy enough to point to declining ticket sales and economic uncertainty and then point out that the players are looking for $100m more without offsets*.

*That might not be true. Just my assumption.

[Too Tall]

I wonder, if MLB ended the "lockout" tomorrow - but the sides were still where they are at this moment - would the players strike? If they did, how would that change public perceptions? Seems to me that would paint the union on a different canvas.  Also seems to me, MLB is doing the union a favor by not forcing ITS hand.  What am I missing? What would a seaon look/feel like played with no agreement? Now i'm getting more interessted in the dynamics than baseball. It's been a long,dull winter!  I need a drink!

 

[interloper]

This sucks so much. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Too Tall said:

I wonder, if MLB ended the "lockout" tomorrow - but the sides were still where they are at this moment - would the players strike? If they did, how would that change public perceptions? Seems to me that would paint the union on a different canvas.  Also seems to me, MLB is doing the union a favor by not forcing ITS hand.  What am I missing? What would a seaon look/feel like played with no agreement? Now i'm getting more interessted in the dynamics than baseball. It's been a long,dull winter!  I need a drink!

 

Depends on how negotiations are doing come late summer.