MLB Lockout Thread

[Tony-OH]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:22 PM, Camden_yardbird said:

I hate to say it because I would rather side with labor, but I think a lot of the players asks would end up in a weak competitive system.

No (or inflated) top end cap.

No revenue sharing.

Lottery.

Opposition to an international draft.

4 years of player control

If you want to increase salaries and competitiveness, raise the minimum salary, adopt revise player control rules that ensure market value salaries in years 4-6, expand the playoffs.

As far as the two sides are off I think we could see what the OP suggests. Kick the can down the road.

 

Yep, it's clear the player shave no interest in a competitive playing field for all, but how they can make the most money as possible for their constituents.

Basically if you are not a big market team fan, you should not be happy with the players in this situation so far. Lord knows I don't want to be on the owners side, but at the end of the day, I'm an Orioles fan who wants the best system to make the game competitive for all teams.

I don't think the players or the big market teams care one bit about that and that's why these negotiations are disappointing.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

The Owners call for a Federal mediator is a move toward what I was suggesting in the OP.   Here is what MLBTR is reporting about a mediator.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/mlb-requests-federal-mediator-to-help-resolve-lockout.html

I don’t think the owners’ call for a mediator is a call for a season-long standstill at all.  Mediators are asked to intervene in labor disputes all the time.   Often, it allows the parties to “save face” by agreeing to things the mediator suggests, rather than agreeing to what the other side proposed.   I’ve been involved in a couple of dozen mediated disputes, and that’s the main dynamic.  

I’d be happy if the sides agree to a standstill, but I seriously doubt that happens.   I do hope the union agrees to a mediator, because the way the two sides have been negotiating has been completely unproductive.   
 

[wildcard]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think the owners’ call for a mediator is a call for a season-long standstill at all.  Mediators are asked to intervene in labor disputes all the time.   Often, it allows the parties to “save face” by agreeing to things the mediator suggests, rather than agreeing to what the other side proposed.   I’ve been involved in a couple of dozen mediated disputes, and that’s the main dynamic.  

I’d be happy if the sides agree to a standstill, but I seriously doubt that happens.   I do hope the union agrees to a mediator, because the way the two sides have been negotiating has been completely unproductive.   
 

I never said that the two sides would agree to a standstill.   I hope they agree to play the season while the mediation occurs.  If they did that they would play under 2021 rules until an agreement could be reached.

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I never said that the two sides would agree to a standstill.   I hope they agree to play the season while the mediation occurs.  If they did that they would play under 2021 rules until an agreement could be reached.

That’s what a standstill is.   And I doubt it happens.

[interloper]

MLBPA to reject the mediator anyway, so we're back to square 1. 

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, interloper said:

MLBPA to reject the mediator anyway, so we're back to square 1. 

One didn't help last time.

It struck me more as a PR move than an honest effort.

Remember it was owners that locked players out and then went six weeks without communicating.

[wildcard]

12 minutes ago, interloper said:

MLBPA to reject the mediator anyway, so we're back to square 1. 

That is just Drellich opinion.  I don't think we have heard from the union yet.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

That’s what a standstill is.   And I doubt it happens.

Then standstill is not a very good description.    The season would be played and the two sides would be negotiation in mediation.   That is hardly what I think of as a standstill.

[Frobby]

24 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Then standstill is not a very good description.    The season would be played and the two sides would be negotiation in mediation.   That is hardly what I think of as a standstill.

Sorry, I went all lawyer on you.   In legal parlance, a standstill agreement basically preserves the status quo while the parties continue to talk.  

[NCRaven]

I believe that the MLB request for federal mediation was both - serious and a publicity issue.  There's no reason it can't be both.  And, I think it's a bad look for the MLBPA to outright reject mediation.  A move like that is the reason that fans side with the owners over the players even though the players might be right on the issues.  Also, I don't think that the players would have any reason to strike until the playoffs.  They will have banked their pay for the season and can deprive the owners of one of their biggest revenue sources.  That is the reason for the lockout in the first place, so the owners control the timing of any work stoppage instead of the players.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I believe that the MLB request for federal mediation was both - serious and a publicity issue.  There's no reason it can't be both.  And, I think it's a bad look for the MLBPA to outright reject mediation.  A move like that is the reason that fans side with the owners over the players even though the players might be right on the issues.  Also, I don't think that the players would have any reason to strike until the playoffs.  They will have banked their pay for the season and can deprive the owners of one of their biggest revenue sources.  That is the reason for the lockout in the first place, so the owners control the timing of any work stoppage instead of the players.

I read an interesting take on the mediation request.  The idea was that it might have been a play by the ownership group to get the owners to buckle down take this seriously.

Which to me would be bizarre if they can develop a unified front without outside help but if it's true it doesn't bode well for the process.

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

MLBPA to reject the mediator anyway, so we're back to square 1. 

MLBPA doesn't want the fairness of mediator. They are all about winning at all costs. More money, less fairness. Less competition, but a few more dollars in their pockets to play in front of less people as fans continue to drop baseball in favor of other entertainment options. 

The MLBPA is the problem and will be the downfall of baseball as we know it unless the players wake up and get new leadership.

[Tony-OH]

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I read an interesting take on the mediation request.  The idea was that it might have been a play by the ownership group to get the owners to buckle down take this seriously.

Which to me would be bizarre if they can develop a unified front without outside help but if it's true it doesn't bode well for the process.

The problem with a unified front is the big market teams don't have the same issues as the small market teams. Mediation is the only way this comes to end with any kind of fairness.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

MLBPA doesn't want the fairness of mediator. They are all about winning at all costs. More money, less fairness. Less competition, but a few more dollars in their pockets to play in front of less people as fans continue to drop baseball in favor of other entertainment options. 

The MLBPA is the problem and will be the downfall of baseball as we know it unless the players wake up and get new leadership.

So the owners are faultless here?

 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

The problem with a unified front is the big market teams don't have the same issues as the small market teams. Mediation is the only way this comes to end with any kind of fairness.

Sure but 30 pretty similar people should be to come to a consensus over something this important.

In the grand scheme of things a small market owner is a lot more similar to a big market owner than they are you or I.