Baseball is back? 60 game season incoming

[hrubes20]

2 hours ago, August4th said:

No counter-offer planned.  That's effing ridiculous.  

[DirtyDez]

14 minutes ago, hrubes20 said:

No counter-offer planned.  That's effing ridiculous.  

Sometimes you’re the hammer, sometimes you’re the nail.  

[Thelonebillsfan]

32 minutes ago, hrubes20 said:

No counter-offer planned.  That's effing ridiculous.  

The idea that they shouldering some immense burden to host half a season so the players need to eat most of the cost is just so absurd on it's face that it's amazing they're not at least making even the most basic attempts to prove otherwise.

[GSUeagles14]

4 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The owners said they'll lose $4B without a season this year, but somehow they're only willing to try and negotiate twice, never once giving the players enough information on their finances to actually construct a deal.

 

can you elaborate on the part of "not giving enough on their finances to construct a deal"?

 

theres so much posting in here the last few pages that are simply devoid of fact that im curious to see what you mean by this. if its the insanle sill "open their books" then we can move on, but if theres an idea with actual substance here im very curious to hear it.

[GSUeagles14]

3 hours ago, hrubes20 said:

No counter-offer planned.  That's effing ridiculous.  

is it though? what do you think isa reasonable counter that the players wouldnt automatically shoot down. were not javing a half season at full half salaries, theres rumors that players dont want a 50 game season at the full prorated, like whats left? 70 games w prorated salaries? 

[biggio7]

They should just put players who don't want to play on restricted lists. Sign or call up a bunch of guys to fill their rosters willing to play for league min or whatever, and play the season. I understand both sides but it's just annoying at this point.

[hrubes20]

16 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

is it though? what do you think isa reasonable counter that the players wouldnt automatically shoot down. were not javing a half season at full half salaries, theres rumors that players dont want a 50 game season at the full prorated, like whats left? 70 games w prorated salaries? 

Yes, it 100% is.  It's settlement negotiation 101.  The perameters have been set with a 50 game season, expanded playoffs, and more player salary cuts on one side, versus a 114 game season, normal playoffs, and full prorated salaries (with some big deferrals).  If you are at all negotiating in good faith, you move towards what should ultimately be the midpoint between the sides.  An ultimate settlement of a 82 game season, expanded playoffs, full pro-rated pay with some deferrals is what the parties should be agreeing to.  But if the owners aren't even coming to the negotiation table, that can't happen.  

[GSUeagles14]

2 hours ago, hrubes20 said:

Yes, it 100% is.  It's settlement negotiation 101.  The perameters have been set with a 50 game season, expanded playoffs, and more player salary cuts on one side, versus a 114 game season, normal playoffs, and full prorated salaries (with some big deferrals).  If you are at all negotiating in good faith, you move towards what should ultimately be the midpoint between the sides.  An ultimate settlement of a 82 game season, expanded playoffs, full pro-rated pay with some deferrals is what the parties should be agreeing to.  But if the owners aren't even coming to the negotiation table, that can't happen.  

for one, its a problem that youve already decided what should be agreed upon. secondly, was the 50 game season ever officially proposed, my understanding is that was just something the owners felt they could enforce as a last resort. am i wrong there?

 

most importantly, when one side says were losing miney with games played, lets do 80 games with decreased salaries. its not good faith to just ignore the context and reasoning and propose more games played when they know it was never goimg to be excepted.

 

and lastly, in real life theres no my turn, your turn requirements. the players didnt offer something realistic enough to get owners to engage, while it would have been nice to see another proposal from mlb, theres nothing stopping the players putting another idea out there to try and restart the convwrsation.

[hrubes20]

1 hour ago, GSUeagles14 said:

for one, its a problem that youve already decided what should be agreed upon. secondly, was the 50 game season ever officially proposed, my understanding is that was just something the owners felt they could enforce as a last resort. am i wrong there?

 

most importantly, when one side says were losing miney with games played, lets do 80 games with decreased salaries. its not good faith to just ignore the context and reasoning and propose more games played when they know it was never goimg to be excepted.

 

and lastly, in real life theres no my turn, your turn requirements. the players didnt offer something realistic enough to get owners to engage, while it would have been nice to see another proposal from mlb, theres nothing stopping the players putting another idea out there to try and restart the convwrsation.

1.  I didn't decide what should be agreed upon.  The nature of negotiations decided.  Once the perameters are set, the midpoint of those perameters is almost always what is an appropriate resolution (assuming both sides started their negotiations from a place of semi-reasonableness).  The Owners set the low perameter at 82 games with a "sliding scale", but then stated they would go down to a 50 game schedule if need be.  

2.  This point is why the MLBPA wants some financial statements.  The Owners can claim that they will lose money no matter what, but until they show some proof, there is no reason for the players to believe them.  It's not a difficult thing to provide, and this type of Discovery is standard in negotiations.  The players were negotiating in good faith by setting the upper perameter, just like the owners initially were by proposing the lower perameter. Their failure to even consider what was contained in the players' proposal is not good faith negotiating, as none of it was so outlandish as to do so.

3.  This is formal negotiation, where there absolutely SHOULD be back-and-forth.  I don't know what you do for a living, but I literally negotiate every day for work.  If the opposing side failed to even respond to me at all, other than a "that's not acceptable" statement, all negotiations come to a screaming halt.  Even if you feel that you have reached the point where you cannot give any more, you at least respond and explain that to the other side.  This is why that financial information is so important.  If the owners provide that, and it actually shows what they are claiming, I bet the players move off their demands a good bit more.  But we all know they won't, because the financial information almost surely doesn't paint as bleak of a picture as they are portraying.  

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

And the obvious cash grab becomes even more obvious.

[GSUeagles14]

1 hour ago, hrubes20 said:

1.  I didn't decide what should be agreed upon.  The nature of negotiations decided.  Once the perameters are set, the midpoint of those perameters is almost always what is an appropriate resolution (assuming both sides started their negotiations from a place of semi-reasonableness).  The Owners set the low perameter at 82 games with a "sliding scale", but then stated they would go down to a 50 game schedule if need be.  

2.  This point is why the MLBPA wants some financial statements.  The Owners can claim that they will lose money no matter what, but until they show some proof, there is no reason for the players to believe them.  It's not a difficult thing to provide, and this type of Discovery is standard in negotiations.  The players were negotiating in good faith by setting the upper perameter, just like the owners initially were by proposing the lower perameter. Their failure to even consider what was contained in the players' proposal is not good faith negotiating, as none of it was so outlandish as to do so.

3.  This is formal negotiation, where there absolutely SHOULD be back-and-forth.  I don't know what you do for a living, but I literally negotiate every day for work.  If the opposing side failed to even respond to me at all, other than a "that's not acceptable" statement, all negotiations come to a screaming halt.  Even if you feel that you have reached the point where you cannot give any more, you at least respond and explain that to the other side.  This is why that financial information is so important.  If the owners provide that, and it actually shows what they are claiming, I bet the players move off their demands a good bit more.  But we all know they won't, because the financial information almost surely doesn't paint as bleak of a picture as they are portraying.  

 

1. They really didnt. you didnt answer my question but from what I can tell on google the 50-60 game season was never proposed, its just a thought that owners feel they can enforce that length based on previous agreements. Their last official proposal was half season with decreased salaries. Again, please correct if im wrong. 

 

2. Private businesses arent in the habit of opening up their books. For good reason. And logic dedicates that the owners preference to play LESS games means theres at least some truth that playing games without fans costs them money. 

 

3. I work in sales, i negotiate often, if not daily then weekly. If i dont propose something that peaks interest, its on me to be more creative and find a way to present value. Jow all that isnt apples to apples in regards to this, however the thought of "welp, they didnt say anything so its over" is absolutely incorrect, a fireable offense imo, and just a poor mentality. Because they didnt counteroffer youre done? No, go back to the drawing board and find something that works for BOTH sides. By no means are the owners innocent here but more games was never going to work. Maybe find a solution for both sides?

 

4. What do you do for a living? Are you a puchaser? regardless, do you think starting at the extremes where you know the other side would never accept nor does it help them in anyway is a good starting point. Or do you think the better way to start, and maintain a relationship, is to start close to the middle, although more geared to your preferences, and wittle down from there?

[ramssuperbowl99]

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by ramssuperbowl99

[GSUeagles14]

2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

 

so in other words, the pa subnitted a giant pile of bs. You personally have made so many factual errors the last handful of pages im surprised youi haven quit posting but here we are.this kicks off with the worst form of virtue signaling, as theres legitimate suffering gfoing on but fortunately pro baseball players arent REALLY subject to it.but lets lead with that because theres other people suffering, not us, but other people.

 

and also, lets bs some more, reiterate that we are ready and willing to play only under our terms, and its the owners fault that they wont agree completley to our terms and wont le u play, again, only under the terms in which we would play games, owners bad, we good. please side with us. 

 

 

 

 

im confused with why you would post that? what do you think it shows?

[mse326]

1 hour ago, GSUeagles14 said:

so in other words, the pa subnitted a giant pile of bs. You personally have made so many factual errors the last handful of pages im surprised youi haven quit posting but here we are.this kicks off with the worst form of virtue signaling, as theres legitimate suffering gfoing on but fortunately pro baseball players arent REALLY subject to it.but lets lead with that because theres other people suffering, not us, but other people.

 

and also, lets bs some more, reiterate that we are ready and willing to play only under our terms, and its the owners fault that they wont agree completley to our terms and wont le u play, again, only under the terms in which we would play games, owners bad, we good. please side with us. 

 

 

 

 

im confused with why you would post that? what do you think it shows?

Which proposal do you think the PA should accept?

The 50 games pro rated salary or the more games but less than pro rated salary (down to as little as 20ish% of salary for about half the season of games)

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

9 hours ago, mse326 said:

Which proposal do you think the PA should accept?

The 50 games pro rated salary

I think the use of the word "proposal" here is a little generous. Manfred could re-start the season whenever the MLB wants to at pro-rated pay per the March agreement already and the players would have to report or they'd risk losing service time.