2021-22 CBA Negotiation/Lockout Thread (DEAL IS AGREED TO)

[Make Angels Great Again]

4 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The owners initiated the lockout, then waited 42 days to submit a proposal, and now today Manfred says, "Phones work two ways," implying that the players could have/should have responded earlier.  Laughable. 

 

I don't think it's laughable since we don't know all the details of their communications since even before the lockout occurred.

You're laughing at rampant speculation. To me, that's weird.

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The owners initiated the lockout, then waited 42 days to submit a proposal, and now today Manfred says, "Phones work two ways," implying that the players could have/should have responded earlier.  Laughable. 

I know it is just flat out more fun to think one side is being unreasonable and greedy. 

Enjoy it how you will.

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The owners initiated the lockout, then waited 42 days to submit a proposal, and now today Manfred says, "Phones work two ways," implying that the players could have/should have responded earlier.  Laughable. 

[Tank]

6 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The owners initiated the lockout, then waited 42 days to submit a proposal, and now today Manfred says, "Phones work two ways," implying that the players could have/should have responded earlier.  Laughable. 

there's the private part of negotiations, and there's the public part of negotiations.

[mmc]

 

[Taylor]

As long as March 20 Angels vs. Dodgers happens, I'll be happy.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, Tank said:

there's the private part of negotiations, and there's the public part of negotiations.

Don’t you know the drill?  When there is a day with no talks between the two sides, it is the owners that are guilty of wasting time.

[jsnpritchett]

11 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I know it is just flat out more fun to think one side is being unreasonable and greedy. 

Enjoy it how you will.

I has nothing to do with it being more "fun" for me to think this way.  A lockout is a unilateral decision (obviously) and it seems monumentally stupid for the owners to then expect the players to come to them with some sort of offer, after they're (the owners) the ones that brought normal relationships to a halt.  I'd think the same thing about the players if they called a strike and then the MLBPA didn't make an official offer to the owners for a month and a half.

I really don't give a shit which side "wins" in all this.  I just want baseball to be played.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I has nothing to do with it being more "fun" for me to think this way.  A lockout is a unilateral decision (obviously) and it seems monumentally stupid for the owners to then expect the players to come to them with some sort of offer, after they're (the owners) the ones that brought normal relationships to a halt.  I'd think the same thing about the players if they called a strike and then the MLBPA didn't make an official offer to the owners for a month and a half.

I really don't give a shit which side "wins" in all this.  I just want baseball to be played.

I am just making a point that maybe doesn’t apply to you personally.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[T.G.]

13 minutes ago, Taylor said:

As long as March 20 Angels vs. Dodgers happens, I'll be happy.

Selfish bastard.

[jsnpritchett]

4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am just making a point that maybe doesn’t apply to you personally.

...by quote-replying me.  Ok....

[gotbeer]

32 minutes ago, Tank said:

there's the private part of negotiations, and there's the public part of negotiations.

Then there is Tanks lunchtime negotiations.

[Dtwncbad]

10 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

...by quote-replying me.  Ok....

Yes.  And then your subsequent paragraph let me know you were not really one of those fans in knee jerk mode blaming one side.

And then I acknowledged that.

[fan_since79]

I miss the annual "pitchers and catchers report" excitement, knowing the long depressing winter is over and baseball is soon to return.

Any guesses on the date? March 15th? April? May??

If the parties don't put aside their greed and mutual animosity and settle this soon, we may be looking at a 100-game season at best.

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, mmc said:

 

Im actually surprised about the DH thing... it shouldn't be a big deal for players because, as we see in the AL, most teams don't bother to go with a full time DH, and without an extra roster spot it's not really an extra job. Also teams are constrained by their budgets and the luxury tax, so, again I don't see this getting the players much of anything.

The elimination of draft pick compensation is a huge get for the players, and there must have been some compromise somewhere to get the owners to agree to it. The owners also use draft pick compensation to deflate signing bonuses in the amateur draft.

[Dtwncbad]

32 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

I has nothing to do with it being more "fun" for me to think this way.  A lockout is a unilateral decision (obviously) and it seems monumentally stupid for the owners to then expect the players to come to them with some sort of offer, after they're (the owners) the ones that brought normal relationships to a halt.  I'd think the same thing about the players if they called a strike and then the MLBPA didn't make an official offer to the owners for a month and a half.

I really don't give a shit which side "wins" in all this.  I just want baseball to be played.

For fun though, since you are NOT someone that automatically just blames the owners:

A lockout was a move by the owners that was the result of the two sides not having a new agreement.  The lockout did not create the problem.

I disagree that the immediate time that followed the lockout (where NEITHER side did anything) is the fault of one side.

No, the owners are not “the ones that brought the normal relationship to a halt”. . . The CBA expired.  That’s what brought the normal relationship to a halt and that expiration date was agreed upon by both sides in the last deal.

I take you at your word that you are not on one side.  Honest.

But I do notice how people talk about this issue.   And sometimes it sure looks like they are on one side, or at the very least saying things that appear that way.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[jsnpritchett]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

For fun though, since you are NOT someone that automatically just blames the owners:

A lockout was a move by the owners that was the result of the two sides not having a new agreement.  The lockout did not create the problem.

I disagree that the immediate time that followed the lockout (where NEITHER side did anything) is the fault of one side.

No, the owners are not “the ones that brought the normal relationship to a halt”. . . The CBA expires.  That’s what brought the normal relationship to a halt and that expiration date was agreed upon by both sides in the last deal.

I take you at your house word that you are not on one side.  Honest.

But I do notice how people talk about this issues. And sometimes it sure looks like they are on one side, or at the very least saying things that appear that way.

The CBA was expiring,yes--but that does not mean that the owners were forced to call a lockout.  Lockouts and strikes are by their very nature inflammatory. 

[eligrba]

I need Manfred to explain how spring training can be unaffected when the owners initiated a lock out.

Bottom line, it's millionaires arguing with billionaires about how much each group can grab from the federally protected money pot called MLB.

[Dtwncbad]

3 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The CBA was expiring,yes--but that does not mean that the owners were forced to call a lockout.  Lockouts and strikes are by their very nature inflammatory. 

I dis not say they were “forced” to lockout the players.  And I agree both lockouts and strikes are “inflammatory.”

But that does not mean I think they are not the right move to make.  I personally would expect one to make a move based on the timeline, even if that move can be called inflammatory.

I want this over as much as the next guy.  Taking about me here, I am just not going to get hung up on whether it was a lockout or a strike or react to the latest tweet by one side clearly designed to get me on their side.

Players want to be “partners” with the owners.  That sounds so nice!  But sometimes owners don’t want partners.  They want to keep the structure more like they are the owners and they have hired talent.  I cannot blame them for that any more than I blame the players for wanting to advance their position in the relationship.

Owners don’t have to share their financials with anybody.  We can complain about that but why on earth would they give up that privacy?  I wouldn’t want to.  Yes, that gives them an advantage because the players  have to negotiate based on assumptions.  But that’s the case in so many instances.  People wanting to negotiate their compensation in other businesses are not entitled to see the financials of private companies (publicly traded companies it is wide open info).  Many companies don’t go public for this very reason!  They don’t want to give up their financial privacy! 

I have no problem with the sides fighting it out in a bloody battle.  It sucks for the fans who just want baseball, of course.

Anyway, I feel like the frustration that fans experiences invites them to fall into taking a side, which is up to them, but so often their position to be on one side is fueled by careful language and wording put out as public posturing from one side to gain their support (to put pressure on the other aide).

I assume the owners have more to give.  I also feel like the players are not entitled to more than what the owners are willing to give them.

So let them work it out.  I don’t care what deal they end up with.

None of us know the real story of what is going on behind the scenes.  Seems kind of dumb to react as if we do.

[Make Angels Great Again]

22 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

The CBA was expiring,yes--but that does not mean that the owners were forced to call a lockout.  Lockouts and strikes are by their very nature inflammatory. 

 

It's not required, yeah, but isn't it pretty standard? At many jobs for example when you go on an extended leave you're not allowed in (or not supposed to be in) secure areas. Same sort of concept, no? I would think the lockout does two things, protects the interests of the owners from a legal perspective, and gives the players a little extra incentive to come to the negotiating table.

[Dtwncbad]

When any of us starts to have a feeling one way or another on a specific issue being negotiated, isn’t it fair to say taking a stance on that issue can’t really be sound when we don’t know how much money the owners make?

I mean all these things go back to money in one way or another, and if it helps the player get a little more or if the owners get to keep a little more.

So isn’t it somewhat logical to have some reservation on being really sure about these things when we don’t know how much the owners actually make?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[T.G.]

Right or wrong... the lockout gave the owners more leverage.  If they hadn't - the players would have had the ability to strike at any time... including during the season - which happened previously. 

[UndertheHalo]

Lockout was expected and this the way these kinds of labor negotiations go.  Lockout isn’t a surprise.  The question of whether the owners are negotiating in good faith at all or if they’re interested in a partnership with their labor.  That is another question.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

When any of us starts to have a feeling one way or another on a specific issue being negotiated, isn’t it fair to say taking a stance on that issue can’t really be sound when we don’t know how much money the owners make?

I mean all these things go back to money in one way or another, and if it helps the player get a little more or if the owners get to keep a little more.

So isn’t it somewhat logical to have some reservation on being really sure about these things when we don’t know how much the owners actually make?

Your position essentially comes down to, nothing the owners do can be seen as unreasonable because it's their business and we don't have all the information.

Maybe this is true, but if it is it's because of their anti-trust exemption. They should throw that out and the union along with it, and baseball would be better for it.

 

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Your position essentially comes down to, nothing the owners do can be seen as unreasonable because it's their business and we don't have all the information.

Maybe this is true, but if it is it's because of their anti-trust exemption. They should throw that out and the union along with it, and baseball would be better for it.

 

It would be foolish to think the owners are never being unreasonable.  I am saying it is way too easy to just blame them for all kinds of things.

I see how the anti-trust exemption is at the base of lots of the problems with the sides being able to easily make progress negotiating because (as I said before) it is tough to negotiate when you don’t know what the other side really makes.

But I don’t then just pivot into wanting the anti-trust exemption gone.

There is going to be a union no matter if the exemption stays or goes.

So I am not really motivated to yearn for one side to give up a huge element of their strength when the other side will never give up the union.