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

[Lou]

Players are not negotiating in good faith. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

11 minutes ago, Lou said:

Players are not negotiating in good faith. 

It’s about time

[Stradling]

The only thing that makes me feel good about this situation is the fact that this is how negotiations are supposed to go.  

[Lou]

37 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It’s about time

Players are greedy 

[m0nkey]

#ImWithThem

[Angels 1961]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Players are greedy 

Owners are greedy and do not care about fans. 

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Owners are greedy and do not care about fans. 

Players are greedy and don't care about fans. 

[disarcina]

just read a Manfred post on another site with the 'negotiations' update including details of the owner's offer which provides some concessions.  

obviously the financial stuff is front and center -- the 'rule change' stuff which seems to be just a bargaining chip for the owners to cave on some NON-financial issue as a 'concession' includes the DH in the NL (already bargained away by MLB into the deal -- and now 'outlawing shifts'--  while these 'rule changes' are mere bargaining chips for Owners and MLBPA to trade off from -- they are probably key issues for the fans.

I cannot imagine 'outlawing the shift' in MLB -- why can't hitters just learn to hit to the opposite field and BEAT the shift. Drive in a winning run - perhaps twice will do it -- with that - and teams using the 'shift' on defense would think twice.

I guess that did it in the NBA outlawing zone defense -- never made sense to me there either.  Let teams play and defend how they wish -- in any sport -- work up an offense / play that beats the shift.

[ThisismineScios]

I think a legitimate concern about just pumping up the CBT is that the big market teams will spend up to that new threshold and the small market teams, who will still claim poverty, will spend the exact same. Calling it the competitive balance tax is laughable.

It’s interesting to me that baseball is the only sport where teams can get away with just flat out not spending. I don’t really know hockey but in the NBA and NFL, there are spending floors. I know they have a cap, but how can this be a thing? How do the owners justify not having a floor at all? I know this is the root of all problems, but long-term the players should be working on the floor, not the theoretical ceiling. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, disarcina said:

just read a Manfred post on another site with the 'negotiations' update including details of the owner's offer which provides some concessions.  

obviously the financial stuff is front and center -- the 'rule change' stuff which seems to be just a bargaining chip for the owners to cave on some NON-financial issue as a 'concession' includes the DH in the NL (already bargained away by MLB into the deal -- and now 'outlawing shifts'--  while these 'rule changes' are mere bargaining chips for Owners and MLBPA to trade off from -- they are probably key issues for the fans.

I cannot imagine 'outlawing the shift' in MLB -- why can't hitters just learn to hit to the opposite field and BEAT the shift. Drive in a winning run - perhaps twice will do it -- with that - and teams using the 'shift' on defense would think twice.

I guess that did it in the NBA outlawing zone defense -- never made sense to me there either.  Let teams play and defend how they wish -- in any sport -- work up an offense / play that beats the shift.

It’s funny because zone defenses suck in the nba.

My theory is that they are going to do their best to make the game un-watchable over the next several years. We’ll see, but so far they are just shitting all over the sport IMO.

[AngelsLakersFan]

5 minutes ago, ThisismineScios said:

I think a legitimate concern about just pumping up the CBT is that the big market teams will spend up to that new threshold and the small market teams, who will still claim poverty, will spend the exact same. Calling it the competitive balance tax is laughable.

It’s interesting to me that baseball is the only sport where teams can get away with just flat out not spending. I don’t really know hockey but in the NBA and NFL, there are spending floors. I know they have a cap, but how can this be a thing? How do the owners justify not having a floor at all? I know this is the root of all problems, but long-term the players should be working on the floor, not the theoretical ceiling. 

It’s the players who have pushed against it. They think agreeing to a floor will mean they have to agree to a cap. Of course during all the years the players have not agreed to any floor restrictions the owners have piece by piece implemented a de-facto cap.

[Dtwncbad]

13 hours ago, Stradling said:

The only thing that makes me feel good about this situation is the fact that this is how negotiations are supposed to go.  

There are two parties in a street fight and you are watching.  You are not one of the two parties. Your opinion about what is “supposed to” happen now or what should have happened by now is meaningless and irrelevant.

They are going through what they need to go through.  Yes, this is exactly what needs to happen to resolve it.  Say it again.  What you are observing is what needs to happen.

It is early March.  Early March.  They have made progress. The negotiations are going the way they need to go.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[beatlesrule]

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that the league is willing to increase the first CBT threshold if the union makes concessions in other areas. The most recent negotiations have had the owners unwilling to raise the threshold beyond $220MM with the players trying to push it to $238MM. Even that $220MM has been difficult for the owners, as four of them voted against that offer.

In order to bridge that gap, Rosenthal says the owners would want “a variety of adjustments,” which would include the players lowering their ask on the bonus pool for pre-arbitration players. The players did indeed drop their ask on the pool in their proposal today, from $85MM to $80MM, but a further reduction would apparently be necessary in order to get the league to budge on the CBT issue. Furthermore, Rosenthal adds that the league “would want the union to accept a streamlined process for implementing rules changes beyond the 2023 season.” This would apparently go beyond what the union already agreed to earlier today, as Rosenthal writes that “The league wants the ability to make other changes for subsequent years within 45 days of the end of a season. Such changes would be implemented upon the recommendations of a competition committee composed of more league than union representatives, effectively giving commissioner Rob Manfred the power to act as he chooses.”

[ScottT]

#whenandwhere

[Angels 1961]

13 hours ago, AlwaysAnAngelsFan said:

 

Most fans are ignorant because they don't understand both the owners and the players are greedy and don't care about the fans.

Net worth of Arte Moreno compared to net worth of players on 40 man halo roster?  

[Lou]

33 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Net worth of Arte Moreno compared to net worth of players on 40 man halo roster?  

Net worth of Arte compared to every Angel player's career earnings while in Anaheim?

[Erstad Grit]

38 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Net worth of Arte Moreno compared to net worth of players on 40 man halo roster?  

financial risk of Arte compared with the players? Even consider the Skaggs stuff.  Those are risks the owner must carry.  Arte might need to pay out.  Chisek isn't liable or at risk for things like that.  

[Dtwncbad]

46 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

Net worth of Arte Moreno compared to net worth of players on 40 man halo roster?  

Moreno’s net worth is more.  I guess you are one of those that decides who is the most greedy by the amount of their net worth?

That’s about as stupid as you can get.  

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Moreno’s net worth is more.  I guess you are one of those that decides who is the most greedy by the amount of their net worth?

That’s about as stupid as you can get.  

Consider the source.

[fan_since79]

Arte's balance sheet is very healthy . He bought the team for $184 million in 2003 (paid cash) and it's worth several billion now. He also recently bought the stadium for something like $150 million and some "affordable housing" in the neighborhood (whatever that means). There are homes selling in Newport Beach etc for $25-30 million, so it seems like a steal what he paid for the stadium. And then there's the multi-billion dollar TV contract.

He would still be a gazillionaire if the season were canceled. Not sure what he loses on the TV side if no games are played. Is that contract guaranteed for him??

Overall, I think the owners are content to squeeze the players union until it gives in. The fans can go to hell. That's what it seems to be.

 

[Dtwncbad]

22 minutes ago, Lou said:

Consider the source.

And having a temper tantrum that somebody needs to give him $5 ticket prices seems pretty “greedy” to me.

[T.G.]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Ignore the source.

 

[Stradling]

10 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

There are two parties in a street fight and you are watching.  You are not one of the two parties. Your opinion about what is “supposed to” happen now or what should have happened by now is meaningless and irrelevant.

They are going through what they need to go through.  Yes, this is exactly what needs to happen to resolve it.  Say it again.  What you are observing is what needs to happen.

It is early March.  Early March.  They have made progress. The negotiations are going the way they need to go.

Ok we both agree that each other’s opinions are meaningless. Good. 

[fan_since79]

This forum is all about opinions. Facts sometime intrude.

I think we can all agree that we just want baseball. It would be tragic if the season were canceled. Has Manfred or anybody even talked about this aspect of the situation?

 

 

[Dtwncbad]

21 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok we both agree that each other’s opinions are meaningless. Good. 

I should not have said your opinion is meaningless.  That was sloppy.  Maybe I should have just focused on whether your expectations were realistic or not.

Can you at the very least recognize the difference between these two stances?

1). This is not how these negotiations are supposed to go.

2). This sucks I wish these negotiations were going differently.

With the past CBA expired, it seems fairly predictable that the negotiations on a brand new CBA would get contentious and difficult and have periods of time that are discouraging for fans to follow, and take much longer than most fans would like.

But that does not mean they are botching the negotiations or that one party is not acting in good faith.

So far all I see are negotiating tactics and things I would have expected.

Maybe our disagreement would be rooted in what our expectations were from the beginning.  It appears (feel free to correct me) that your expectation was they could go into a room over a few days in December and hammer this out.

While everybody would have loved that, I just can’t bring myself to think that was even remotely realistic.

So when that didn’t happen, I ended up arguing with you that the delays and lack of progress was not something to “blame” on either side.

At this point I think the negotiations are going the way they need to go to get it resolved.  Not fun for fans.

As a fan, I would rather lose some games in this next season if it means the two sides can end up with something each is satisfied with rather than having either side feel like they have to cave in on something important to them to not miss some games.

Now ask me again when half the season is lost and I might be far more annoyed.