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

[eligrba]

Who really cares.  It will all get worked out and the group that always loses in these negotiations but somehow never knows it are the fans.  Baseball is beginning to resemble the pharmaceutical industry with regards to its own non-competitive and unregulated pricing.

[Dtwncbad]

13 hours ago, Taylor said:

Some people feel an unexplainable compulsion to defend billionaires by downplaying their obscene wealth. It's weird. 

I haven’t seen anyone “downplay” anybody’s wealth.  I really don’t know what you are talking about here.

But you DO call wealth “obscene.”

Obscene normally means offensive.

Viewing other people’s success as offensive deserves some examination.  Why is it offensive?

I believe this feeling comes from one of two things:

1). A fundamental mistake in believing that if one person “controls” 5 billion dollars, that it prevents others from having 5 billion dollars (again as if we are all dividing up a pizza and there are only so many slices).  This is exactly what many in power want people to believe because it gives them power from controlling emotions and votes. But it is factually incorrect.  Same example I have used before:  the huge bodybuilder at the gym should not be loathed because he is “controlling too much of the muscle at the gym.”  He isn’t keeping others skinny and weak by strengthening himself.  Capitalism allows people to create new wealth without taking any wealth away from others.  That is an absolute fact, but people still get angry at wealthy people under the premise that the wealthy are “controlling” too much wealth so therefore seeing people with less allows you to be upset with those with more.

2).  Simple immature jealousy and envy.  This is just not healthy.  People should be happy for others success not bitter about it.

I am unaware of a third explanation as to why people view others wealth as offensive.  So I often ask people to please explain why it is that they are clearly a bit emotionally annoyed by others wealth.

So far, I can’t find any reasonable explanation that doesn’t fit into one of the two reasons I listed.

[Angel Oracle]

What’s the worst thing that happens for either side, if they compromise in the middle on tax threshold ($229.5m in 2022)?

[AngelStew43]

4 minutes ago, Angel Oracle said:

What’s the worst thing that happens for either side, if they compromise in the middle on tax threshold ($229.5m in 2022)?

This.  Or 230-235.  Have a floor, also.  To discourage teams from completely tanking.  Say, 145 or so.  

[Dtwncbad]

I know the players would like to get more money to the younger players sooner, especially the young stars.

Yes there has been much more of teams trying to lock these guys up earlier than 15 years ago.

But how about if there was some additional motivation for teams to spend more freely on some of the younger players?  Right now the team can milk out a few years and not offer an extension for a couple of seasons.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the salaries from any extension contract signed in the first three years of a players career would only count 80% toward the luxury tax?

I don’t see how the owners would want this but it could be a negotiating piece against something else the owners do want.

 

[mtangelsfan]

22 hours ago, Taylor said:

People become owners of professional sports franchises because it's a highly profitable venture. They don't do it out of the goodness of their own hearts, or simply because they "love the game" or whatever.

your expectations of businesses are not feasible.

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

your expectations of businesses are not feasible.

It's unreasonable to expect business owners to treat their employees like they would want to be treated? 

There are plenty of businesses that score high on employee satisfaction surveys and are still very successful. Southwest Airlines and In-N-Out are two examples. 

[ukyah]

10 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

Yep, that is a good word to describe what some of you are doing.

cool with me, man.

[eligrba]

38 minutes ago, AlwaysAnAngelsFan said:

 

[mtangelsfan]

55 minutes ago, Taylor said:

It's unreasonable to expect business owners to treat their employees like they would want to be treated? 

There are plenty of businesses that score high on employee satisfaction surveys and are still very successful. Southwest Airlines and In-N-Out are two examples. 

That wasn't what you said in the post I quoted.  I think companies can be more successful when they treat their employees well.  However, it is still to benefit the company.  It can't exist without profit.

[Taylor]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

That wasn't what you said in the post I quoted.  I think companies can be more successful when they treat their employees well.  However, it is still to benefit the company.  It can't exist without profit.

I'm sorry if I made it sound like I expect businesses to be unprofitable. 

[eligrba]

54 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I'm sorry if I made it sound like I expect businesses to be unprofitable. 

[Lazorko Saves]

7 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

Wow, that's a really expensive stadium...

Haha, oops.  Missed it by only three orders of magnitude.  I think I'll go submit my resume to the Bloomberg campaign.

[Lazorko Saves]

FYI the Braves did not spend the total $622 million.  Their portion was $200 bil....uh million up front.  Rest was public funds.

According to this, the Braves will also pay off $181 million of the public bonds over the next 30 years.  So final cost to the franchise $381 million for the stadium.

Total cost including the surrounding development projects was $1.1 billion.  Hmm.  Yes, billion.  Or $1100 million.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Lazorko Saves said:

FYI the Braves did not spend the total $622 million.  Their portion was $200 bil....uh million up front.  Rest was public funds.

According to this, the Braves will also pay off $181 million of the public bonds over the next 30 years.  So final cost to the franchise $381 million for the stadium.

Total cost including the surrounding development projects was $1.1 billion.  Hmm.  Yes, billion.  Or $1100 million.

The players should kick down some money since they make so much money.

[Lazorko Saves]

Just now, Lou said:

The players should kick down some money since they make so much money.

But is it "obscene" money?

[Lazorko Saves]

I mean, some of us are all in favor of obscene money...

[Taylor]

13 minutes ago, Lazorko Saves said:

But is it "obscene" money?

Yes, but only a little.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I know the players would like to get more money to the younger players sooner, especially the young stars.

Yes there has been much more of teams trying to lock these guys up earlier than 15 years ago.

But how about if there was some additional motivation for teams to spend more freely on some of the younger players?  Right now the team can milk out a few years and not offer an extension for a couple of seasons.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the salaries from any extension contract signed in the first three years of a players career would only count 80% toward the luxury tax?

I don’t see how the owners would want this but it could be a negotiating piece against something else the owners do want.

 

The owners goal is to minimize the total amount of money they have to spend on payroll, and this is controlled in two ways.

1) Limiting the amount of money top spending teams can spend on players. This is constrained by the CBT threshold and the supply of free agents on the market (6 years service time), both things that the owners have not budged on since the beginning.

2) Limiting the minimal amounts low payroll teams have to spend to field a team. This is constrained by the arbitration process, most specifically the amount of time it takes players to get there. There has not been meaningful change here either, though the proposed bonus pool would directly address this in either a marginal way (based on the owners proposal) or significantly (based on the players).

There is an interesting connection between these two things though, as anything that increases the minimums is partially nullified if the CBT isn't raised to accommodate it. In other words, high payroll teams who see increases in the cost of their cheap labor will have to take that money away from their next top contract, which applies a downward pressure on all salaries. This is a long winded way of saying the owners would be unlikely to accept your proposal no matter what the players offer. If we are going to see compromise it most likely will come from the owners agreeing to a larger bonus pool in exchange for limited increases in the CBT threshold.

tl;dr: The effective CBT number is the only thing the owners really care about

[mmc]

 

[Angel Oracle]

Sounds like the owners refuse to budge?

[Lazorko Saves]

Well at least there's some good college baseball going on right now.

[beatlesrule]

9 hours ago, Lazorko Saves said:

FYI the Braves did not spend the total $622 million.  Their portion was $200 bil....uh million up front.  Rest was public funds.

According to this, the Braves will also pay off $181 million of the public bonds over the next 30 years.  So final cost to the franchise $381 million for the stadium.

Total cost including the surrounding development projects was $1.1 billion.  Hmm.  Yes, billion.  Or $1100 million.

[ScottT]

Lol

Fuckwads fighting over pieces of $10 billion 

[ScottT]

Keep fighting.  You'll get less of our money.   We will spend it on hookers, blow, and bored apes.   

Pressure is on.   Not on us.  On y'all.  Enjoy....