Will The MLB Suspend The 2020 season

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Two reasons:

 

1. Daisike did purportedly throw a lot of IP in Japan, but this also created the possibility that he was already overworked.

 

2. Most Japanese teams use 6 man rotations.

 

I know, but his confidence from building up his arm strength with an extended throwing program in Japan (including a lot of throwing in between starts) evolved into frustration with the limitations put on him by the Sox. I think Boston made a mistake in forcing him to change from what made him a legend in Japan; it wasn't the majors, but making 250 throws a day is still 250 throws... even if the ball was slightly lighter.

[a700hitter]

They let him pitch in the WBC and he blew out his arm. He was through after that.

[Kimmi]

They let him pitch in the WBC and he blew out his arm. He was through after that.

 

I liked Dice K. He was maddening as anything at times, but he always seemed to somehow wiggle out of it.

[Kimmi]

If the baseball season happens, they are now looking at a start date of July 10. Previously, they had hoped to start by July 4, but the goons can't get their acts together.

[jad]

Baseball 2020? I don't see anything in the new proposal that looks like negotiations. Now the owners are trying to make almost a third of player compensation contingent on playoffs. It also makes hash of their earlier argument that they lose 650K per game, in that the new proposal adds games to their earlier proposal while only slightly raising player pay. (Huh? If they were REALLY losing money for each game they played, how does it make sense to add games? Games for which they won't really pay players much of anything.)

[mvp 78]

If the baseball season happens, they are now looking at a start date of July 10. Previously, they had hoped to start by July 4, but the goons can't get their acts together.

 

It’s Wally’s fault. 100%

[jad]

SOmeone with negotiating experience, or a lawyer, please help here. It doesn't sound to me that the owners are negotiating in good faith at all, with any of their proposals. But is this normal? (For example, there are wild and aggressive public statements and proposals, but quiet negotiations going on--serious proposals and counter-proposals--that we never hear about?; or perhaps these combative public stances are just a routine part of all negotiations?--- Worth noting that we have seen none of that in the NBA or NHL).

[oldtimer]

SOmeone with negotiating experience, or a lawyer, please help here. It doesn't sound to me that the owners are negotiating in good faith at all, with any of their proposals. But is this normal? (For example, there are wild and aggressive public statements and proposals, but quiet negotiations going on--serious proposals and counter-proposals--that we never hear about?; or perhaps these combative public stances are just a routine part of all negotiations?--- Worth noting that we have seen none of that in the NBA or NHL).

 

You seem to have an anti-owner bias. The players counter proposal was not sensible. Maybe behind the scenes negotiations are underway and that a shortened season will start sometime in July. Since they will need to get arranged and started and then have a 3 week spring training 2, the earliest may be mid July. Would that allow for a 70 game season with prorated pay? Will players accept 70/162nd of their contracted pay? I don't really feel that we will have a season and I am okay with that.

[mvp 78]

SOmeone with negotiating experience, or a lawyer, please help here. It doesn't sound to me that the owners are negotiating in good faith at all, with any of their proposals. But is this normal? (For example, there are wild and aggressive public statements and proposals, but quiet negotiations going on--serious proposals and counter-proposals--that we never hear about?; or perhaps these combative public stances are just a routine part of all negotiations?--- Worth noting that we have seen none of that in the NBA or NHL).

 

I was part of union negotiations at my past job. The owners were always going to go to the table with giving up the least amount and hoping to get concessions that favor themselves for the next CBA. I think they may have been a little too aggressive considering the fact that there are no sporting events going on right now and all eyes are on these negotiations. I think the biggest reason that they are running into this issue is because the whole season could be cancelled and there is a potential strike/lockout since the current CBA is going to expire next season and the players have been vocal about Tony Clark not signing off on a good deal last time.

 

The SoxProspects podcast the past two weeks has done a good job of talking about how the negotiations have progressed so far and where the owners have possibly gone wrong.

[mvp 78]

You seem to have an anti-owner bias. The players counter proposal was not sensible. Maybe behind the scenes negotiations are underway and that a shortened season will start sometime in July. Since they will need to get arranged and started and then have a 3 week spring training 2, the earliest may be mid July. Would that allow for a 70 game season with prorated pay? Will players accept 70/162nd of their contracted pay? I don't really feel that we will have a season and I am okay with that.

 

The players are fine with prorated play. They just don't want a short season and long playoffs since they aren't paid normally during the playoffs. The players' biggest gripe was that the owners were pushing revenue sharing and hiding their financials while claiming they are going to lose billions of dollars this year.

[notin]

It does look like the owners are being very short-sighted.

 

Sure they might lose cash this year If there’s a shortened season. But no season will likely cut deeper into next year’s profits and beyond.

 

And will they use their typical fix to raise quick cash - expansion? That’s not going to bolster the game’s popularity except maybe in the new cities...

[S5Dewey]

SOmeone with negotiating experience, or a lawyer, please help here. It doesn't sound to me that the owners are negotiating in good faith at all, with any of their proposals. But is this normal? (For example, there are wild and aggressive public statements and proposals, but quiet negotiations going on--serious proposals and counter-proposals--that we never hear about?; or perhaps these combative public stances are just a routine part of all negotiations?--- Worth noting that we have seen none of that in the NBA or NHL).

 

I've done some of that contract negotiating thing as a part of my labor union and one of the 'ground rules' of our negotiations was that there would be no leaks to anyone about the ongoing discussions. Unfortunately in this case both sides are acting like sieves leaking everything that is said. That's not productive because it gets the public involved and the public has no real stake in the negotiations.

 

What needs to happen is for both parties to get locked into a room and agree to not leave until something gets hammered out.

Here's what i've learned.

1) Nothing gets done until both sides decide they want to get it done. That's when #2 kicks in:

2) More gets done in the last four hours of negotiations than has gotten done in the past four weeks.

 

I can't have an opinion as to whether it's the owners or the players who are holding things up because I don't have access to the owner's balance sheets. However, it does appear that the players are making some pretty realistic moves in an attempt to get back to baseball.

[jad]

I've done some of that contract negotiating thing as a part of my labor union and one of the 'ground rules' of our negotiations was that there would be no leaks to anyone about the ongoing discussions. Unfortunately in this case both sides are acting like sieves leaking everything that is said. That's not productive because it gets the public involved and the public has no real stake in the negotiations.

 

What needs to happen is for both parties to get locked into a room and agree to not leave until something gets hammered out.

Here's what i've learned.

1) Nothing gets done until both sides decide they want to get it done. That's when #2 kicks in:

2) More gets done in the last four hours of negotiations than has gotten done in the past four weeks.

 

I can't have an opinion as to whether it's the owners or the players who are holding things up because I don't have access to the owner's balance sheets. However, it does appear that the players are making some pretty realistic moves in an attempt to get back to baseball.

 

Thanks. That gives me a little more hope.

 

(And to "Oldtimer", you're right. I have an anti-owner stance, and I don't hide that. I just don't understand why they seem to be trying to win a p.r. war by demonizing the players. Jesus Christ! The players are their best asset! If the owners 'win', and the fans end up hating the players, they won't pay money to go see them.)

[S5Dewey]

Thanks. That gives me a little more hope.

 

(And to "Oldtimer", you're right. I have an anti-owner stance, and I don't hide that. I just don't understand why they seem to be trying to win a p.r. war by demonizing the players. Jesus Christ! The players are their best asset! If the owners 'win', and the fans end up hating the players, they won't pay money to go see them.)

 

This is what owners DO in the name of saving money. It's my understanding that when they start negotiating salaries with individual players they have a binder full of stats telling the player how terrible he is.

 

I've been known to complete negotiations thinking, "If the membership knew the s*** we have to go through to get a decent contract they'd strike, just on general principles".

 

Your post here that I replied to is exactly why neither side should be leaking the goings-on. The negotiators know that it's all a part of 'the game' but those outside the negotiations don't realize that.

[oldtimer]

I've done some of that contract negotiating thing as a part of my labor union and one of the 'ground rules' of our negotiations was that there would be no leaks to anyone about the ongoing discussions. Unfortunately in this case both sides are acting like sieves leaking everything that is said. That's not productive because it gets the public involved and the public has no real stake in the negotiations.

 

What needs to happen is for both parties to get locked into a room and agree to not leave until something gets hammered out.

Here's what i've learned.

1) Nothing gets done until both sides decide they want to get it done. That's when #2 kicks in:

2) More gets done in the last four hours of negotiations than has gotten done in the past four weeks.

 

I can't have an opinion as to whether it's the owners or the players who are holding things up because I don't have access to the owner's balance sheets. However, it does appear that the players are making some pretty realistic moves in an attempt to get back to baseball.

 

I don't think the offer of a 110 game season starting in mid July is all that sensible.

[jad]

This is what owners DO in the name of saving money. It's my understanding that when they start negotiating salaries with individual players they have a binder full of stats telling the player how terrible he is.

 

I've been known to complete negotiations thinking, "If the membership knew the s*** we have to go through to get a decent contract they'd strike, just on general principles".

 

Your post here that I replied to is exactly why neither side should be leaking the goings-on. The negotiators know that it's all a part of 'the game' but those outside the negotiations don't realize that.

 

Thanks. Yeah, I've heard a couple of players remark on that, when, say, an agent reveals to them what the team said about them. And I just don't understand the point of leaking info--all it does is put BOTH sides in a bad position (maybe feeling insulted, or the opposite, feeling that they now have to dig in on some ridiculous 'leaked' position). Cf. the NBA--I'm sure stuff was out there, but I never heard a word of what owners and players were doing to salvage the season.

[notin]

Thanks. Yeah, I've heard a couple of players remark on that, when, say, an agent reveals to them what the team said about them. And I just don't understand the point of leaking info--all it does is put BOTH sides in a bad position (maybe feeling insulted, or the opposite, feeling that they now have to dig in on some ridiculous 'leaked' position). Cf. the NBA--I'm sure stuff was out there, but I never heard a word of what owners and players were doing to salvage the season.

 

There were a few stories about NBA progress for salvaging their season. They pretty much all revolves around how many teams would be going to the post season...

[jad]

There were a few stories about NBA progress for salvaging their season. They pretty much all revolves around how many teams would be going to the post season...

 

Oh you're right. Of course. Odd, they didn't even seem like 'negotiations'--just owners and players trying to figure out what would work. I give a lot of credit to Silver for knowing how to manage these things.

[S5Dewey]

I don't think the offer of a 110 game season starting in mid July is all that sensible.

 

But is the offer of a 114 game season ending October 31 unreasonable? That's 114 games/dates in 123 days. If you figure in two DH's/month for each team you're down to 106 games/dates in 123 days. Do away with a schedule that requires teams to cross the Mississippi (figuratively speaking), do away with the AS game, agree to have the WS in warmer climates, and it's very do-able.

 

The thing we don't know is what the owner's sticking points are. Does it have to do with salaries? Does it have to do with the proposed player's right to opt-out? Sometimes the devil really IS in the details. We don't know and the owners (rightfully) aren't telling. Is it something else? Is this the owners feeling out the union's position on the next CBA? There's often a lot more that goes into negotiations than what's on the table.

 

That's why things get done in the last four hours of negotiations. When an agreement gets close and they're down to the sticking points neither side wants to give up what they've already gotten so those sticking points become more negotiable.

 

IMO the owners aren't as ready to end it and get on to baseball as the players are. If the owners wanted to end it they'd be working within the parameters of what the Union has offered rather than throwing out completely new proposals every time they meet. Those just muddy the waters.

[mvp 78]

If you want to know what the owners are thinking this year, take a look at how the amateur draft has been set up. They are purely in cost cutting mode. There's going to be no MiLB season and they are more than happy to not have one (not realizing the long term affect this could have on the game).

[oldtimer]

But is the offer of a 114 game season ending October 31 unreasonable? That's 114 games/dates in 123 days. If you figure in two DH's/month for each team you're down to 106 games/dates in 123 days. Do away with a schedule that requires teams to cross the Mississippi (figuratively speaking), do away with the AS game, agree to have the WS in warmer climates, and it's very do-able.

 

The thing we don't know is what the owner's sticking points are. Does it have to do with salaries? Does it have to do with the proposed player's right to opt-out? Sometimes the devil really IS in the details. We don't know and the owners (rightfully) aren't telling. Is it something else? Is this the owners feeling out the union's position on the next CBA? There's often a lot more that goes into negotiations than what's on the table.

 

That's why things get done in the last four hours of negotiations. When an agreement gets close and they're down to the sticking points neither side wants to give up what they've already gotten so those sticking points become more negotiable.

 

IMO the owners aren't as ready to end it and get on to baseball as the players are. If the owners wanted to end it they'd be working within the parameters of what the Union has offered rather than throwing out completely new proposals every time they meet. Those just muddy the waters.

 

You are right, there are a lot of potential reasons for sticking points and as fans not in on the negotiations, we can only guess. I was assuming the regular season could not start before mid July and would be over in very early Oct, with a playoff to follow. I see that as more of an 80 day period with maybe 70-75 games max. I assume there would be a playoff. I don't see how the players or you believe a season until the end of October works out and they get 114 games with a much higher prorated pay. Are you assuming no playoffs or those beginning in November and running up to the election. Too late for my thinking.

 

The opt out is also clearly a question. If a player can opt out by only indicating someone in his household is At Risk, and still get full pay, how many would choose that option leaving the owners with a large bill and no players.

[Kimmi]

You are right, there are a lot of potential reasons for sticking points and as fans not in on the negotiations, we can only guess. I was assuming the regular season could not start before mid July and would be over in very early Oct, with a playoff to follow. I see that as more of an 80 day period with maybe 70-75 games max. I assume there would be a playoff. I don't see how the players or you believe a season until the end of October works out and they get 114 games with a much higher prorated pay. Are you assuming no playoffs or those beginning in November and running up to the election. Too late for my thinking.

 

The opt out is also clearly a question. If a player can opt out by only indicating someone in his household is At Risk, and still get full pay, how many would choose that option leaving the owners with a large bill and no players.

 

The players have made what I think is a reasonable second counter proposal. The offer is now for an 89 game season, expanded playoffs, and no salary OR service time for any players without health risks who opt out. Of course, the definition of 'at risk' is still going to be highly subjective. There were a couple of other small concessions as well. It's now time for the owners to make an equal compromise.

 

The problem is, the longer this drags on, the more time is being wasted, limiting the number of games that can be played. This might be the owners' strategy, since they want a shorter season.

[Kimmi]

We are nearing the point where Manfred might just go ahead an mandate a 50 game season, against the players' wishes. Many players have indicated that if this is the case, they will simply sit out and forego this year's salary and service time.

[mvp 78]

We are nearing the point where Manfred might just go ahead an mandate a 50 game season, against the players' wishes. Many players have indicated that if this is the case, they will simply sit out and forego this year's salary and service time.

 

"The union rejected MLB's latest proposal for a 76-game season at 75 percent prorated pay and countered with an 89-game campaign that would include full prorated salary shares."

 

The owners need to pay 100% prorated pay. Taking anything less makes no sense.

[dgalehouse]

My guess is that they will " hammer out an agreement " and have at least some semblance of a season. Sadly however , they have already done more damage to a sport that was losing popularity to begin with .

[notin]

My guess is that they will " hammer out an agreement " and have at least some semblance of a season. Sadly however , they have already done more damage to a sport that was losing popularity to begin with .

 

Agreed.

 

MLB had one heck of an opportunity here. No other sports. Everyone pinned at home. No new television or forms of entertainment. But because neither side could find a way to agree, we all decided by default to become entrenched in the lives of midwestern idiots who like to keep tigers as pets...

[jad]

Agreed.

 

MLB had one heck of an opportunity here. No other sports. Everyone pinned at home. No new television or forms of entertainment. But because neither side could find a way to agree, we all decided by default to become entrenched in the lives of midwestern idiots who like to keep tigers as pets...

 

But they HAD agreed in March. That's what makes this so ridiculous. Since then, the players keep suggesting forms of their original position (ie. they are negotiating in good faith). You never know WHAT the owners will propose, and often their proposals have nothing to do with how the negotiations have been going up to that point. (I realize this is only based on what has been out there publicly. Those of you who have negotiating experience are suggesting that this may be smoke and mirrors, and that there is very likely real work going on behind the scenes. I really hope you are right)

[mvp 78]

But they HAD agreed in March. That's what makes this so ridiculous. Since then, the players keep suggesting forms of their original position (ie. they are negotiating in good faith). You never know WHAT the owners will propose, and often their proposals have nothing to do with how the negotiations have been going up to that point. (I realize this is only based on what has been out there publicly. Those of you who have negotiating experience are suggesting that this may be smoke and mirrors, and that there is very likely real work going on behind the scenes. I really hope you are right)

 

^^^

 

And the owners have been far more publuc than the players.

[S5Dewey]

But they HAD agreed in March. That's what makes this so ridiculous. Since then, the players keep suggesting forms of their original position (ie. they are negotiating in good faith). You never know WHAT the owners will propose, and often their proposals have nothing to do with how the negotiations have been going up to that point. (I realize this is only based on what has been out there publicly. Those of you who have negotiating experience are suggesting that this may be smoke and mirrors, and that there is very likely real work going on behind the scenes. I really hope you are right)

 

I think this^^ is what's making me think the owners don't actually want to reach an agreement. When someone is bargaining in good faith they take what's already agreed on as a basic skeleton and then move on to flesh it out. Both sides make a few concessions along the way until both sides (individually) decide they want to come to an agreement. To oversimplify it, it then becomes, "OK, I can do this if you can do that", and "I can give you this but I need that in return" and after a few back-and-forths agreement is reached.

 

I say it's an oversimplification because negotiations isn't simply exchanging offers, it's listening to what the other party wants and respecting that. The players have said very loudly what they want - an abbreviated schedule with prorated pay - and the owners aren't listening. Instead the owners are still in the 'throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks" portion of negotiations. The're stalling.

 

At this point I have to think that the holdup is more over principle than money. IMO there is some other issue in there that we don't know about that is holding things up. As someone once said, "Disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time."

[jad]

I think this^^ is what's making me think the owners don't actually want to reach an agreement. When someone is bargaining in good faith they take what's already agreed on as a basic skeleton and then move on to flesh it out. Both sides make a few concessions along the way until both sides (individually) decide they want to come to an agreement. To oversimplify it, it then becomes, "OK, I can do this if you can do that", and "I can give you this but I need that in return" and after a few back-and-forths agreement is reached.

 

I say it's an oversimplification because negotiations isn't simply exchanging offers, it's listening to what the other party wants and respecting that. The players have said very loudly what they want - an abbreviated schedule with prorated pay - and the owners aren't listening. Instead the owners are still in the 'throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks" portion of negotiations. The're stalling.

 

At this point I have to think that the holdup is more over principle than money. IMO there is some other issue in there that we don't know about that is holding things up. As someone once said, "Disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time."

 

Particularly worrisome to me was Manfred's seemingly positive promise yesterday "100% certain we will have baseball." I expected him to say something along the lines of 'owners and players want the same thing and are getting close.' Instead, the basis of his confidence (he himself said) was the clause in the March agreement giving him the power just to impose a 48 game schedule without the players' approval. (Gee, suddenly the March agreement becomes sacrosanct!).