jad
-
Posts
4,487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jad
-
Maybe those I've heard on various talk radio shows in the last couple of days, claiming that this didn't happen, should read the Red Sox organization's own statement that says it did. https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/06/10/boston-red-sox-confirm-torii-hunter-racist-slurs-fenway-park
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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).
-
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.)
-
Without Dice-K's 18 wins, there's no ring that year.
-
Well, JD Drew and Agon gave the RS EXACTLY what anyone would have expected. Drew was a .280 hitter and continued to do that. I've never understood the negative reactions toward AGon (I believe he ALSO hit pretty much his career average-- .299 was it? Nothing wrong with that) ... well, I need to qualify that. I think I do know why Boston fans did not like AGon (whereas SanDiego fans and LA fans liked him) ...but it has nothing to do with baseball performance.
-
OMG! Owners have DEBT!!! And, while their franchises soar in value, they sometimes do not make profits in addition to that. And they lose CONCESSIONS!!! My God, they may actually have to tap into their billions in off-shore bank accounts to feed their families. (I now see the error of my ways.)
-
But when the owners have unexpected bonanza profits, do they share those with the players? In any case, I agree there likely will be no season. There was also some REALLY bad news today for sports fans wanting sports to 'open up'. Five Alabama football players tested positive. (Unless this is an aberration, and it may well be, NCAA football is in serious trouble. And if this is an indication of what may well happen for other sports ... well, we know the consequences.)
-
If the owners would open their books for auditing, and they had given any sign in previous negotiations that there was reason for the players to trust them, and if too they made a written vow that 'revenue-sharing' was a one-year proposition and would NOT be part of their proposals in the next CBA ... then I'd be with you. But this is a pipe dream. The owners clearly want to eliminate as many season games as they can (thus reducing what the players get--they claim each game costs them around 600K), and still have play-offs (a major source of income for owners, not so for players). They haven't yet made a significant concession to the players, nor shown a willingness to abide by their agreement in March.
-
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/06/05/torii-hunter-boston-fans-racism-no-trade-clause Alas, no surprise.
-
It won't, because he won't have enough at-bats. Still, what does 'legitimate record' mean in the first place? This is nothing to worry about. We just want to see baseball, not tabulate statistics.
-
Yeah, I can see why. But I give him a lot of slack for calling out a particular teammate (truly one of my least favorite RS players). Can't remember what the issue was--he was asked something about the team or team chemistry and told reporters that they would have to ask 'the captain'.
-
I will grant the owners this (and I won't grant them much). They're in a tricky situation. They could feel that it's best just to start the season and eat the losses now, then make up for it with, say, reduced spending next year on renewed contracts and free agency. That's reasonable enough. But they cannot state that publicly or even really discuss it openly with other owners, as that would quite legitimately be called 'collusion' ("Hey guys, let's just play, figure out our losses, then have massive salary reductions next year.") I just hope they are smart enough to realize that losing a season and demonizing their players is risking an enormous drop in the value of their franchises. And maybe, with all the real estate they own, whose value continues to increase, they don't give a s***. A really bad situation for fans. I don't see how this season starts (unless there are serious negotiations going on behind the scenes that we know nothing about).
-
Right. But an important word is "indirectly." Of course players gain when ownership reaps profits; but they do so down the road--at the next CBA? or because the owners decide (unilaterally) to pay higher salaries. And the same holds true for losses. The difference here is that owners are demanding that players share in the losses NOW, not down the road.
-
Of course it's a metaphor. the point he is making is that owners speak of their businesses in terms of revenue/expenses: how much did they take in, how much paid out. Normally they make gigantic profits, which they then keep (since players are merely salaried employees); they don't hand out end-of-the-year bonuses to players when the profits are large. Yet this year, when there are going to be losses, they want those losses shared by players (which of course they will be, in all scenarios). (A point that I believe he makes elsewhere, but not in his recent article, is that the accounting is to some extent bogus: the actual value of franchises is rising, and owners are increasing that value by investing in new stadiums etc. So if a franchise, say, doubles in value, and the owner then sells it, the owner gets a fortune, the players get nothing. e.g., the Clippers players didn't get a nickel when Sterling sold the team for $2.1 billion [i forget what he paid for it years ago, but it was paltry]).
-
It's an interesting prospect, as right now, the owners are saying they are losing 600K/game, so they won't go for more than a 50 game season. But even a few thousand fans at game completely changes the calculus. Any deal now that doesn't take the possibility of a limited number of fans into account means that the owners just pocket the profits. Given the rancor between the sides, I'm not sure the possibility of fans helps--it may just increase the distrust of the owners on the part of players. (As Passan noted, the owners have consistently taken the position of privatizing profits and socializing losses).
-
You would think the owners would at least come up with a conciliatory statement. But then, you would think some national leaders, who do not need to be named here, might have come with one over the problems they're supposed to be dealing with as well.
-
OK. SO of the 32 mayor who you claimed were fine with mass gatherings, you could not produce one statement by any of them to that effect. And you say the mayors have encouraged looting. Not one of them has made any statement to that effect either. Thanks for your valuable input.
-
[that was harsh. I'll delete]
-
Wow. I'm surprised. I just assumed players would be able to opt out of playing. It may be a moot point, as I imagine most players will want to play in hopes of increasing their value.
-
The news today makes it look more and more like there will be no baseball. Owners are obviously trying to cast players in a bad light. Great job! But since players are their sole and only product, it seems a questionable business decision to discredit what you're selling. (This is why I refer to sports owners as 'hobbyists' rather than 'businessfolks'.). Let's see. I'm the CEO of Apple. My employees threaten a strike. Obviously the first thing I should do is say how crappy iPhones are ...
-
Are you sure of that? I assumed players would simply be given the option to sit the season out. There is no way the MLB can determine the difference between an 'unhealthy' player or one with family members at risk and a healthy one. They will spend the entire off-season in court if they try to enforce a policy like that.
