jad

Seems as though they just want maximum revenue at minimum expense, meaning playoff tournaments with no regular season. Then they don't have to pay the players squat. Win-win. (Except when none of us give a s***). All I ever care about is the rhythm of regular season games, and i don't think I'm alone in that.

You're right--it finally won't matter who is at fault. What I don't understand is why the owners have adopted such an overtly combative stance. Why not issue a bunch of banal statements (however insincere!) "We all want the same thing--to play baseball" (then negotiate quietly for some way to make that happen-- e.g., the way the NBA seems to do). How can a business operate that defines its employees, not as partners, but as the enemy, who needs to be defeated? Perhaps this is because sports franchises remain 'hobbies' of the super-rich, not 'businesses' in the ordinary sense.

Presumed sports fans who claim they do not want sports to resume are a complete mystery to me.

Thanks. Wonder why they didn't. Maybe both sides knew it would be contentious, and didn't want to address it unless they absolutely had to (as they do now).

I think it was signed, but I've never seen it. You're a lawyer, right? Are these kinds of agreements common? You would think, given the animosity between owners and players, that someone would have drawn up a very detailed agreement, since we're talking 100s of $millions. The only descriptions I've seen are like those in the SI article below. But if that kind of language is in there "as long as there are no legal impediments to playing in front of fans", I can see how two different interpretations are possible (i.e., the owners will argue: well sure, there are no LEGAL restrictions about playing in front of fans, but there are health-related ones." whereas the players will say "even 10% full stadiums are playing 'in front of fans'".) Maybe there was a lot of wishful or magical thinking involved on both sides, although what we're facing now seems like it was easily predictable in March. https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/03/27/mlbpa-service-time-coronavirus-delay-draft.

Wasn't the issue on pay during a partial season? THe players claim the owners agreed to pay them a pro-rated part of their salary (depending on the number of games), and that was that. The owners concede that. What they are arguing now is that the agreement was made on the assumption that fans would be in the stadiums. Players deny that. I don't know. I wasn't there. But the owners aren't stupid, and in March, I distinctly remember discussions about sports with no fans. It is inconceivable to me that owners (and players too, for that matter) did not realize this was a possibility, when it was being talked about quite openly. And it's hard to believe that the owners and players just kicked the can down the road ("Of course, if there are no fans in the stadiums, all this will be renegotiated."). Until the owners can produce the signed statement that specifically and explicitly addresses this issue (which should be easy to do if in fact that was the basis of negotiation in March), I believe the players. (Again, the owners aren't stupid ... well, let me restate that: the LAWYERS for the owners aren't stupid. There is no way they wouldn't insist that such crucial assumptions in negotiations be made explicit.)

Read the Scott Boras letter, which points out that owners make tons of money upgrading their facilities and thus increasing dramatically the value of their franchises. They never share those profits with players. Now, as he points out, they are in financial difficulties because of the business decisions (good ones, it seemed at the time) they made. But these decisions to upgrade stadiums, etc., weren't the players' decisions, and the players should not be the ones 'sharing' in the losses.

Don't you think they might be nervous about it? If they're making under $1 million, unless they are stars (Devers), they are essentially just hanging on (in MLB terms, I mean). They don't want to jeopardize their careers by speaking out, and sports owners have a history of punishing players who piss them off (on both ends of the scale--ARod, whom the Yankees blamed for their own foolish contract, or [of course] Kaepernick). If an owner has a loud-mouthed union agitator who still 'has options', they could easily exercise those "options" by sending him back to the minors for a year or two to "get his head right."

The owners are the ones who started this, by setting forth publicly the types of offers they knew perfectly well the players would never accept. They then compounded that by setting up another offer obviously designed to pit players against one another (greater salary cuts for higher paid players). I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree entirely with the points reported in Scott Boras's email to his players: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29234956/agent-scott-boras-tells-clients-not-bail-baseball-owners

Yup. Me too. I can't even jog past a tee-ball game without stopping and watching an inning or two.

I know. But we see that in America all the time: when there's a dispute between CEO's and workers, the CEO's tend to be the ones that get our (not yours and mine!) sympathy. I guess people admire and support NOT those whose interests they share, but rather those who most represent what they themselves aspire to be. (E.g., "I'd like to be a complete a-hole who can make sexist and racist jokes at will, belittle everyone, never do a lick of work, stiff all those who work for me, and claim I am a victim of some evil plot no one but myself can discern.")

Agree entirely. Add to this the fact that MLB has determined to off-load its minor-league system onto the taxpayers. (You know, like football, where the developmental league is provided by state-supported colleges and universities.). Of course, the fans mean nothing in this: those of us who might spend a few evenings a summer in a minor league game? What does MLB care about that? Cf. the NBA, which is trying to expand and control its developmental leagues. But then (unlike the NFL and the MLB), the NBA has a leader who believes in a harmonious relation between players and owners, and is not just a well-paid tool who lets owners play-act their macho fantasies through him.

Agree 100%. Also, I am worried about this season. Players obviously want to play (with a few exceptions, due to health and family concerns). Owners? I don't know: all the statements I've seen from them are about revenue losses. I wonder what the financial calculations are (1) a lost season vs. (2) a half season paying acc. to the players' proposal. If those figures are anywhere within shouting distance of each other, I fear the owners would take the losses for a lost season, in part to show what bad-asses they are. (If they were running a 'business' rather than working on a 'hobby' this might be different.)

Interpreting stats? I'm just giving the numbers. Which do not support the notion that 'the fans didn't/won't come back', as you yourself admit. And if it took 'many fan friendly initiatives' to get them back then, there's no reason to suspect that the owners won't come up with more of them in the future.

I'm not sure the facts back this theory up, although of course in a sense we are both right: after the strike, the fans did not IMMEDIATELY come back, as you claim, but they did come back: here are the rough stats for total attendance: 1992: 55million; 1993: 70 million (!); 1994 50 Mil. 1995 50 mil; 1996 60 mil, 1997 63million; 1998 70 million; 1999 70mil; 2000 71mil; 2001 72; 2002 67; 2003 67; 2004 72.; 2005 74; (from there fairly stable, to 68million in 2019). The fans were back to pre-strike levels by 1996. And from there, attendance looks to me to be pretty flat, no? (I'm not sure what the big spike in attendance in '93 means, since 92-95 is otherwise pretty stable--50-55million. --Any ideas on that? I suppose you might argue reasonably enough, that without the strike this spike would have continued?)

If I were a player (an employee), I would say "Look, I've already given up half my 'guaranteed' salary." Owners and capitalists (if they want their laissez-faire system), should not be 'guaranteed' anything. Tough luck. It's the players whose health is being put at risk.

Yup. (Of course, the 'lesson' the owners learned the last time was, in their minds, 'Don't worry. Fans will come back.')

Reading that the NHLPA just approved a plan for NHL players (a plan adopted by a committee of players and owners). So NBA's Adam SIlver--talking first with the players. But the MLB owners???? Oh no! Screw the players. Let's get together and work out a plan history suggests the players will never accept and use that as a basis for negotiation. You'd think they would have learned a lesson in negotiations from the last strike (just as, say, the NFL owners learned when they arrogantly decided to use 'replacement players' or even 'replacement referees'). Macho posturing is not the way to get this done, and any animosity that results is going to carry over into the next labor negotiations. Too bad, owners! Guess what? You're not going to make millions and billions of dollars this year: the players are ALSO losing more than half their income. It's no one's fault. Don't compound things by going to war against your best asset--your employees.

You need to improve your reading skills (my post was three lines long and still it seemed too much for you), your logical ones, or correct your ideological ones (communism = socialism = Stalin = hippies = ... Jesus CHrist, are we back in the 50s?? Are you a McCarthy descendent?) But as long as you are supporting societies (real or ideal) where social services are profit-based, there's little likelihood of your doing any of that.

Yeah, let's see. My ideal society: one in which everyone is treated equally and has access to social services, OR one in which the rich and powerful can f*ck over the weak with impuny and social services are limited to those who have money. Hmmm. You know, for a Christian, it's just so hard to decide.

Yes you have. But we agree on this. This is NOT the flu. Not only will a player be away from his family for the summer, he also risks losing his livelihood if he catches this. Sure, my friend who had it (very fit and athletic) and figures after a few months he's back to "80%", will still be able, say, to play golf (although likely with a cart), and still work. But a prof. athlete who gets back to 80 or 90% is likely out of a job. Given the financial naivete of many players (living, incredibly, 'paycheck to paycheck'), there will be plenty of players who will take the risk. But many of those who have managed their finances wisely may well take the year off. The owners, of course, are risking nothing.

As Vladimir and Estragon say: Let's have a name-calling contest! So back at you: "More capitalist pig claptrap."

Yup. Over and over and over. When the workers come in conflict with the massa's, the American public almost inevitably sides with the bosses. This is in part why we have people in this country like D.T. and Bezos.

Do you think grocery clerks and health care professionals' working conditions will improve if Snell risks his life and career ensuring that the owners get more money this year?

Yup. As you can see from these posts, when the bosses go to war against the workers, your average American inevitably sides with the bosses.