S5Dewey

I saw that. It's AMAZING. It shows that the owners aren't serious about getting the season underway. It also could be an indication that the "richer" owners are being held hostage by those owners who want a bigger piece of the CBT pie. That wouldn't be quite so hard to swallow if those owners had already shown signs of using the money to improve their roster. It would almost be laughable to watch the owners while they 'eat one another' if it weren't fans like us who are paying the price for their playground antics.

At the risk of resurrecting the discussion about collusion, it's getting more obvious that MLB is the umbrella under which the owners are allowed to collude (hence the anti-trust exemption). If they weren't allowed to collude each team could negotiate independently with its players. Then those teams wishing to play baseball could put a team on the field through individual negotiations. Would it be a cluster..k? Yep! Just the talent level on the teams would be affected, not to mention scheduling, etc. So Yes. Would both owners and players be hurt by it? Probably. Would it be capitalism in it's truer form? Yes! This only points out that it's ludicrous to even think that baseball in 2022 is a "series of exhibitions"* and not an interstate business, and that it therefore shouldn't be subject to the anti-trust provisions of the Sherman anti-trust act prohibiting a monopoly. *Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1922.

This ^ is speculation. It's speculation because the owners don't have to open their books and therefore we don't have knowledge that it's true. It's speculation that I agree with but it's one of the issues that makes this difficult for fans. According to what I read recently the owners have now requested a mediator.. This was done with the expectation that the PA would reject it but it would put the blame for the work stoppage on the backs of the players. After all, wouldn't the PA welcome a mediator if it would get baseball players on the field again? The PA rejected mediation because 1) negotiations haven't reached an impasse. Negotiations are still ongoing - slow, but ongoing, and 2) if the two sides fail to reach an agreement after mediation the owners (otherwise known as MLB) would have the right to institute their 'most recent and best offer', essentially forcing the players to either go back to work under the old CBA or go on strike. Very possibly the biggest issue now isn't the CBA but instead who's responsible for the work stoppage.

I agree that the USSC has ruled three times that MLB is entitled to their exemption from anti-trust. But that doesn't make it less than 'not shady". There's a difference between illegal and shady. It's also worth mentioning that there were dissenting opinions from the USSC that made a lot of sense too. As Justice John Roberts said just recently, most people think that the USSC decides disputes of right and wrong when actually they settle disputes between two rights. There's a BIG difference between MLB and Dairy Queen in that the franchisees of DQ don't own the parent company DQ. DQ is a publicly owned company (IDQ). MLB, OTOH, is a group of team owners, all but one of which are privately owned. They're also the group that puts the Commissioner of Baseball into office who serves at the pleasure of the owners. IOW, the COB is indebted to the owners. See the difference?

I'm not sure I'm buying what you're selling. For what you're saying to be correct MLB owns the teams and the logos but has given the owners the right to own the contracts of the players and the right to reap the profits of the teams - which are owned by MLB! Now the question becomes, "Who owns MLB?" The answer is, Nobody. Major League Baseball, like the NBA or NFL, isn't as much a thing that can be bought or sold as it is a vehicle to facilitate the increasing of the values of it’s constituent parts: the teams themselves. Major League Baseball is run by the owners of the league's teams (or, more accurately, by the commissioner on behalf of the owners), but there isn't really much there to actually own.* So the owners "own" MLB (as much as anyone can own it) and MLB owns the teams and the logos. At the same time the same owners also own the players contracts and the right to collect the profits from their teams make - although they don't own the team. Nope. Nothing shady about that! LOL. It's apparent that the relationship between owners and MLB is one that has been carefully structured to protect both MLB and the owners wile giving control and profits to the owners and is protected from legal scrutiny by the exemption from the anti-trust act. *William Petrov @ Quora

...because of the anti-trust exemption. The question was asked here a couple of weeks ago what the anti-trust act did for owners. I think we're finding out!

Here's a legal definition of collusion. ...where two persons (or business entities through their officers or other employees) enter into a deceitful agreement, usually secret, to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or those with whom they are negotiating. It seems to me to fit the bill. The owners as individuals have conspired with other owners to "develop a plan they think THEY can live with". They are in essence individual owners colluding to establish a joint bargaining position. If this happened in any other industry, say if the owners of auto makers got together to set a "contract they could live with" for all plants, it would be collusion. That's why GM, Ford, etc. have to negotiate separately with their workers. It's obviously collusion. I'm just wondering if the anti-trust exemption frees MLB owners from collusion charges when they develop a plan THEY can live with which will apply to all players regardless of team.

Isn't this collusion? Or does the exemption from the anti-trust act allow the owners to collude?

It's not only beating the Yankees, but the way they did it. Taking four in a row after being down 3-0, something no MLB team had ever done before. I still credit Kevin Millar for setting the tone when he said, "Just don't let us win today....".

1, 2, 3, and 4, yep, yep, yep, and yep. But I'm not sure this is early in the negotiations. If a mediator solved the issues next week we'd say it was late in negotiations. As I've said, once both decides to get a settlement more gets done in the last four hours than in the previous four weeks.

Here's a real head-scratcher: "There is no proof that Ortiz was a user but unless you can prove to me that he wasn't using then as far as I'm concerned he's guilty!" Yeah, that's reasonable. NOT!

Yes, they have to get to a starting point. I'm of the feeling that it taking almost two weeks to form a reply is just more posturing. Both sides want to make it appear that they're not in any rush to get this settled. Posturing.

As I've said, when things get done they get done quickly but it's going to take more than their swapping proposals. That's just posturing. They need to get together at the same table and take the time to hear what the other party has to say. They then can get a sense of what's most important to the other party and start dealing with those issues. Until they do that they're not going to come up with an agreement that's satisfactory to both sides. Instead they'll have an agreement that leaves everyone frustrated that their needs weren't even heard which will lead to an even bigger s***-show when this new CBA is over.

How often have you heard the FO say about a manager, "We have the utmost faith in ___________ to right this ship" and then see that same manager fired within a month? That's why I don't believe anything coming out of the RS office. It would be ridiculous for any executive of any business to reveal their commitments. It's detrimental to their own business and a boon to the competing businesses.

I does look worse on TV than in real life. I was there several years ago and I found most of the stadium to be quite inviting. I say "most" because it was when the turf there was blue. UGHH My issue with the stadium is with the different catwalks, the different rules for each catwalk, and how they affect play. I find that whole issue to be unacceptable for a ML ballpark (which is a nice way of saying 'stupid').

It's also worth mentioning that the whole thing has been chipped away at over the years until it's not nearly as onerous to the players as it once was.

To answer your question like I were talking to a 4 year old, no, I can't do that. The whole thing is far too complicated. Here's a link to an explanation that I can pretty much understand (although my ADHD kicked in about half way through it and I lost focus). https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1473&context=honors From what I gathered one of the biggest things the exemption from the anti-trust law does is that it allows the owners as a group to act like a monopoly and decide if/where teams can move to, or even whether to allow a new team to enter the league. Obviously allowing the owners to collude and act like a monopoly would take an exemption from the anti-trust act - which they have! I found it to be a pretty good read and I'll probably go back and finish it tomorrow, after I've given my head a good hard shake.

Yes, and for all the wrong reasons.

Again from personal experience (and this is not an original thought): "In negotiations more gets accomplished in the last three hours than has been done in the last three months."

...in collusion with Congress. Saying that MLB isn't Interstate Commerce is a joke.

Does it, when tv revenue is up and there's little to no indication from fans that they are going to stay away regardless of the cost? I just have a general mistrust of management who comes to the bargaining table asking for concessions when their business appears to be thriving.

In listening to whatever sources I can find in regards to the 2022 season I'm not certain which of the issues are about the money and how many are about the principle, i.e. something the players and the owners can afford but don't want to give up, and that concerns me. During my working days I was on the negotiating committee for my local union. During one negotiations we had reached an impasse with the deadline looming just a few days away. A strike vote had already been taken and management "brought in the big guns" - the V.P. of operations from the home office - and he said something that has always stuck with me: "Gentlemen, I am here from [Home office city] to bring you this message. We do not want a strike in your plant and we're very concerned about what's going on here. We seem to be close to agreement on the monetary issues but there are some remaining issues of principle that we are stuck on. I've been negotiating contracts for 25 years and it's been my experience that disputes over money have a way of getting settled but disputes over principle can go on for a long time." I'm concerned about the 2022 season because there appears to be enough money in MLB to settle any monetary disputes. IOW the owners can afford to pay whatever they need to pay as long as it doesn't disrupt the way things are done now, while the players want to make procedural changes. If the two sides can't strike compromises to agree on some of these issues of principle this could be a lengthy dispute.

But tying the WSC to the opening day payroll is a bit misleading. A better figure would be where a team has finished and what they've spent in the 10 years previous to the WSC. Looking your list over (and admittedly not having done the research) I see several 'rags to riches' teams over the ten years previous to their WSC. Possibly not cellar dwellers but close to the bottom of their division. IMO this reinforces what Old Timer was implying, that the CBT and draft pick allocation by MLB is working. Teams that are trying to win are getting the CBT money and draft picks to improve their teams. By the time they're getting close to be WS caliber they have established and more expensive players. That's also when they loosen the purse strings more and pay the free agents.

Well.. does it? Those two are an interesting comparison. Using BR/WAR (and you know how I feel about WAR! LOL): 162 games oWAR dWAR WAR Jeter 5.7 -0.6 4.2 XBO 5.1 0.1 4.2 According to WAR these to guys are the same person. Jeter and XBo are both statistically weaker on defensive but they make up for it with their offense. I suggest (with no way to prove it) that if their O/D WAR's were reversed, that is if they were (equaly) offensive liabilities but were better defensively that it wouldn't have much bearing on the number of game the Yankees and the Sox win during their tenure. It's still my opinion - as it was years ago - that defense is underrated in WAR or any other metric because it can't take into account what happens after a great play or an error. A great play can prevent several runs from scoring and we've all see an error 'open the floodgates' or cause a pitcher to throw several more pitches which will have an effect later on in the game. So.. to go back to what I said earlier, If I were building a team one of my focuses would be for that team to be 'solid up the middle' because that will prevent more runs from scoring than those people will contribute with their offense. At the same time a team has to make up for that lack of offense somewhere and since corner positions are easier to play I'd take my chances with weaker defense there. Ideally we'd all like to have 10WAR players at every position but we have to make choices. Anyway... that's my good-natured opinion and your results will vary.

Teams have tried that - going into the season thinking they're going to win games 14-11 - and it didn't work out for them. At the same time the teams who have tried to win games 2-1 with great defense and little offense didn't fare much better. IMO there's still a lot to be said for "solid up the middle". Get your best defense up the middle and if you have to sacrifice great defense for solid offense do it at the corners. If a team starts with that principle any great offense they get up the middle and and any great defense they get at the corners are a plus. Of course ideally we'd all like to see an all-star at every position.