MLB Talks ... latest news

[wsnydes]

Jeff Passan is reporting that there was enough progress at today's 2 hour meeting that they're going to meet again tomorrow.  

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/33140500/mlb-players-association-plan-meet-again-tuesday-sides-make-progress-sources-say

This hardly means much, but I'll take progress at this point.

Update...

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Hooray! They talked for two hours and didn’t have a setback!

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

Hooray! They talked for two hours and didn’t have a setback!

Maybe that's what tomorrow is for!  The only thing they could agree on is that they needed more time for a setback.

[theBOMisthebomb]

2 hours ago, wsnydes said:

Maybe that's what tomorrow is for!  The only thing they could agree on is that they needed more time for a setback.

The comeback is always greater than the setback.

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

The comeback is always greater than the setback.

I certainly hope that holds true here!

[TheLeviathan]

They agreed that coffee is good and donuts are an acceptable breakfast food for in-person meetings.  

High level CBA terms are inevitable now.

[beckmt]

I think you all are seeing more hope than actually is.  MLB according to MLBtraderumors is ok with cancelling regular season games if no agreement is reached.  This may be a ploy, but it is a step back.  

Seems like some areas are closer, we still have a long way to go.

[wsnydes]

9 minutes ago, beckmt said:

I think you all are seeing more hope than actually is.  MLB according to MLBtraderumors is ok with cancelling regular season games if no agreement is reached.  This may be a ploy, but it is a step back.  

Seems like some areas are closer, we still have a long way to go.

I'm seeing more sarcasm than positivity in this thread.  

I guess that I see progress in the fact that they're actually sitting down and then agreed to do it again the next day.  But as my last line in the OP said, it doesn't mean much.

[lecroy24fan]

2 hours ago, beckmt said:

I think you all are seeing more hope than actually is.  MLB according to MLBtraderumors is ok with cancelling regular season games if no agreement is reached.  This may be a ploy, but it is a step back.  

Seems like some areas are closer, we still have a long way to go.

If they say they're not okay with cancelling games they lose a lot of leverage.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

10 hours ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

The comeback is always greater than the setback.

Oh man! It’s an inspirational sports movie in the making

[Richie the Rally Goat]

2 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I'm seeing more sarcasm than positivity in this thread.  

I guess that I see progress in the fact that they're actually sitting down and then agreed to do it again the next day.  But as my last line in the OP said, it doesn't mean much.

@Brock Beauchampwhen are we getting the sarc font?

[Squirrel]

3 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I'm seeing more sarcasm than positivity in this thread.  

I guess that I see progress in the fact that they're actually sitting down and then agreed to do it again the next day.  But as my last line in the OP said, it doesn't mean much.

Well, one can always have hope. But there is also a lot of cynicism when it comes to the MLB and their decision making. 

[wsnydes]

24 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Well, one can always have hope. But there is also a lot of cynicism when it comes to the MLB and their decision making. 

And justifiably so.  They bring it upon themselves.

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

They agreed that coffee is good and donuts are an acceptable breakfast food for in-person meetings.  

High level CBA terms are inevitable now.

But now they're going to spend ten weeks debating how to divide 9,500,000,000 doughnuts between 800 people.

[Cap'n Piranha]

Here's a radical thought--what if all MLB revenues are split 50/50 between owners and players, and the distribution of those revenues on the players' side is solely at their discretion.  Every player is controlled by their signing/drafting/trading-for organization until the offseason after they turn 29 (offseason defined as starting on December 1--turn 29 on Dec 1?  Sorry, one more year of control.  Already 29 on Dec 1?  Congrats, you're a free agent).  Every player is therefore free to play for whomever they want from age 30 onwards, with the caveat that each team can only sign 3 players they did not control at the end of the season in which they turned 29 per offseason.  All FA contracts are for 3 years, with no option years or opt outs.

There would never be another work stoppage, there's no barrier to entry on the FA market for any team, all players will debut in the majors as soon as possible to maximize their contribution to the org, and there would never be contention around pay between the two sides ever again.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

50 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Here's a radical thought--what if all MLB revenues are split 50/50 between owners and players, and the distribution of those revenues on the players' side is solely at their discretion.  Every player is controlled by their signing/drafting/trading-for organization until the offseason after they turn 29 (offseason defined as starting on December 1--turn 29 on Dec 1?  Sorry, one more year of control.  Already 29 on Dec 1?  Congrats, you're a free agent).  Every player is therefore free to play for whomever they want from age 30 onwards, with the caveat that each team can only sign 3 players they did not control at the end of the season in which they turned 29 per offseason.  All FA contracts are for 3 years, with no option years or opt outs.

There would never be another work stoppage, there's no barrier to entry on the FA market for any team, all players will debut in the majors as soon as possible to maximize their contribution to the org, and there would never be contention around pay between the two sides ever again.

Considering 29 teams are unwilling to open their books, I’d say your radical idea is doa

[Cap'n Piranha]

22 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

Considering 29 teams are unwilling to open their books, I’d say your radical idea is doa

As are most radical ideas the first time they see the light of day.

Then again, since it was the owners themselves who proposed a 50/50 split in the 2020 season, you may want to check again for signs of life.  Further, if a perpetual agreement of 50/50 revenue split is achieved, what reason do the teams have to keep their books closed?  The only reason they do so now is to maintain leverage in negotiations, both for CBAs and individual contracts.  With both of those reasons no longer a concern, open books are of no consequence to the owners.

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But now they're going to spend ten weeks debating how to divide 9,500,000,000 doughnuts between 800 people.

It's cute you think 800 people will get a piece.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's cute you think 800 people will get a piece.

The MLBPA alone has 1200 members...

[Doctor Gast]

8 hours ago, beckmt said:

I think you all are seeing more hope than actually is.  MLB according to MLBtraderumors is ok with cancelling regular season games if no agreement is reached.  This may be a ploy, but it is a step back.  

Seems like some areas are closer, we still have a long way to go.

I see it as a ploy, for MLB to shake-up the player base. They don't want to shorten the season anymore than the players.

[wsnydes]

 

 

The lastest update from Passan.

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

52 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

As are most radical ideas the first time they see the light of day.

Then again, since it was the owners themselves who proposed a 50/50 split in the 2020 season, you may want to check again for signs of life.  Further, if a perpetual agreement of 50/50 revenue split is achieved, what reason do the teams have to keep their books closed?  The only reason they do so now is to maintain leverage in negotiations, both for CBAs and individual contracts.  With both of those reasons no longer a concern, open books are of no consequence to the owners.

The owners proposed a 50/50 split without opening their books. In other words they proposed “you’ll get what I choose to give you”

[Brock Beauchamp]

16 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

The lastest update from Passan.

Oooh, a $10m pool for 30 players. Yeehaw, that's an average of $333k per player!

[wsnydes]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Oooh, a $10m pool for 30 players. Yeehaw, that's an average of $333k per player!

 

I mean, good for those guys but...

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, wsnydes said:

I mean, good for those guys but...

I guess it’s good but if a player is in their third year of arb and making $8m, they’re not gonna be overly excited about an extra $330k.

Baseball needs to pay its young players a lot more money for a variety of reasons and a $10m pool is an embarrassing offer.

Everyone involved needs to stop ****ing around and truly negotiate. 

[wsnydes]

13 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I guess it’s good but if a player is in their third year of arb and making $8m, they’re not gonna be overly excited about an extra $330k.

Baseball needs to pay its young players a lot more money for a variety of reasons and a $10m pool is an embarrassing offer.

Everyone involved needs to stop ****ing around and truly negotiate. 

I thought the pool was for pre-arb players.

I agree with your greater point though.  The younger players should be getting more of the pie.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Sconnie said:

The owners proposed a 50/50 split without opening their books. In other words they proposed “you’ll get what I choose to give you”

And if you think it's possible the MLBPA agrees to that without getting a look at the books, you're crazy.  The point isn't that it almost happened, it's that the owners made a proposal that they had to know would result in them having to open their books to implement.  Perhaps it was a bad faith proposal, but sometimes good deals start with bad faith proposals, for no other reason than it gets people talking.

Edit--if the players had accepted the proposal, while saying "great! Open your books so we can all know what the number is!", and the owners responded by saying "just kidding, not gonna do that", the owners will look petty, unreasonable, and vindictive.  Not a great strategy for a group trying to win a PR war.

[Cap'n Piranha]

59 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I thought the pool was for pre-arb players.

I agree with your greater point though.  The younger players should be getting more of the pie.

Can never happen until older players agree to take less of the pie.  It's one of the greatest tricks the MLBPA has managed to pull--get 800ish guys making $2M or (usually) less to vote for a system that denies them more money so 100 guys can make $15M or more.  Why the owners haven't figured out a way to create and subsequently exploit a crack there is fascinating to me.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I know it’s small, but agreeing on a bonus pool parameter for top 30 war pre-arbitration players is at least a start.

it is more encouraging than any development since December 2

 but  so I guess  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[tony&rodney]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The MLBPA alone has 1200 members...

That's capitalism, some will starve. 

Fans are starving for the hot stove and the lockout has us frozen stiff. I watched football for the first time in decades this weekend and the games were entertaining. I had never heard of the players except for Mahomes because of his dad. I think I'll watch the Chiefs this weekend.