In today’s installment of “The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expect different results”… MLB’s latest proposal, apparently:
The very definition of negotiating in bad faith.
Same turd, different package.
ESPN says Manfred will impose a 48-game season if the players reject the current offer which expires Sunday.
ETA: MLBPA has acquiesced to this.
Oh, and amazing timing:
Per Olney, the current labor impasse is…drumroll please…the Astros’ and Luhnow’s fault.
Fuck him
Rob Manfred “hey Buster I just saw we had a negative headline about me burying the Yankees sign stealing. I don’t have to tell you how bad that will make me look. Could you possibly write something negative about the Astros and divert some of the attention away from my lack of integrity? Thanks bud.”
Writers are carrying more water for the owners than Gunga Din
Nice strawman Olney set up there. Greed and avarice never existed until Astroball came into existence. What a miserable man
Olney should be fired for this- I’m serious.
And those of you who pay for ESPN are supporting this bullshit.
ETA: ESPN now has this on the front page.
The sanctimonious horseshit flowing down from MLB and many of the pundits following the sport has been beyond the pale since this part of the sign stealing scandal emerged. The Astros got caught and have to suffer the consequences, but there is no fucking way they should be looped into the current labor conflict.
The owners basically told the players to pound sand. According to Bill Shaikin (LA Times), in a letter today MLB told MLBPA there will be “no 2020 season unless the players waived any legal claims against the league.”
What the fuck? RIP 2020 season.
This was simultaneous with Jeff Passan parroting MLB’s line that the MLBPA unilaterally broke off negotiations.
It’s amazing. They already had a fucking agreement, and then MLB tried to retrade the deal. The players moved towards the owners’ position twice, but the owners’ never once materially changed their position. Now they say no deal at all unless you agree not to sue us for violating the agreement. That’s about as cynical an example of negotiating in bad faith that we are going to see in the public sphere.
NEW YORK (AP) — MLB letter obtained by The Associated Press says several players and staff have tested positive for COVID-19.
That’s not true from what I’ve read. The offers went like this:
Owners: 82 games, $1.03B guaranteed, $1.23B max ($12.56MM - $15MMgame)
Players: 114 games, $2.86B guaranteed ($25.09MM/game)
Owners: 76 games, $989MM guaranteed, $1.43B max ($13.01MM - $18.8MM/game
Players: 89 games, $2.24B ($25.16MM/game)
Owners: 72 games, $1.27B guaranteed, $1.5B max ($17.64MM - $20.83MM/game)
Players: We are done negotiating.
The owners made an offer, the players countered. The owners made a higher offer, the players made a counter that was higher than their first. The owners once again made a higher offer, and the players left the table.
The owners final offer was delivered as take it or leave it. The players were told they had to accept by today or the owners would unilaterally implement the season.
Fair enough, but to categorize it as the players kept giving ground while the owners never budged on a proposal is still not accurate.
Here’s a summary I’ve been going by:
Excerpt:
** The players’ first offer was for 114 games at prorated pay. Their second offer was 89 games at prorated pay with expanded playoffs for two years. That second offer is, by definition, a concession, as it calls for less money paid out to players in salaries and increased revenues for owners for two seasons.*
** The owners’ first offer was for 82 games and included about $1 billion in pay cuts via doing away with prorated pay and going to pay on a “sliding scale.” Their second offer was for 76 games at 75% prorated pay but a good deal of non-guaranteed money and deferrals. As analyzed in detail by Craig Edwards at FanGraphs, the second offer would guarantee players less money than the owners’ first offer. It contains no concession and is actually moving in the wrong direction.*
This summary doesn’t take into account the owners’ latest offer, but as Waldo explained above, the numbers shake out virtually the same. The default of a 48 game season at 100% prorated pay shakes out the same way.
This is technically true, but it was for fewer games, and it’s more on a “per game” basis. Plus, the non-guaranteed money was a lot higher than the first offer. The owners’ third offer was even a better deal. The players never budged. Not even a little. This is like you selling your car, and I say I’ll give you $12,000 for it. You say “It’s $20,000”. I come back with “$15,000” and you say “now it’s $22,000”. I finally offer you $18,000, and you say it’s no longer for sale. You’re not really negotiating in good faith. Of course, there is the problem that we agreed to $20,000 a couple of months ago, which brings us to the main sticking point:
The owners claim that the March agreement, in which the owners agreed to pay the players through the lockdown, and give concessions in service time, agreed to re-visit salaries depending on whether or not games were played with fans. The players deny there was this agreement.
And in the end this all comes down to posturing for the next CBA and the single biggest sticking point of the last 30 years: The owners want a revenue sharing plan and the players vehemently oppose one.