Offseason Junk

Zvbxrpl

Well-known member
1,146
799
70
Hot damn. 3 years 71 mil?

Perfectly fine with Jed proving me wrong spending on talent. Just as long as the rest isn't half assed. Go big on a bat now and a mid rotation arm like Kikuchi.
 

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
1,390
699
70
So technically the cubs could keep going about there business and working with FAs? They'd just royally piss off other teams
No the lockout means that there will be no FA signings at all.
The intent of the lockout is to force both sides to get the deal done faster.
 

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
6,501
6,824
70
No the lockout means that there will be no FA signings at all.
The intent of the lockout is to force both sides to get the deal done faster.
Which isn't going to happen. These sides have been so far apart for years and seem to care more about proving how awful the other side is. I fully expect this to eat into the season
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
No the lockout means that there will be no FA signings at all.
The intent of the lockout is to force both sides to get the deal done faster.

As of last night, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between MLB and the MLBPA has expired and the league is officially in a lockout, meaning that no transactions will be permitted until a new CBA is ratified. This outcome had been widely anticipated throughout the industry, which is why there has been such a frenzy of deals in recent weeks, as many teams and players tried to cram in some of their offseason business before the lockout arrived.
 

JP Hochbaum

Well-known member
1,390
699
70
The lockout is a good thing. It forces both sides to talk more often, as if there wasn't a lockout there'd be less talk and a higher chance of no season this year.
 

Zvbxrpl

Well-known member
1,146
799
70
The lockout is a good thing. It forces both sides to talk more often
Lol

The owners, in bad faith forced the lockout.

I don’t think being forced to talk to someone who needs you because without you, there is no game, yet devalues you and acts in poor faith more often is a good thing.
 

Diehardfan

Well-known member
8,060
5,253
70
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I'm going to say 75% chance this eats into the season
You know, there was a time where I would've laughed at that statement. Not anymore. We are watching billionaires and millioniares argue over who gets a bigger cut of the pie. We've watched them fuck around in the past and do nothing but piss off their customers....baseball fans. Still the fans flock back....and flock back at inflated prices every time. The owners and players can both fuck themselves. If they come back, fine....if not, no big deal. One thing is for certain, I haven't been to a game in close to 20 years and I will never again pay to watch these rich pricks play....I'll watch on TV.
 

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
6,501
6,824
70
You know, there was a time where I would've laughed at that statement. Not anymore. We are watching billionaires and millioniares argue over who gets a bigger cut of the pie. We've watched them fuck around in the past and do nothing but piss off their customers....baseball fans. Still the fans flock back....and flock back at inflated prices every time. The owners and players can both fuck themselves. If they come back, fine....if not, no big deal. One thing is for certain, I haven't been to a game in close to 20 years and I will never again pay to watch these rich pricks play....I'll watch on TV.
Every time I go to a game it is only a reminder it is better on TV at home lol
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
Depends on the anouncer. But ya no smelly piss hole to find relief or long lines to the fridges

It is great for the kids. About it.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
  • 1972: Players strike over a pension dispute. Lasted about two weeks during the season.
  • 1973: Owner lockout during spring training over salary arbitration.
  • 1976: Owner lockout during spring training over the evolving issue of player free agency.
  • 1980: Players strike during spring training, largely over the structure of free agency.
  • 1981: Players strike over free-agent compensation. Almost two months' of games were lost during the season.
  • 1985: Players strike over pension fund and salary arbitration. Lasted for two days in August.
  • 1990: Owner lockout over salary arbitration and free agency. Began during spring training and pushed back Opening Day.
  • 1994: Players strike largely over owners' desire to implement a salary cap. The entirety of the 1994 postseason was canceled, and the 1995 season was significantly abbreviated. Play resumed only after a federal judge reinstated terms of the previous CBA
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
From the players' standpoint, they'd presumably like to address their shrinking share of those league revenues (indicated in part by the declining average player salary), the occasional practice of service-time manipulation (i.e., when teams hold back a clearly ready prospect in order to delay his free agency or arbitration eligibility for a full year), and the "tanking" problem, among other matters.

Priority No. 1 will be increasing the players' share of the money the league takes in, but that will not be easily accomplished. Teams' increasing reliance on young, cost- and team-controlled talent has cascaded through other markets for talent and depressed all but the top-most wages. Given recent circumstances, the best way to lift all boats is probably to press to make younger players more fairly compensated. That means significantly raising the minimum salary (over and above the usual minimum salary increases that accompany a new CBA) and perhaps lowering the service-time threshold for arbitration and free agency. None of that happens without significant give-backs or a strike. The union, frankly, is running out of paths to give away the rights of draftees and minor leaguers, so perhaps their play -- cynical though it may be -- is to dangle approval of an international draft. If that's not enough to lead a package of exchange concessions, then a strike is the likely way forward.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
Haven't the owners already made a solid offer?
No, they have not. The owners made an initial economic proposal during August discussions with the MLBPA, but it was not a compelling offer from the players' standpoint. According to Evan Drellich and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic, the league's proposal would "lower the first luxury-tax threshold in the sport to $180 million" while upping the overage penalty. Additionally, the league would institute a "salary minimum of $100 million," with the "money collected from teams paying tax" going to certain teams to help them meet the minimum.

On the surface, this would seem to address the ongoing tanking problem, in which rebuilding teams in essence lose on purpose -- an exercise abetted by low payrolls. However, the luxury tax, which already functions as a soft cap, hardens under this proposal. The bottom line is that in terms of the players' share of revenues, this constitutes a loss for them measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, no, it's not a serious offer.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
Also during those August meetings, MLB per Joel Sherman of the New York Post proposed a revised service-time arrangement in which arbitration-eligible players split a $1 billion pool and all players would become eligible for free agency at the age of 29 1/2. This, too, is not serious. That pool is tantamount to a cap on arbitration salaries, and the players are highly unlikely ever to agree to such a thing (owners previously angled for a cap on arbitration awards in the mid-1980s to no avail). As for the free agency timeline, it would very likely hurt the best players -- i.e., those who arrive in the majors at very young ages (think Bryce Harper and Fernando Tatis Jr.) -- and thus put a drag on the top earners by pushing back their free agency eligibility
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
There's a reason we know the specifics of those proposals above, and that reason is the owners' side almost certainly leaked them to the press. Insofar as CBA negotiations go, this has been the approach since time immemorial. The owners seek to gin up support among fans and even media by such calculated and self-serving disclosures, while the union indulges in far less of this sort of thing. The good news from all this, though, is that face-to-face talks have been taking place, and that's the only sensible takeaway when the particulars of an owner-side proposal land in the press
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
Worth noting is the players right now are likely more galvanized than they've been in some time. The long run of relative peace means that multiple generations of ballplayers could've entered this process without any first-hand knowledge of the strains of it. The negotiations during the run-up to the COVID-compromised 2020 season, however, gave those players a crash course in labor talks. As a result, there's a great deal of present solidarity among the ranks. On the other side, the split among owners between revenue-sharing payors and payees could compromise their unified front.


 

Chicagosports89

Well-known member
6,501
6,824
70
There's a reason we know the specifics of those proposals above, and that reason is the owners' side almost certainly leaked them to the press. Insofar as CBA negotiations go, this has been the approach since time immemorial. The owners seek to gin up support among fans and even media by such calculated and self-serving disclosures, while the union indulges in far less of this sort of thing. The good news from all this, though, is that face-to-face talks have been taking place, and that's the only sensible takeaway when the particulars of an owner-side proposal land in the press
They met face to face for 7 minutes yesterday. Not sure that's a positive development
 

CSF77

Well-known member
16,412
2,564
85
I would call that hey you back down? No. Mmmmkay pull out the chains and padlocks.
 

Top