MLB 2020: We're Playing, but We Can't Agree on Anything

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
19,377
where I was last at
Players should play the Manfred schedule, and then upon the cusp of the post-season get the "blue-flu"

Until the owners open the books (all three sets) and allow an examination of sources of revenues and how things are expensed and accounted for, I'd take the owners word of financial hardship with a massive grain of salt.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
11,681
Washington
I again recommend following Eugene Freedman on Twitter, he is a union lawyer so he brings that bias to his comments, but he cuts through a lot of the bullshit.

Maybe (probably) I suck at twitter, but I'm having a hard time understanding Freedman's assessment. Is he saying this is a solid outcome for both if Manfred goes with 60 games? The union shows solidarity, still gets 60 games, and still can file a grievance, with more complicated issues tabled for future discussions, and Manfred imposing 60 games, which Freedman thinks is fairly reasonable at the point in time (maybe?), puts ownership in a decent position to not lose a grievance?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,882
Maine
It feels like both sides started out at such extremes neither believed anything that followed was in "good faith". The players asking for 100% pro-rata is fine. Asking for 114 games when at best the calendar was only going to allow for 80-90 (barring playing the regular season through October) was dumb. On the other side, the owners offering the bare minimum of games AND at a significant discount on the pro-rata was a non-starter. After that, neither side really budged financially. Owners offers all were for roughly the same total money even as they increased the games. Players never really gave enough ground on games at 100% pro-rata...the only thing that dictated their changes was the ticking clock. There was a middle ground to be had, but neither side ever got close until the 11th hour. Now they're just acting on principle...wanting to be more "right" than the other side. And they're all fucking wrong.
 

jmm57

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,435
The owners current rumored schedule with a 7/29 start date seems very easily defensible with ST camps being shut down due to virus outbreaks in mid-late June. I think it’s a very easy to make the argument that there just wasn’t time to get many more games in.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
It feels like both sides started out at such extremes neither believed anything that followed was in "good faith". The players asking for 100% pro-rata is fine. Asking for 114 games when at best the calendar was only going to allow for 80-90 (barring playing the regular season through October) was dumb. On the other side, the owners offering the bare minimum of games AND at a significant discount on the pro-rata was a non-starter. After that, neither side really budged financially. Owners offers all were for roughly the same total money even as they increased the games. Players never really gave enough ground on games at 100% pro-rata...the only thing that dictated their changes was the ticking clock. There was a middle ground to be had, but neither side ever got close until the 11th hour. Now they're just acting on principle...wanting to be more "right" than the other side. And they're all fucking wrong.
This is largely my read as well, with the strategic note that the players alternative to an agreement seems even worse for them than owners does for them. Also, the players refusing to consider revenue sharing options is likely unwise.

This looks like a lose-lose outcome to me
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,024
Maybe (probably) I suck at twitter, but I'm having a hard time understanding Freedman's assessment. Is he saying this is a solid outcome for both if Manfred goes with 60 games? The union shows solidarity, still gets 60 games, and still can file a grievance, with more complicated issues tabled for future discussions, and Manfred imposing 60 games, which Freedman thinks is fairly reasonable at the point in time (maybe?), puts ownership in a decent position to not lose a grievance?
I think so, not going to claim to understand all the nuances here myself. Mostly I like that he keeps calling Heyman Baghdad Bob... :)
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
19,377
where I was last at
The owners never wanted to play the loss-leader regular season games, just the higher-TV rated expanded teams post-season games, the games where they get the vast majority of the revenues.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,015
AZ
Maybe having been blissfully unaware of the back and forth and the turns and twists this thing has taken has put me at an advantage.

This is all bad exactly why? I'm fine with 60 games. I'm fine with starting in a month. I would have liked a few more games and maybe have liked it to start a bit earlier but given the regional differences in difficulties of "reopening" in the USA that's not even really practical anyway. I'm also fine if some players make a decision that they are not comfortable playing and decide it's best to sit out. The season was never going to be more than a glorified and imperfect exhibition at best.

Why is everyone upset exactly? I don't care at all if the players have a grievance and what their chances of winning or not winning that grievance is. The whole "who struck John" argument going on around twitter is also not something I really give much of a crap about. As is the debate about who outmaneuvered whom and what the exact terms of the March agreement were.

I'm not trying to crap on what a lot of people are talking about in this thread. I know different people are interested in different things and the whole impact on labor management relations and how it might play out is important. But isn't the headline right now: "Baseball to resume in July?" That seemed up in the air even earlier today. I appreciate that I might not have all the facts and so I'm sorry if I'm unduly oversimplifying it.

Edit: Sorry, typing while jon abbey was posting that tweet. So I guess it's not a done deal.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
10,297
I think with the covid situation being what it is....there’s little to no chance of a season actually being played out.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,463
The back of your computer
Maybe having been blissfully unaware of the back and forth and the turns and twists this thing has taken has put me at an advantage.

This is all bad exactly why? I'm fine with 60 games. I'm fine with starting in a month. I would have liked a few more games and maybe have liked it to start a bit earlier but given the regional differences in difficulties of "reopening" in the USA that's not even really practical anyway. I'm also fine if some players make a decision that they are not comfortable playing and decide it's best to sit out. The season was never going to be more than a glorified and imperfect exhibition at best.
Imagine if both sides had agreed on a schedule where the season would have started in the July 1-4 time frame. Given the covid cases with several teams this week, we'd be almost exactly where we are now. The teams would be a two-week quarantine, and the season would be pushed back until late-July. The only difference is that 2nd spring training would have started and we'd be that much more disappointed.

I'm looking forward to hockey, basketball and football. Even if baseball begins in late-July, I won't be paying attention. To me, baseball won't begin again until next offseason and next spring training.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,882
Maine
Maybe having been blissfully unaware of the back and forth and the turns and twists this thing has taken has put me at an advantage.

This is all bad exactly why? I'm fine with 60 games. I'm fine with starting in a month. I would have liked a few more games and maybe have liked it to start a bit earlier but given the regional differences in difficulties of "reopening" in the USA that's not even really practical anyway. I'm also fine if some players make a decision that they are not comfortable playing and decide it's best to sit out. The season was never going to be more than a glorified and imperfect exhibition at best.

Why is everyone upset exactly? I don't care at all if the players have a grievance and what their chances of winning or not winning that grievance is. The whole "who struck John" argument going on around twitter is also not something I really give much of a crap about. As is the debate about who outmaneuvered whom and what the exact terms of the March agreement were.

I'm not trying to crap on what a lot of people are talking about in this thread. I know different people are interested in different things and the whole impact on labor management relations and how it might play out is important. But isn't the headline right now: "Baseball to resume in July?" That seemed up in the air even earlier today. I appreciate that I might not have all the facts and so I'm sorry if I'm unduly oversimplifying it.

Edit: Sorry, typing while jon abbey was posting that tweet. So I guess it's not a done deal.
To me, I'll be happy to have baseball to watch at all. My anger over the situation is primarily that the inability to come to some sort of amicable agreement on this portends for bad things when the CBA expires at the end of next year. Bad blood now isn't going to be patched up in time for the two sides to sing Kumbaya next summer.

I fear the very likely possibility that the 2021 season, if COVID allows it to happen, will end the same way the 1994 season did, and 2022 might end up like the 2004-2005 NHL season.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
20,784
That's an absurd position. The players are considering holding to the existing contract. If they do so, the Commissioner is obligated to set a season. If that happens, they are able to argue that he didn't do as much as possible.

If the owners want the players to make concessions, they should give them something worthwhile. Otherwise, the existing duties reign.
Isn't holding to an existing contract in a pandemic a little bit ridiculous, I mean just a tiny bit?

And if the owners held to the original contract and canceled the season - which could be in their best interests particularly if the players aren't going to waive their grievance, are okay with the owners position?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
Your view of “bad faith” appears to only apply one-way; I think the law requires mutual good faith so my prior question still stands.

Also, the above is not consistent with the facts

Perhaps the players have a much stronger bad faith case than I’ve seen articulated (I’m certainly not a labor lawyer). But they seem to be placing quite a bet on that. The union-side labor lawyer Jon Abbey linked to doesn’t land in a different place in the endgame, worth noting
It's not a law. It's a specific clause in the contract that would be interpreted by an arbitrator. It's not a both sides thing - the contract requires the commissioner to schedule as many games as possible with some somewhat vague caveats.

What is this "quite a bet?" The owners were offering basically nothing additional to the players versus what the commissioner will implement, and the players would have given the owners several gets that they'd never get back. So they're taking the commissioner's implementation and retaining their argument before an arbitrator.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
Isn't holding to an existing contract in a pandemic a little bit ridiculous, I mean just a tiny bit?

And if the owners held to the original contract and canceled the season - which could be in their best interests particularly if the players aren't going to waive their grievance, are okay with the owners position?
No. The contract was struck for the purpose of dealing with the pandemic.

No. The contract required the commissioner to schedule as many games as possible, with certain vague caveats. The best interests of the owners wasn't particularly relevant.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
20,784
No. The contract was struck for the purpose of dealing with the pandemic.

No. The contract required the commissioner to schedule as many games as possible, with certain vague caveats. The best interests of the owners wasn't particularly relevant.
It's interesting that you think that a contract struck in March 30 to deal with a pandemic should be the be all and end all of the negotiations, given what we didn't know at the time.

But hey if you think players can do no wrong, that's certainly your prerogative.

Not going to get any closer to baseball games though.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
It's not a law. It's a specific clause in the contract that would be interpreted by an arbitrator. It's not a both sides thing - the contract requires the commissioner to schedule as many games as possible with some somewhat vague caveats.

What is this "quite a bet?" The owners were offering basically nothing additional to the players versus what the commissioner will implement, and the players would have given the owners several gets that they'd never get back. So they're taking the commissioner's implementation and retaining their argument before an arbitrator.
That is not what the agreement said. It specifically did not set a schedule. The agreement also specifically said they would revisit the economic viability of playing without fans. The parties dispute quite what that meant but your characterization is not correct.

Please cite to language in the agreement—or an article from a reputable source—in any future posts about “what the agreement said” as I don’t get the sense you’ve followed this all closely enough to be commenting.
 

PseuFighter

Silent scenester
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
13,663
11211
So what happens when MLB releases a schedule? Do the players just file a grievance or do they actually play?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
It's interesting that you think that a contract struck in March 30 to deal with a pandemic should be the be all and end all of the negotiations, given what we didn't know at the time.

But hey if you think players can do no wrong, that's certainly your prerogative.

Not going to get any closer to baseball games though.
Not the end all and be all - the starting point from which the owners can offer more if they want more. The owners didn't want to start the season earlier without, essentially, getting the players to play those extra games for free, so they dragged this out, which is why we have less baseball.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
Not the end all and be all - the starting point from which the owners can offer more if they want more. The owners didn't want to start the season earlier without, essentially, getting the players to play those extra games for free, so they dragged this out, which is why we have less baseball.
What is your basis for saying “ the starting point from which the owners can offer more if they want more” but is not equally true of the players?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
That is not what the agreement said. It specifically did not set a schedule. The agreement also specifically said they would revisit the economic viability of playing without fans. The parties dispute quite what that meant but your characterization is not correct.

Please cite to language in the agreement—or an article from a reputable source—in any future posts about “what the agreement said” as I don’t get the sense you’ve followed this all closely enough to be commenting.
The bold is incorrect.

Here's a good article that cites from the March agreement. Frangraphs editor Meg Rowley stated on her podcast that they had the entire text of the agreement but chose not to fill up the article with it - but that Freedman's summaries are accurate.


the March Agreement is actually a comprehensive document with 15 sections and an appendix covering 17 pages. The parties spent a significant effort reaching agreements over a host of things, both modifying and supplementing the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). It’s important to remember that both parties were represented by experienced, competent counsel throughout the negotiations that led to the March Agreement.
Presumably, the Union’s grievance would be over the failure of the commissioner to meet the “best efforts” provision in the section on scheduling the regular season.

But before we even get to the scheduling section, there is another section that first must be reviewed. The Resumption of Play section gives the commissioner authority over whether or not a season will commence at all. The Agreement further provides the commissioner the right to suspend or cancel games after the commencement of the season if the same conditions are no longer met.
although the commissioner has the option to consider neutral sites or playing games in the absence of spectators if economically feasible;
in this section the commissioner has affirmative duties to move forward. There are a few key things to take out of this section, which is written as one long paragraph: setting the schedule is, as has been reported, within the commissioner’s discretion; it contemplates playing games beyond the scheduled end of the regular season; and it references economic feasibility three times.
Once the Union provides its feedback on those subjects, the commissioner is authorized to make the schedule “using best efforts to play as many games as possible” and taking into account a host of issues including “economic feasibility.” Then, after presenting one or more options to the MLBPA, the commissioner sets the schedule considering further feedback from the Union to the extent that that feedback is practicable and economically feasible.
Although the commissioner has unilateral authority in constructing the schedule(s), he does not have discretion about whether to do so. He must.
So, it’s really only in the construction of the schedule(s) that the economic feasibility acts as a counterbalance to playing as many games as possible. That said, what’s missing from this is who determines what is economically feasible. The Agreement does not define the term.
One last note. Despite all of the references to economic feasibility in the two sections referenced above, it is notably absent from the section on pay. The issue of pay was completely resolved with a pro rata agreement and formula in the March Agreement, with no contingency related to spectators attending games or other economic feasibility. That was a false argument from the moment it was uttered.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
11,681
Washington
No. The contract required the commissioner to schedule as many games as possible, with certain vague caveats. The best interests of the owners wasn't particularly relevant.
Do we have the actual language? I thought one of the caveats on scheduling games was related to economic feasibility. If so, playing without fans seems like it would make playing less games for financial reasons an outcome in accordance with the deal that was made.

But I'm not sure if that was just another rough paraphrase or not.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
What is your basis for saying “ the starting point from which the owners can offer more if they want more” but is not equally true of the players?
The owners were asking for more (less than full pro-rata salary, expanded playoffs) than the agreement. The players were comfortable with the commissioner simply setting the schedule, in accordance with the agreement.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
Do we have the actual language? I thought one of the caveats on scheduling games was related to economic feasibility. If so, playing without fans seems like it would make playing less games for financial reasons an outcome in accordance with the deal that was made.

But I'm not sure if that was just another rough paraphrase or not.
See the link and quotes I crossed with you. The economic feasibility is subject to debate as it is not well-defined. Theoretically, it might allow the commissioner to schedule fewer games which would cause the players to lose the grievance.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,570
Someone with the players came to their senses about the 2021 expanded postseason.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
The bold is incorrect.

Here's a good article that cites from the March agreement. Frangraphs editor Meg Rowley stated on her podcast that they had the entire text of the agreement but chose not to fill up the article with it - but that Freedman's summaries are accurate.

You realize what you quoted supports what I stated and refuted what you’ve stated right? The commissioner can set the schedule based on factors which include economic feasibility (as Fangraphs and others have noted).

The players can file a grievance about what constitutes economic feasibility, but your posting that the commissioner has an obligation to play as many games as possible is simply not what they agreed—you have, as I suggested before, taken out the condition at the heart of the dispute.

The March agreement let both sides make offers and each did. It’s violently dishonest of you to suggest the agreement was binding only on the owners. There are standards around here and you are operating below then.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
11,681
Washington
See the link and quotes I crossed with you. The economic feasibility is subject to debate as it is not well-defined. Theoretically, it might allow the commissioner to schedule fewer games which would cause the players to lose the grievance.
Yeah, I just saw that, thanks.

After reading that and seeing Freedman's tweets today, It seems like the owners might be on solid ground with 60 games. But yeah, it will take a long time to play out either way.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
27,570
Are the games still being played in AZ/FL given the COVID issues in those states?
Teams are supposed to hold revamped ST preparations and regular season games in their home parks. The one exception is the Blue Jays who will have to operate in the U.S.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
36,401
Teams are supposed to hold revamped ST preparations and regular season games in their home parks. The one exception are the Blue Jays who will have to operate in the U.S.
Got it, thank you. So hard to follow the simple logistics given all the back-and-forth noise of the labor negotiations.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
You realize what you quoted supports what I stated and refuted what you’ve stated right? The commissioner can set the schedule based on factors which include economic feasibility (as Fangraphs and others have noted).

The players can file a grievance about what constitutes economic feasibility, but your posting that the commissioner has an obligation to play as many games as possible is simply not what they agreed—you have, as I suggested before, taken out the condition at the heart of the dispute.

The March agreement let both sides make offers and each did. It’s violently dishonest of you to suggest the agreement was binding only on the owners. There are standards around here and you are operating below then.
The agreement says nothing about revisiting the economic feasibility of playing without fans. That was the spin MLB was pushing for months, saying the players should be negotiating on the per-game pay, which they privately admitted to the players was not true.

The commissioner has an obligation to play as many games as possible, with economic feasibility as a possible reason to reduce how many games he schedules. As I've said repeatedly, exactly how that interacts with how many games he schedules is vague and would be up to an arbitrator.

The March agreement doesn't "let both sides make offers" - all parties are always allowed to make offers. The offers are, and were always, alternatives to the existing agreement. If the two sides can't come to an alternative agreement, the existing one controls. Which is what is happening right now. The agreement was not binding on the owners - it is binding on all parties. The owners wanted to change it, the players said "ok, if you give us X, Y, Z."
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
Yeah, I just saw that, thanks.

After reading that and seeing Freedman's tweets today, It seems like the owners might be on solid ground with 60 games. But yeah, it will take a long time to play out either way.
Presumably 60 is the most possible, and the longer it drags out the fewer games. Hard to see the player’s endgame here other than believing strongly they will win a grievance isn’t it?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
19,377
where I was last at
I just read the detail of March 26th agreement upon which MLB bases it's season schedule etc. and see nothing definitive about how players get comped for the post-season.


"Minimum amounts for the 2020 postseason player pool are eliminated. If the format is changed, the parties will negotiate the adjustments."

And according to Manfred's statement tonight as there is no agreement, the post-season pool will be eliminated

What if history repeats itself and no agreement is reached? Would the players be in their right to withold services in the post-season if there is no agreement on their post-season compensation? Or owners unilaterally decided what player's post-season compensation will be?

Again, it appears that MLB wants to severely limit the loss leaders and the associated costs, while keeping the vast majority of revenues of the higher margined post-season games.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
The agreement says nothing about revisiting the economic feasibility of playing without fans. That was the spin MLB was pushing for months, saying the players should be negotiating on the per-game pay, which they privately admitted to the players was not true.

The commissioner has an obligation to play as many games as possible, with economic feasibility as a possible reason to reduce how many games he schedules. As I've said repeatedly, exactly how that interacts with how many games he schedules is vague and would be up to an arbitrator.

The March agreement doesn't "let both sides make offers" - all parties are always allowed to make offers. The offers are, and were always, alternatives to the existing agreement. If the two sides can't come to an alternative agreement, the existing one controls. Which is what is happening right now. The agreement was not binding on the owners - it is binding on all parties. The owners wanted to change it, the players said "ok, if you give us X, Y, Z."
So, your argument is that playing without fans doesn’t impact economic feasibility? That’s insanely stupid. They both knew that was an element of economic feasibility. They had to leave the term at that level because no one knew the specific restrictions that would be in place.

As I said before, and you disputed, there is nothing wrong with owners making an offer. There is no obligation for players to say yes. Each side offered a change—I agree the owners offered a different payment mechanism as part of an offer that dealt with a bunch of issues; the 114 games the players offered was a change too (which is fine as I see it). You can’t just pick and choose, that’s now how this all works. They each made offers, neither accepted any of them, now here they are...
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
20,784
Not the end all and be all - the starting point from which the owners can offer more if they want more. The owners didn't want to start the season earlier without, essentially, getting the players to play those extra games for free, so they dragged this out, which is why we have less baseball.
You might see the March Agreement as a baseline for the owners with your player-tinted glasses but that's not true legally or, IMO, equitably.

I'm sure there are attorneys advising the owners that their safest course of action is to cancel the season. Given the new cases in facilities and the spikes in various states across the US, I would agree with that analysis.

Again, not the best way to get baseball played again.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
So, your argument is that playing without fans doesn’t impact economic feasibility? That’s insanely stupid. They both knew that was an element of economic feasibility. They had to leave the term at that level because no one knew the specific restrictions that would be in place.

As I said before, and you disputed, there is nothing wrong with owners making an offer. There is no obligation for players to say yes. Each side offered a change—I agree the owners offered a different payment mechanism as part of an offer that dealt with a bunch of issues; the 114 games the players offered was a change too (which is fine as I see it). You can’t just pick and choose, that’s now how this all works. They each made offers, neither accepted any of them, now here they are...
No. Playing without fans impacts economic feasibility. That's the argument the owners will make in the grievance hearing as to why 60 games is appropriate. The arbitrator will have to decide if that's what the agreement was calling for.

Under the agreement, economic feasibility is not relevant to how much the players get paid per game. That was set in stone, and the only way to change that would be to offer them something to give it up.

I agree there is nothing wrong with the owners making an offer.

You said the players were saying - "we'd rather litigate than play the season or negotiate" - that's what I disputed. The players weren't choosing litigation over playing the season. A grievance doesn't stop the season - it gets figured out later.

You said the players changing their offer from 114 to 70 indicates bad faith. I think that's absurd. They lowered their offers because the owners didn't want to play that many and because the clock kept ticking.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
You might see the March Agreement as a baseline for the owners with your player-tinted glasses but that's not true legally or, IMO, equitably.

I'm sure there are attorneys advising the owners that their safest course of action is to cancel the season. Given the new cases in facilities and the spikes in various states across the US, I would agree with that analysis.

Again, not the best way to get baseball played again.
Of course it's the baseline. It's the contract. If no superseding contract is agreed to, the contract holds. Which is exactly what is happening right now. They didn't make an agreement, so they're enforcing the March agreement.
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
11,681
Washington
Presumably 60 is the most possible, and the longer it drags out the fewer games. Hard to see the player’s endgame here other than believing strongly they will win a grievance isn’t it?
I don't know if the players really believe they will win a grievance, but I can maybe see them wanting a drawn out grievance process that they can keep as an arrow in their quiver during the next CBA negotiation. Dropping the grievance then could be a concession that gets them something maybe.

If Manfred still imposes 60 games, I don't think the players lose much by not agreeing now and just forcing Manfred to force the issue. The biggest risk seems to be if things drag out more and Manfred imposes less than 60. If all those assumptions are true (unlikely), I'm not sure the player's risk is worth it, but who knows.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
I don't know if the players really believe they will win a grievance, but I can maybe see them wanting a drawn out grievance process that they can keep as an arrow in their quiver during the next CBA negotiation. Dropping the grievance then could be a concession that gets them something maybe.

If Manfred still imposes 60 games, I don't think the players lose much by not agreeing now and just forcing Manfred to force the issue. The biggest risk seems to be if things drag out more and Manfred imposes less than 60. If all those assumptions are true (unlikely), I'm not sure the player's risk is worth it, but who knows.
In addition to this, there is a chance the owners are forced to open their books in arbitration to defend the economic feasibility stance. The owners wouldn't want that, which allows the players further leverage.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
24,378
No. Playing without fans impacts economic feasibility. That's the argument the owners will make in the grievance hearing as to why 60 games is appropriate. The arbitrator will have to decide if that's what the agreement was calling for.

Under the agreement, economic feasibility is not relevant to how much the players get paid per game. That was set in stone, and the only way to change that would be to offer them something to give it up.

I agree there is nothing wrong with the owners making an offer.

You said the players were saying - "we'd rather litigate than play the season or negotiate" - that's what I disputed. The players weren't choosing litigation over playing the season. A grievance doesn't stop the season - it gets figured out later.

You said the players changing their offer from 114 to 70 indicates bad faith. I think that's absurd. They lowered their offers because the owners didn't want to play that many and because the clock kept ticking.
Since the players have not reported, I think you are premature in assessing what will occur. Turning down 60 games after you offered 70 does not make it clear to me you want to play. I realize you will feel differently. And I don’t blame them, just noting basis for my statement.

I did not say the players were acting in bad faith. I said if you have that massive a change between your offers it is difficult to argue the other side is acting in bad faith—since your own offer had a massive change in value too. Again, unlike you, I am applying a similar standard to the behavior of both parties.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
Since the players have not reported, I think you are premature in assessing what will occur. Turning down 60 games after you offered 70 does not make it clear to me you want to play. I realize you will feel differently.

I did not say the players were acting in bad faith. I said if you have that massive a change between your offers it is difficult to argue the other side is acting in bad faith—since your own offer had a massive change in value too. Again, unlike you, I am applying a similar standard to the behavior of both parties.
It is overly simplistic to compare 60 games to 70 games. The number of games played were not the only differences between the sides' offerings. I also do not follow your logic about compromising indicating bad faith.

Further, we are not talking about some generic impression of good faith or bad faith - we're talking specifically about the commissioner's duty to implement a schedule with as many games as possible (after considering a number of factors, including economic feasibility).

Edit: I don't understand what you're implying about the players not having reported yet. You're saying Manfred is calling them on their bluff and they're not going to agree to report on July 1? Or we'll see what happens with coronavirus?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The bold is incorrect.

Here's a good article that cites from the March agreement. Frangraphs editor Meg Rowley stated on her podcast that they had the entire text of the agreement but chose not to fill up the article with it - but that Freedman's summaries are accurate.

It boggles my mind that Fangraphs had a copy of the agreement and chose not to print it.

Freedman would be the first to admit that he is biased. Reading this article is like reading one side's briefs in a court case -- we know more than we did before, but we are only hearing one side of the story.

Freedman's central argument seems to be that while the March agreement says that all bets are off if fans can't attend games, Manfred somehow waived that. Without access to the actual contract, it's hard to evaluate that argument. On the surface, however, it sounds like the sort of argument that is more persuasive in moot court than in labor arbitration. Imo, an arbitrator is unlikely to issue a billion-dollar award based on a technicality.
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,501
Portland
He's had his moments for sure, but Trevor Bauer has been worth following these past few months and sums up my frustrations with the sport. He's in favor of mics (tongue in cheek) for everyone among other things.

 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,648
Charleston, SC
It boggles my mind that Fangraphs had a copy of the agreement and chose not to print it.

Freedman would be the first to admit that he is biased. Reading this article is like reading one side's briefs in a court case -- we know more than we did before, but we are only hearing one side of the story.

Freedman's central argument seems to be that while the March agreement says that all bets are off if fans can't attend games, Manfred somehow waived that. Without access to the actual contract, it's hard to evaluate that argument. On the surface, however, it sounds like the sort of argument that is more persuasive in moot court than in labor arbitration. Imo, an arbitrator is unlikely to issue a billion-dollar award based on a technicality.
I think Freedman has 2 important arguments, one of which is known and one of which is argument:

1) The pro-rata salary was not subject to any caveats - under the agreement, the players get paid pro-rata per game they play.
2) The scheduling thing is actually up for debate, and would be the core of any grievance.