Or it could mean that players started caving once their paychecks were in dangerIt might also mean that leadership was a little too caught up in "winning" the negotiation and the majority of the players had a deal they could live with right now.
Massive win for the Sox if this is true.
Just curious, who would have been exposed that we'd be worried about?Massive win for the Sox if this is true.
How is mathematically possible?Executive subcommittee voted 8-0 against deal and teams voted 26-4 in favor, sources tell @TheAthletic. Dissenting teams were NYM, NYY, HOU, STL. First with breakdown: @JonHeyman.
View: https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/1502022907064733708
Same scheduleWhere are you guys finding revised schedules? I'll be in SD on April 15th and 16th and would love to catch a game at Petco.
Seems like a classic short term rank and file wants their paychecks v. long term how do we solve the larger economic issues (e.g., combination of significant revenue sharing and large playoffs tends to decrease ownerhsip incentives to spend; long term decline in player's share, etc.)Or it could mean that players started caving once their paychecks were in danger
I was hoping we could swindle the MFY for Whitlock v 2.0Massive win for the Sox if this is true.
Seems like this would hit the Rays pretty hard.Limiting the number of times a player can be optioned to the minor leagues in one season
Read: Scherzer is still mad about something
This looks it is revised. Home against the Braves that weekend.Where are you guys finding revised schedules? I'll be in SD on April 15th and 16th and would love to catch a game at Petco.
Heard a good analysis (I think Dan Symborski or Ben Lindberg on Effectively Wild?) that the best way for the union to start clawing back their share is incrementally, by introducing as many new payment methods as possible. Once they're in the door it becomes possible to increase income on multiple fronts...Seems like a classic short term rank and file wants their paychecks v. long term how do we solve the larger economic issues (e.g., combination of significant revenue sharing and large playoffs tends to decrease ownerhsip incentives to spend; long term decline in player's share, etc.)
Good year to go over if it makes sense. Could be hard to clear $230 million in ‘23/‘24 even if they somehow extend both Devers and Bogaerts.Sox seemingly have $24 million before they get to the new CBT threshold of $230 million.
View: https://twitter.com/Feinsand/status/1502026376400015360
I think it's more like union leadership disclaiming responsibility for what they know is a bad deal for the players, and the players just wanting to play baseball.It might also mean that leadership was a little too caught up in "winning" the negotiation and the majority of the players had a deal they could live with right now.
Never mind. Thanks to jon abbey in other threadHow is mathematically possible?
Who's on the ExecSub?
Same schedule
Week canceled should be at the end
And a couple doubleheaders.
SD vs the defending champs Braves (so odd to type that) would be sweet. Thanks to you both!This looks it is revised. Home against the Braves that weekend.
https://www.mlb.com/padres/schedule/2022-04
honestly it was going to happen at some point - no reason to fight this at all. Within a month you’ll barely notice them any more than any commemorative patchDon't love this, from the ESPN article:
Additionally, player uniforms will feature advertising for the first time, with patches on jerseys and decals on batting helmets.
Advertisements on uniforms still in play?Lot of interesting stuff in the deal. Per Passan article on ESPN
The minimum salary jumps from $570,500 to $700,000, growing to $780,000
A bonus pool worth $50 million will be distributed among those younger players who have yet to reach salary arbitration. I've not heard of this pool before. Is this a new feature? Anyone know more about this?
12 teams in playoffs
A 45-day window for MLB to implement rules changes -- among them a pitch clock, ban on shifts and larger bases in the 2023 season
The National League adopting the designated hitter
A draft lottery implemented with the intent of discouraging tanking. I hadn't heard that this actually going to make it into the deal. Wow. Can't wait to see how it works.
Draft-pick inducements to discourage service-time manipulation
Limiting the number of times a player can be optioned to the minor leagues in one season
You're welcome. Hope you get to catch a game.SD vs the defending champs Braves (so odd to type that) would be sweet. Thanks to you both!
Looks like a done deal. Sam Adams?Advertisements on uniforms still in play?
I hate this. More than I hate no baseball? No. But it's still gross.Don't love this, from the ESPN article:
Additionally, player uniforms will feature advertising for the first time, with patches on jerseys and decals on batting helmets.
Red Sox payroll currently around ~$206m for CBT purposes. A new CBT of $230m means they've got money to spend, holes to fill and no excuse not to fill them.
The parties appeared to be "close" on a number of issues - like 10 million apart - so its difficult for me to see how it was roundly rejected by the executive committee. 10 million isn't changing the long term trajectory of "larger economic issues" so why did they oppose it so universally?Seems like a classic short term rank and file wants their paychecks v. long term how do we solve the larger economic issues (e.g., combination of significant revenue sharing and large playoffs tends to decrease ownerhsip incentives to spend; long term decline in player's share, etc.)
I am waiting for MLB confirmation on pretty much everything.SD vs the defending champs Braves (so odd to type that) would be sweet. Thanks to you both!
Thad Ward, Gilberto Jiménez and Durbin Feltman, to name a few.Just curious, who would have been exposed that we'd be worried about?
Devers, Pivetta, Verdugo, Arroyo, and Taylor.wow the arbitration thing is wild. Who is up for the Sox? Kinda don't want to piss anyone off mid-season...
Not a fan of players with relatively short tenure with club to be player reps, although to be fair, I can't give a rational reason for it.I heard that the Red Sox (Pivetta is the player rep) were a borderline "no" vote up until the end but ultimately voted "yes." Got the impression that a lot of teams were wavering on whether to vote yes.
Seems like a job a player has to want to have, and I'm betting most don't.Not a fan of players with relatively short tenure with club to be player reps, although to be fair, I can't give a rational reason for it.
With the extra cash, I hope Devers and Verdugo get extended.Devers, Pivetta, Verdugo, Arroyo, and Taylor.
Right there too, was happy to be so wrong.I am pleasantly surprised. An hour ago I still would have voted zero games in that other thread. Happy to be a dummy.
This seems like good news as well
Agreed. I think if he wanted to do it he's the right guy. He had to give up alot and potentially if he doesn't do a good job of rep'ing his clubhouse it'll be worse for him when he gets back.Seems like a job a player has to want to have, and I'm betting most don't.
I hate it too, but there have been similar things that I initially despised but have grown to actually like/prefer (e.g., advertisements on the boards in hockey, Monster seats in place of the netting).I hate this. More than I hate no baseball? No. But it's still gross.
That intuitively makes sense - what theyve been doing in the past hasnt worked. So introduce somethign new... like the pre-arb bonus pool and try to build off of it over multiple agreements.Heard a good analysis (I think Dan Symborski or Ben Lindberg on Effectively Wild?) that the best way for the union to start clawing back their share is incrementally, by introducing as many new payment methods as possible. Once they're in the door it becomes possible to increase income on multiple fronts...
I dont think the executive committee was ever going to stop a deal that its rank and file wanted. They were negotiating a deal that the broader union would accept - doesnt mean that they have to objectively like it. In that vein, the vote is really symbolic.The parties appeared to be "close" on a number of issues - like 10 million apart - so its difficult for me to see how it was roundly rejected by the executive committee. 10 million isn't changing the long term trajectory of "larger economic issues" so why did they oppose it so universally?
Thanks! (for this and for the rep common sense answer that is perfectly rational)Devers, Pivetta, Verdugo, Arroyo, and Taylor.
Which park/team are you talking about?Huzzah! Is the late schedule still the same? Was hoping to attend the September 22-24 home series.