I think this is a big part of why the two sides are so far apart..

Quote:

---

The union has maintained the issue of player compensation was settled in a March agreement that called for players to be paid prorated shares of their 2020 salaries based on the number of games played. MLB contends the March agreement pertained only to games played with fans, and that playing games in empty stadiums without the associated revenue from ticket sales, concessions and parking requires a different pay scale.

The union has resisted suggestions that players should accept a second pay cut, on top of the one agreed to in March, because players are the ones assuming much of the health risk by playing in 2020. The owners, in turn, have claimed they will suffer significant losses by playing games without fans unless the players agree to a reduction in salaries.

---

The owners definitely have a point here. And the players only rebuttal is "health risk" which is complete BS. Everybody knows they will be coddled and likely even given tests every day to ensure they aren't around anyone infected. They seem unable to understand that the March agreement was based on game by game revenue being proportional to a normal season. It won't be, and even though no fault of their own, should they be making the same money while the owners assume all the risk and downside? Why can't it be shared?

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

You'll be happy to know the players are submitting a counter offer.

---

Their best offer? Take it or leave it?

03_Aggie said:

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

You'll be happy to know the players are submitting a counter offer.

---

Their best offer? Take it or leave it?

---

No, presumably their first offer, which according to this thread is required be a terrible offer because that is "how negotiating works".

So in summary, the owners send out a proposal designed to cut back from prorated pay and to split the players union by paying money to young players at the expense of older big contract ones. The players fire back and want full prorated pat and they want to play more games (and get closer to their full contract as a result) in empty stadiums where the owners aren't generating revenue.

Yeah, I would say both sides are obviously willing to negotiate in good faith

They have both basically started as far apart as they could have.

mathguy86 said:

---

So in summary, the owners send out a proposal designed to cut back from prorated pay and to split the players union by paying money to young players at the expense of older big contract ones. The players fire back and want full prorated pat and they want to play more games (and get closer to their full contract as a result) in empty stadiums where the owners aren't generating revenue.

Yeah, I would say both sides are obviously willing to negotiate in good faith

They have both basically started as far apart as they could have.

---

The last apartment complex my company tried to buy was supposed to close April 1. We went under contract before COVID hit. The seller came to a select few groups, off market, with a very steep, unrealistic price that didn't reflect the reality of his asset. Every single group presented the seller with "low ball", "insulting" offers.. below what the asset was actually worth. He came back closer to the middle and we eventually won the deal.

Then, after COVID hit, our private debt provider dropped out and we couldn't get another one to jump on with the new market uncertainty, the seller refused to lower the price, refused to return any portion of the earnest money, nor extend the deadline to close. So the deal died and we lost a couple hundred thousand dollars.

And you know what?

Nobody was wrong.

Sometimes **** happens. I wouldn't call anyone a "bad faith" actor in this. The players want as much money as possible. The owners aren't going to be making much and want to keep as much money as possible. They either reach an agreement or they don't. But if they don't, everybody loses and everybody is at fault.

WelchAg said:

---

I want baseball, but part of me is fine with scrapping this season simply to enjoy the thought that people on both sides won't make any money. 40 million on unemployment and they can't figure out how to make this work is not a good look.

---

The problem with that is it'll waste a key year in our open window the contend for titles.

Verlander and Greinke are old and getting older. We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

Farmer1906 said:

---

We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

---

And this is a problem why?

Farmer1906 said:

---

WelchAg said:

---

I want baseball, but part of me is fine with scrapping this season simply to enjoy the thought that people on both sides won't make any money. 40 million on unemployment and they can't figure out how to make this work is not a good look.

---

The problem with that is it'll waste a key year in our open window the contend for titles.

Verlander and Greinke are old and getting older. We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

---

I feel like we are losing a year anyway, even if the season plays out. Not saying I wouldn't root like hell for us to win again this year, but there is already a giant asterisk on this season. Part of the reason why I won't cry too hard if no baseball is played this year. I understand I may be in the minority here.

mazag08 said:

---

mathguy86 said:

---

Max Scherzer (who is on the MLBPA board) has tweeted that the owners proposal is dead and that the PA will submit a proposal to MLB for full prorated pay for players. And the suggestion was they wanted to play as much as 100 games. They must not be able to read a calendar. The only way you get 100 games starting in July is by killing off days and playing a DH every week. Or by going well into October.

Players union is going to screw this up royally.

---

FIFY

Either they are terrible negotiators or they are overly stubborn. MLB very obviously is willing to negotiate. They started out at one end and would likely meet in the middle. Dumbass players union took it as an insult instead of working to make a deal.

---

https://www.negotiations.com/definition/anchoring/ owners trying to create an anchor point by submitting a first proposal. mlbpa was in a bad initial spot, couldn't put forth a proposal first because their position was that a deal was done.

BOTH sides with a big fat fail for not getting the "fans in the stands" issue definitively clarified in the March agreement.

Quote:

---

We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

---

Nothing to see here

We already decided he's going to play all three OF positions and Yordan is going to bat for the other 2 spots.

WelchAg said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

WelchAg said:

---

I want baseball, but part of me is fine with scrapping this season simply to enjoy the thought that people on both sides won't make any money. 40 million on unemployment and they can't figure out how to make this work is not a good look.

---

The problem with that is it'll waste a key year in our open window the contend for titles.

Verlander and Greinke are old and getting older. We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

---

I feel like we are losing a year anyway, even if the season plays out. Not saying I wouldn't root like hell for us to win again this year, but there is already a giant asterisk on this season. Part of the reason why I won't cry too hard if no baseball is played this year. I understand I may be in the minority here.

---

Assuming there is a season, I dont think the 2020 Champs will have an asterisk. The nfl and mlb both had strike shortened seasons in the 80s and nobody has ever called those titles illegitimate (and the redskins won one where their crappy kicker won league MVP).

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

03_Aggie said:

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

You'll be happy to know the players are submitting a counter offer.

---

Their best offer? Take it or leave it?

---

No, presumably their first offer, which according to this thread is required be a terrible offer because that is "how negotiating works".

---

You have an uncanny ability of using hyperbole to attempt to make a point after attempting to condescend with a previous post.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

WelchAg said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

WelchAg said:

---

I want baseball, but part of me is fine with scrapping this season simply to enjoy the thought that people on both sides won't make any money. 40 million on unemployment and they can't figure out how to make this work is not a good look.

---

The problem with that is it'll waste a key year in our open window the contend for titles.

Verlander and Greinke are old and getting older. We don't have any OFers signed for next year besides Ted.

---

I feel like we are losing a year anyway, even if the season plays out. Not saying I wouldn't root like hell for us to win again this year, but there is already a giant asterisk on this season. Part of the reason why I won't cry too hard if no baseball is played this year. I understand I may be in the minority here.

---

Assuming there is a season, I dont think the 2020 Champs will have an asterisk. The nfl and mlb both had strike shortened seasons in the 80s and nobody has ever called those titles illegitimate (and the redskins won one where their crappy kicker won league MVP).

---

Agree with you there. If all parties are agreed and the playing field is level, then no asterisk.

Devil's advocate.. what if players have to miss two weeks of games for testing positive, and some teams are more hard hit than others? Would that require an asterisk?

one of the ESPN sportswriters speculated...if the players thought recent free agent markets were bad...just wait until this offseason (due to the COVID and shortened season).

that might benefit the Astros in resigning Brantley or Springer or Yuli --- money will be very tight across the league

mazag08 said:

---

Devil's advocate.. what if players have to miss two weeks of games for testing positive, and some teams are more hard hit than others? Would that require an asterisk?

---

Not for me. But I can't off the top of my head think of any titles over the last 50 - 60 years in the major pro sports that would be considered by most fans to be illegitimate.
72 olympic hoops would be one I can think of outside of major pro sports.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Devil's advocate.. what if players have to miss two weeks of games for testing positive, and some teams are more hard hit than others? Would that require an asterisk?

---

Not for me. But I can't off the top of my head think of any titles over the last 50 - 60 years in the major pro sports that would be considered by most fans to be illegitimate.
72 olympic hoops would be one I can think of outside of major pro sports.

---

Maybe not a title, but A&M vs UCLA was definitely illegitimate.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Devil's advocate.. what if players have to miss two weeks of games for testing positive, and some teams are more hard hit than others? Would that require an asterisk?

---

I can't off the top of my head think of any titles over the last 50 - 60 years in the major pro sports that would be considered by most fans to be illegitimate.

---

Umm...How about our 2017 title?

As sad and ridiculous as it is most fans outside of Astros fans see our 2017 title as illegitimate.

The winner in 2020 is as much as a champion as the 19, 18, 17, and so on.

Ag_07 said:

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

Devil's advocate.. what if players have to miss two weeks of games for testing positive, and some teams are more hard hit than others? Would that require an asterisk?

---

I can't off the top of my head think of any titles over the last 50 - 60 years in the major pro sports that would be considered by most fans to be illegitimate.

---

Umm...How about our 2017 title?

As sad and ridiculous as it is most fans outside of Astros fans see our 2017 title as illegitimate.

---

I dont think you are correct, and I think if that were true there would have been a much stronger push to strip the title by the media members who cover the sport. Then again, I watched every game in 2017 and saw how that team was better on the road than at home, so I probably don't view it with unbiased eyes.

WelchAg said:

---

I want baseball, but part of me is fine with scrapping this season simply to enjoy the thought that people on both sides won't make any money. 40 million on unemployment and they can't figure out how to make this work is not a good look.

---

You would think both sides would have at least come to an agreement to make initial conversations/negotiations private. Like you mentioned, with the current state of affairs most people are going to have a hard time caring about a sport where the millionaires/billionaires are fighting over $$$$

mazag08 said:

---

I think this is a big part of why the two sides are so far apart..

Quote:

---

The union has maintained the issue of player compensation was settled in a March agreement that called for players to be paid prorated shares of their 2020 salaries based on the number of games played. MLB contends the March agreement pertained only to games played with fans, and that playing games in empty stadiums without the associated revenue from ticket sales, concessions and parking requires a different pay scale.

The union has resisted suggestions that players should accept a second pay cut, on top of the one agreed to in March, because players are the ones assuming much of the health risk by playing in 2020. The owners, in turn, have claimed they will suffer significant losses by playing games without fans unless the players agree to a reduction in salaries.

---

The owners definitely have a point here. And the players only rebuttal is "health risk" which is complete BS. Everybody knows they will be coddled and likely even given tests every day to ensure they aren't around anyone infected. They seem unable to understand that the March agreement was based on game by game revenue being proportional to a normal season. It won't be, and even though no fault of their own, should they be making the same money while the owners assume all the risk and downside? Why can't it be shared?

---

I don't understand how MLB can act like they didn't know there was a possibility of no fans or reduced fans at the time the agreement was signed. Why wasn't this considered when they came to an agreement? That article indicates the agreement was made March 26th.

On March 10th, A&M played Rice in Houston after the Rice campus had already been shut down due to Covid. I remember being somewhat surprised that we were still allowed to attend the game. The next night, Rudy Gobert tested positive and the NBA shut down. The NCAA Tournament announced somewhere in there that it would be played with no fans and then it was outright cancelled on March 12th. It was a whirlwind of a week that shut the sports world down (MLB also suspended spring training on March 12th). Because of all the other happenings in sports and the world, it should have been highly obvious by the end of March to literally everyone that if MLB started back any time soon it would be without fans (or with reduced fans at the very least).

So why in the world did the owners agree to what they "now" see as a bad deal? It makes no sense to me. Other than the obvious that they are now trying to save their money and pin the responsibility for the season being cancelled on the "greedy players". To be fair, MLBPA airing their grievances in public doesn't help too much either.

Unfortunate all around. I just want baseball. If baseball started today it would be more popular than it ever has been. Huge missed opportunity.

It will be interesting to see who the Astros cut assuming they are following suit

so kind of the bottomline on May 28th...

some agreement must be reached in the next few days, if the season is going to start by the 4th of July

Is there a chance MLB doesn't allow fans even in states where fans are permitted?

astros4545 said:

---

Is there a chance MLB doesn't allow fans even in states where fans are permitted?

---

That's an interesting issue.

Do they make Astros & Rangers etc share gate revenue with Yankees, Mets etc?

BMX Bandit said:

---

astros4545 said:

---

Is there a chance MLB doesn't allow fans even in states where fans are permitted?

---

That's an interesting issue.

Do they make Astros & Rangers etc share gate revenue with Yankees, Mets etc?

---

If so we should be allowed to set up cameras in their parks to.. make sure they aren't lying..

And when we find them lying we will bang a trash can to notify the authorities.

astros4545 said:

---

Is there a chance MLB doesn't allow fans even in states where fans are permitted?

---

I doubt it. They want $.

Didn't we cut down on the number of minor league teams we had a year or two ago?