Quote:
Originally Posted by MathBandit
Did the owners offer a $180M floor and no cap/CBT while I was working? Because at that point I'd say the deal is probably about 50-50. Anything less (which includes the deal that will eventually be signed) is a blowout win for the owners.
I'd argue the owners haven't even made a single offer that as good for the players as the old CBA is. Which is further evidenced by the fact the owners chose to lock out the players in December rather than let them continue to work under the old agreement while negotiations continued.
|
I'm really risk averse to getting drawn into this discussion/debate but I think your idea of a "50/50" deal and that anything less would be a "blowout win for the owners"....might be JUST a little high and outside.
A tad extreme.
But that's just my opinion.
I knew back in November, when I saw what the owners were proposing under the guidance of Moron Manfred (definitely less than the previous CBA, I agree), and that the players were attempting to make up for 27 years of poor negotiating (asleep at the switch) in one fell swoop that we were headed for this. I'm pretty sure I said so right here in these forums.
At this point, I don't even really follow it day to day anymore because I think bad faith bargaining, a lack of realism re: interest in the game, etc. etc. is a trademark of both sides. They'll come to terms, or they won't, and it's out of my hands so why waste time on it.
And finally, both sides are, of course, guilty of spin. But the one that really jumps out is that the owners are somehow to blame for ALL of this because they chose to lock the players out. "They wanted this"...."the players would be in camp right now and ready to bargain in good faith"...."they're trying to break the union".....etc.
Yes the owners locked the players out.
And they did it for a very good reason.
In 1981 and again in 1994 there was no lock out. Both sides agreed to continue on per normal and bargain in good faith.
Yah, right.
And what happened......the players waited until well into the season before going on strike, hoping to use the timing as a bargaining tool to create pressure. It didn't end well for baseball on a whole either time, especially in 1994.
So, three strikes and you're out. The owners would have been absolute fools to NOT lock the players out this time. Better a late start - or no start - to the season that the risk of 1994 repeating itself.
Now I wonder, would the players agree to no strike in-season if the season started on time? Would they agree to 2022 extension of the previous CBA if a settlement is not reached by a certain point?
My guess....not on your life.