Players are not crazy not to take it but I would hope that small details are all that remain. If feels like every major issue is extremely close except the arb pool. And in that regard, the owners just came up 20% from their previous offer.
The Mainboard MLB Lockout Thread
- Thread starter OCD SS
- Start date
- Status
View: https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1501995375930003462?s=21
(Owners mouthpiece Heyman): "Union expected to vote soon on MLB offer. Initial read: “Very promising except they want (2018) lawsuit dropped.” (MLB apparently included request for union to drop its lawsuit vs Marlins, Rays, A’s, Pirates) "
(Owners mouthpiece Heyman): "Union expected to vote soon on MLB offer. Initial read: “Very promising except they want (2018) lawsuit dropped.” (MLB apparently included request for union to drop its lawsuit vs Marlins, Rays, A’s, Pirates) "
I guess I dont really understand what your point is then. You said the owners were seeking a long labor peace. I responded that it was a strange way to approach a long term peace because they are extracting every single cent they can - long term peace generally results from some level of trust - trust that the owners have never had and certainly dont seem to be building in this negotiation. You then brought up on how the NHL lockouts went; I then merely responded that the economics of those lockouts were so vastly different as to be completely meaningless.
All three other sports leagues have similar breakouts between players and owners - each accomplished by different means, but in the end its a tight band. Given all the comparables are in a tight band, a system that results in widely different results to the benefit of owners seems pretty unreasonable to me (especially in light of the party that initiated the stoppage), but I guess we can just chalk it up to everyone can vary.
They likely will have a deal soon because the owners are moving. I'm sure some contingent of them is starting to put intense pressure on the rest of the owners to move towards the player's asks because almost wherever it ends up in the bid-ask is a much better deal than any of the other leagues and is pretty close to status quo.
Why do the owners keep adding “one more thing “ (international draft, this lawsuit) right when things are about wrapped up? It would piss me off if I was in the room (unless it was brought up earlier)
It's smart negotiating? You never show all of your cards and slowly introduce new red lines after you get over the previous one and you never have to make a concession without asking for something in return.
This one has been broached earlier, the difference is the union broaches new topics and MLB says 'that is a non-starter' and they're never spoken of again, whereas MLB keeps pushing their own non-starters back into the mix.
I would say its expected and anyone surprised is poorly prepared and anyone pissed off is too emotional.
I disagree. It is intentionally antagonistic and the proper response from the players is a flat refusal.
You generally go in hopefully knowing what all the issues are, but if someone keeps adding new issues as you’re getting near the end, that only leads to the other party wanting to add items in trade. And that’s why these negotiations are getting stretched out.
I'm doing my best to temper my expectations, but damnit, I'm getting more excited by the tweet.
This. Issues may come up that were not known about at the beginning in deals as diligence progresses. To bring up issues that were discussed at one point in negotiations and intentionally discarded at the last minutes is definitely antagonistic and is a good way to blow a deal by pissing the other side off.
It's not intentionally antagonistic. It's literally a negotiation tactic that happens all the time during negotiations. The term death by 1,000 needles is used all the time because one of the main considerations when making your requests is to not do it all at once. When the other side sees the complete picture, they can be more likely to say yes or no to individual components. If you negotiate individual items one at a time, after the other side said yes to something, they are far less likely to walk backwards on something agreed to. "What's one more thing?" "Let's just get this done, we're close." Well, one more thing is easy. Four more things is not.
That may work in something like buying a car, which is likely a one time transaction, with little follow up relationship with the two parties involved. However in a negotiation where the two parties are going to have some ongoing relationship, there has to be some level of trust between the two parties. Otherwise you end up in a situation where one group locks out the other before the contract gets done.
I agree... when it's done properly. My last boss was notorious for "one last thing" Too bad his "one last thing" was always having the vendor lower their price. every time.
"Hey, they've agreed to $100k / year for this package, like we requested."
"great, let's see if they'll do $90k"
Drove me insane
The dropping the arbitration request was included before. I'm fairly certain I mentioned it upthread.
The dropping the arbitration request was included before. I'm fairly certain I mentioned it upthread but I know it isn't new.
This was essentially what I was coming here to post, also I have still not seen anything either way about the rule 5, but I can't imagine they can still hold that.
The reporting on allegedly 'new' requests has proven less than fully reliable so worth remembering we don't really know what was discussed when.
I wonder if there are a couple teams who will, as I believe has happened in past strikes, been negotiating behind the scenes and will immediatley come out with deals now. You'd think they would know better, but....
Long-term peace can occur through having a partnership (like the NBA) but it can also come from other means. I'm not sure the two sides got a deal that won't bring the antagonisms back in 5 years but I'm just glad they look like they're getting a deal.
As I've repeated, I'm glad I was wrong about how little the owners wanted to give. I think the reported deal is a small step forward for the players, which is more than I thought they'd get.
MLB also wants a second grievance dropped:
View: https://twitter.com/Marc_Normandin/status/1502006283016314884?s=20&t=yyNi5bJQjeZ5DWjxkQHrCA
View: https://twitter.com/Marc_Normandin/status/1502006283016314884?s=20&t=yyNi5bJQjeZ5DWjxkQHrCA
Seems more likely that they'd be picking up negotiations where they were left off in December. I bet the first signing announced will be of the "we had it 99.9% done but couldn't beat the lockout deadline" variety. And it probably won't be a high profile player because that sort of thing would have been ferreted out by reporters by now.
Now if Correa is announced tonight, then you might be right.
This is 8 of the 38 votes, the individual teams' player reps also each get one vote, and they need 20 of the 38 to pass.
View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1502008990951256069
View: https://twitter.com/JonHeyman/status/1502008990951256069
All due respect, I help to negotiate around 600 contracts a year. This isn't true.
If that was really the case then I would think they wouldn't let it get to a vote. If it still passes, it makes you wonder what's going on within the union.
Could it potentially be only 5 votes, if the executive board voted against the proposal 5-3?
I didn't see the word "unanimously" anywhere, but possible I missed it.
Edit: so, this is dated!
- Status