Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

On time

1 (33.3%)

Late, but on or before April 15th

0 (0%)

April 16th through April 30th

0 (0%)

May 1st through May 15th

2 (66.7%)

May 16th through May 31st

0 (0%)

Jun1st through June 15th

0 (0%)

June 16th through June 30th

0 (0%)

After June 30th

0 (0%)

No Season

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Voting closed: February 13, 2022, 10:41:25 PM

[Hamilton Samuels]

Let's not forget - organizations have had overhead all this time, with little/no revenue - including paying minor league salaries.

Let's see their books. Oh? They won't show them to you? But they'll tell you how much they pay each player. There's the issue.

[kiidcarter8]

oh.............

heh.

[bankshot1]

Let's not forget - organizations have had overhead all this time, with little/no revenue - including paying minor league salaries.

Let's see their books. Oh? They won't show them to you? But they'll tell you how much they pay each player. There's the issue.

The books are critical.

Both sets.

[kiidcarter8]

Only if you just need controversy

Sad, you are.

[kiidcarter8]

From ESPN -

MLB will make another offer to players

[bankshot1]

Only if you just need controversy

Sad, you are.

What are you Yoda-lite?

I don't need controversy, nor want it, but as long as MLBPA doesn't trust the owners, and why should they after the years of being lied to, cheated and illegally conspired against by the owners. As long as they think the owners are short-changing them getting to yes will be a problem.

So some transparency for the players might be helpful, and yes it might cost the owners more.

Again have TV contracts been modified to reflect a shortened season? I think the players who are being asked to forgoe their contracts have a right to understand what the owners have given up and what they haven't given up.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Only if you just need controversy

Sad, you are.

What are you Yoda-lite?

I don't need controversy, nor want it, but as long as MLBPA doesn't trust the owners, and why should they after the years of being lied to, cheated and illegally conspired against by the owners. As long as they think the owners are short-changing them getting to yes will be a problem.

So some transparency for the players might be helpful, and yes it might cost the owners more.

Again have TV contracts been modified to reflect a shortened season? I think the players who are being asked to forgoe their contracts have a right to understand what the owners have given up and what they haven't given up.

Bingo!  Negotiating in good faith is not in the owners' DNA.

[kiidcarter8]

Mets draft high school CF - Yanks a collegiate catcher, Red Sox interestingly go with high school middle infielder

[Hairy Lime]

Indians took Carson Tucker and Tanner Burns. Following my long standing rule of only drafting players whose names sound like a third rate screen writer's idea for a baseball player's name.

[kiidcarter8]

Indians took Carson Tucker and Tanner Burns. Following my long standing rule of only drafting players whose names sound like a third rate screen writer's idea for a baseball player's name.

Tucker looks like he is 14

Burns is the "we only won 68 games" pick.

[kiidcarter8]

Mets power pitching gets deeper with J T Ginn - first round talent, off TJ surgery, round 2

Van Wagonen being credited for his strategies the past 2 years (though frankly I would have taken a power arm round 1)

[Hamilton Samuels]

Standing up for teammates in Boston:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/kevin-youkilis-red-sox-racism-041140359.html

[Hamilton Samuels]

Every Astro cheated, according to Cora.

https://sports.yahoo.com/alex-cora-astros-cheating-not-213506636.html

[kidcarter8]

Joooooo-eyyyyy....

[Echo4]

https://theathletic.com/1870435/2020/06/12/mlbs-latest-proposal-to-players-comes-with-sharply-worded-letter-marking-ill-will/?source=weeklyemail

excerpt:

“I must have misinterpreted your June 6th letter,” Halem tells Meyer. “I thought the letter reflected a willingness on the part of the Association to discuss in good faith the economics necessary for the Office of the Commissioner to waive its right under the March Agreement to resume the 2020 season only when there are, among other things, no restrictions on fan access. After reviewing the Association’s counterproposal, I stand corrected.”

Not until the third page does Halem detail what he calls the league’s “Final Counterproposal for 72 games,” in which the players would receive 70 percent of their prorated salaries for the regular season and up to 80 percent if the postseason is completed. The financial guarantee of the offer is the rough equivalent of the guarantee the players would receive if commissioner Rob Manfred exercises his right to impose a season for as few as 48 games at full prorated salary.

If the postseason is completed, the players can earn approximately $300 million more under the league’s proposal than they would in a schedule of 50-odd games. But the union almost certainly will reject the offer because of the similarity of the guarantees and its insistence on receiving 100 percent of the players’ prorated salaries.

Though Friday’s proposal was not necessarily a final overall offer, it might well mark the last time MLB is willing to consider a season as long as 72 games. Each passing day potentially cuts into the length of the schedule, particularly given the owners’ insistence that the playoffs be completed on schedule, citing the potential for a second wave of COVID-19 in the fall and the reluctance of broadcast partners to reschedule their October postseason windows.

In his letter, Halem takes exception to what he calls, “the Association’s rhetoric that players ‘remain opposed to any further pay cuts,’” saying the players were never entitled to be paid in the first place because Manfred had the authority to suspend all contracts once President Trump declared a national emergency on March 13.

Responding to Halem, a PA spokesman said: “Mr. Halem’s self-serving letter is filled with inaccuracies and incomplete facts. We will respond to that and the league’s latest proposal in short order. It should not be forgotten however that even MLB admits that our March Agreement does not require players to agree to further pay cuts. Indeed, as Mr. Halem agreed in a May 18 letter to Tony Clark: ‘The Association is free to take the position that players are unwilling to accept further reductions.’ Pat Houlihan, MLB legal counsel, similarly acknowledged in his May 22 letter to the Players Association. ‘We agree with the Association that, under the Agreement, players are not required to accept less than their full prorated salary.’’