Weekday Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Weekday Warrior

  1. I personally would still roll with a stars and scrubs strategy. Just do a little advance research on who seems most committed to not opting out. I find it really hard to intentionally end up with my budget spread around evenly on a bunch of mid tier players and still be competitive. I usually get my mid tier guys unintentionally just from price enforcing. Aggressive in season management is going to matter more than auction strategy this year.
  2. You’re obfuscating totally different aspects of the agreement. The owners’ season cancellation option and forced regular season length are birds of totally different feathers. Do you think the journalist is grossly mis-representing an unambiguous aspect of the agreement (ie season resumption is not mandatory for anyone without open stadiums)? I ask again that you show the me the link that even hints that season cancellation is grievable by the players the same way a forced season schedule is and under what language in the agreement they could do so, All that other text you’re quoting really just goes to a different issue, namely the owner’s lack of leverage in dictating the terms in a context where both sides agree to have a season (ie waiving the requirement of live games) but can’t agree on season length and/or salaries. I agree with the author that the “have discussion about economic feasibility” language is vague and it doesn’t matter what people thought it meant.
  3. Dude all you had to do was google the words I put in quotes but okay here you go.... https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-10/why-mlb-players-will-prevail-on-getting-full-prorated-salary “The “Resumption of Play” section of the agreement sets three criteria: no restrictions against fans attending games; no restrictions on travel through the United States and Canada; no unreasonable health or safety risk to players, staff or fans.“ Regardless of what people realistically expected, that is what the agreement says, so if owners cancel the season there really isn’t much recourse. If you think otherwise, show me the language players could say owners violated in the event they enforce the above quoted language. The grievance only provides implied value to the players in a context where both parties mutually agree to waive these criteria, and then the commissioner sets a schedule that short-shrifts the players’ contractual right of “input” on setting the schedule. That is not gonna happen without grievance waiver, the owners would rather cancel the season.
  4. That is just a summary relaying the gist of the agreement, which very specifically says one of the criteria for having any season is "no restrictions against fans attending games" (google it). In theory the players could cancel a season over this missing criteria too (of course, why would they?), but if the owners do it the agreement is clear it is their right to do so, in which case I see no other specific language in the agreement that the players could grieve under besides the clause calling for the parties to “discuss in good faith the economic feasibility of playing games in the absence of spectators”. A grievance under this clause seems MUCH tougher for the players to win on than a scenario where both sides waive the criteria for a season to start and the commish unilaterally sets a super short season.
  5. Okay but that particular grievance hinges on the Commish exercising the option to unilaterally set a season, right? We now know that is never going to happen without a grievance waiver, it would be too big a craw in the owners’ throat to pay them for even one more game that wasn’t actually played. The owners would rather cancel, which the March agreement gives them the absolute right to do if stadiums aren’t open. If the season is cancelled, the only grievance the players could file would be an alleged failure by the owners to negotiate in good faith over the economic viability of having a season in empty stadiums. But this section of the agreement calls for a negotiation, and the players haven’t made an offer in 9 days! All I’m saying in as much as they act like they’ve got the upper hand the players don’t have any good options besides making a deal and with time growing short they need to grab 66 games while they can...
  6. I guess they had to push each other to the brink of nuclear war in order to feel sure they didn’t leave anything on the negotiating table The players can grouse all they want about 60 games being too short but we all know closing at 66 is their best deal One things is for sure, the players’ bad faith lawsuit is swirling the drain, the clock is ticking and they haven’t made any offers since June 9th!
  7. Supposedly as many as 8 owners voting in favor of season cancellation now. Players union has done a good job playing hardball (no sarcasm) but they really need to pivot back to a more conciliatory stance if they want to be realistic. Will probably take a few more days of tweeting about how they are ready and just want to know when and where before they get it out of their system and pick up the phone...
  8. Sorry but the players’ high and mightyism collapsed as soon as their lawyer said that they’d sue for a billion dollars the instant the league announced a schedule. That isn’t just a small footnote to the whole “tell us when, tell is where, we’re ready” slogan, it is a glaring omission. Maybee half a billion to 3/4 billion would be a reasonable pie in the sky to shoot for if they thought they could convince an arbitrator to have days on the calendar almost totally supersede economic and health factors, but a billion is over the top.
  9. The players’ $1 billion dollar claim is disingenuous ... so yeah of course the league is going to position themselves to ratchet that figure down per the criteria in the March agreement
  10. Raising Covid19 is a natural response to the players’ $1 billion grievance threat. I assume the players’ $1 billion calculation is the difference in prorated salaries between the 50 games the league might impose and the max number of possible games before Sep 27 had the league acted in what they say is good faith. But the March agreement says days on the calendar is just one of multiple factors that go into setting a schedule. Economics is another factor that the owners rely on, but health and safety is another factor that the owners are entitled to invoke. A $1 Billion dollar grievance threat is extremely heavy handed, so the players brought this on themselves. If the owners wave off health and safety considerations they’re just strengthening the players’s monetary claim.
  11. If prorated salaries were the preexisting contractual default anyway where games are cancelled on account of disasters, what exactly was the quid pro quo the owners got in March for agreeing to service time and the $170 mil salary guarantee? Seems like the March agreement was just an affirmation of everyone’s mutual desire to salvage a season if possible with a basic framework in place for doing so
  12. I am not advocating this, just trying to deconstruct the thought process
  13. Question: does canceling the season outright put the owners in a better stance to defend the players’ “billion dollar” grievance claim than mandating a 50 game season?
  14. Breakdowns like this are exactly why people use mediators....
  15. As an FYI the same link makes it seem like there will be a loss of broadcast revenue too, which you were previously treating as fully guaranteed....
  16. Do you have a link to back up this assertion that owners may only be losing 30% of total revenue? A link to back up the assertion that they are making the same local and national TV money as a 162 game season? Even if these things are true, I still don’t see the equivalency. Revenue is not profit to the owners, there are still many other costs that come out of revenue besides player salaries. But player salary is a personal profit to the player.
  17. I just don’t see the equivalency there, sorry, and it certainly doesn’t affect my position that the players didn’t make a “concession” when they “agreed” to less than a 162 game season
  18. That’s not at all what I am saying. I was only talking about the games lost from the full 162 game season due to an act of nature not being a “concession”, as opposed to post-reopening games.
  19. It’s not a concession when they had no reasonable expectation of collecting that per game salary in the wake of the pandemic. Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see the owners dig a little deeper and pay for a longer season for the good of the game and keeping the players happy, but I am also grateful they aren’t cancelling the entire season (which they have a right to do). Neither of us has the evidence one way or the other as to whether the owners are truly losing money on empty stadium games, but the owners sure don’t seem too scared of a grievance process fleshing that info out, in fact they seem eager to cross-grieve...
  20. I was speaking to the notion that players agreeing to a less than 162 game season could somehow be classified as a “concession”...
  21. My analysis is not based on an end game of paying the players for 50 games, it is based on time, and the calendar. Even with a July 1st start date the 185 day/162 game season would drag into 2021!
  22. I don’t understand, 162 games was never going to happen in any universe, and 114 games was a fantasy too. It is June 15th and spring training still needs to happen so 89 games is possible only if you either: 1) proclaim that the owners are lying when they say TV schedules prevent them from making the same playoff revenue from a delayed postseason, or 2) proclaim that the owners have a duty to forfeit playoff revenue for the sake of having more regular season games.
  23. I can’t credit these as concessions given that the season was suspended on account of a global pandemic and state lockdown orders prevented play. Look at the calendar, even the 89 game reduction isn’t possible.
  24. I see a lot of people comparing this to “how would you feel if your employer made you share in its losses but not profits”, but I don’t agree with the analogy. First of all I do know people who had to take salary cuts the last few months because of the economy and others who lost their jobs even from companies that are still financially healthy as a whole (just less profitable). Moreover, this isn’t just an employer having a bad year and asking the employees to share in the losses, the entire season was suspended due to a global pandemic! The owners had a contractual right to not pay players when games are cancelled, and I believe the prorated salaries that they agreed to was already the default even if they hadn’t made a deal in March that also gave the players’ their service time. The owners also have a right to cancel the season in its entirety and pay the players nothing. So I don’t see what is so wrong about having a conversation about what they can afford to pay if they are going to salvage a season before they act unilaterally and within their rights ....
  25. It wasn’t interest free from what I read. I get that some people have a “well why should they compromise” view toward the players, all I’m saying is I don’t see where the players offered much in the way of compromise. The owners’ offers weren’t great but at least they gave the players a chance to make more money than where this is heading....