meh2

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Baseball Impact

Recommended Posts

Just now, 89Topps said:

I bet it will be "50-something".  Manfred will give just enough to the players to make it look like he's trying, but still very much siding with the owners.

I'll set the over/under at 54.5.

I think the last owners counteroffer was 72 games at 80% or 57.6 games worth of salary, so I'm going with 57.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So did you guys come to agreement?

Owners or players greedy SOB’s ? 

Edited by shakestreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shakestreet said:

So did you guys come to agreement?

Owners or players greedy SOB’s ? 

Both

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About damn time to admit it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a game that is dying off as is. This could be monumental for no season to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F the owners. F the players. F Manfred. I award each of you 33.3% of the blame for an epic failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A very dangerous territory for the game of baseball.

No idols, No vocal leaders, no faces of the game. Trout’s too vanilla, no black superstars, 

and definitely no McGwires or Sosa’s to save this dying game

i have never been so disinterested in baseball before.

very sad.

See ya baseball.

I’ll probably take my child and future children to some games. Cheapest of the big four and will even be cheaper in the years to come. So I can be thankful for that. We’ll probably only make it to the fifth inning though.

Edited by ZeroCool22
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like someone said earlier, baseball is already a dying game. And this will just be the nail in the coffin.

What's the guarantee that baseball will be back next season? Theres no guarantee that the fans will be back until a vaccine is developed. The CBA expires after next season also, and given how much animosity the players and owners have for each other, a work stoppage is likely. Baseball may be gone for 3 or more years and it will never recover. Heck, it doesn't need to be gone for 3 years, if it doesn't come back this year, it will never recover.

Im tired of the drama and have checked out. I gotta find a new hobby. 

Later y'alls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThreadKiller said:

 

Strange how so many don't understand this concept. This clearly outlines the definition of entitlement, despite anyone's claim otherwise.

 

Are you certain that players are paid per game?

 

I thought I had read somewhere that players are entitled to their guaranteed contracts if the league plays a "championship season" or something to that effect, but it is not actually defined as 162 games.

 

That would lead me to believe the players technically could have demanded their entire guaranteed salary and did, in fact, negotiate a prorated salary.

 

I can't find details now though, so I may be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

The owners more or less conceded the pro-rated salary issue awhile ago.  The argument since then has been on how many games (which the owners have a right to pick) and whether there can be any grievance filed for "lack of good faith" if say 50 games is chosen over 70 or 80.  The whole thing is a mess and is heading towards no season imo.  It is pretty clear the owners do not want to play more than 50 or so games so they are playing a delay and stall game now to force start of play around the end of July\August 1 so the players can not have any real argument for a grievance based on time remaining.  That is a lame argument anyway and even if they won it, it would take quite a awhile to settle it and the owners are not likely going to play games until it is settled.  So it would be like the players won the battle and lost the war.

If the players were smart imo, they would just take the 50 games and playoffs and shut up because this bickering and arguing about good faith and how many games is not going to net them anything imo and they can deal with it all at the end of the 2021 season when the new agreement has to be worked out (which will likely lead to a lock out imo given the animosity between the two sides).  If it continues, no one will get anything as the season will not be played at any level and that is not beneficial to either side.  1/3 is better than zero and arguing over another 20-30 games and risking it is foolish from the players perspective at this point even if they think the owners are trying to stick it to them imo.

I mean when you think about it, the argument of I want 50% for 80 games rather than 30% for 50 games or I would rather get nothing and not play is sort of a ridiculous argument imo. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again baseball pisses on it's own shoes. They never get it right, never. Manfred should join the long line of the currently unemployed tomorrow morning. He $h*t the bed on this one. 🤬🤬🤬

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crusaderfan said:

Once again baseball pisses on it's own shoes. They never get it right, never. Manfred should join the long line of the currently unemployed tomorrow morning. He $h*t the bed on this one. 🤬🤬🤬

I think that's a little harsh. His job is to facilitate a deal. Considering what's at stake both sides are willing to tank an entire season. That's a tough choice to make and I'm not sure what he's going to say to change anyone's mind if they're so bent on self-destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

Are you certain that players are paid per game?

 

I thought I had read somewhere that players are entitled to their guaranteed contracts if the league plays a "championship season" or something to that effect, but it is not actually defined as 162 games.

 

That would lead me to believe the players technically could have demanded their entire guaranteed salary and did, in fact, negotiate a prorated salary.

 

I can't find details now though, so I may be mistaken.

 To add, if they are getting paid per game than why would there need to be a pro-rated negotiation?  Shouldn't that already be in place?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SuperJoint said:

I think that's a little harsh. His job is to facilitate a deal. Considering what's at stake both sides are willing to tank an entire season. That's a tough choice to make and I'm not sure what he's going to say to change anyone's mind if they're so bent on self-destruction.

I kinda feel like his job is to win the deal for ownership here.  After all, they pay his salary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I kinda feel like his job is to win the deal for ownership here.  After all, they pay his salary.  

Well, Goodell's job for the NFL has always been characterized as "Protect the Shield". A deal that gets the product on the field is his top concern assuming he has a similar role. I don't know why a commissioner is even needed if he doesn't have autonomy from either side. Selig is the antithesis of this of course - his "temporary" stint as commish went on for quite a while, while he also owned a team. Manfred is a career exec guy unaffiliated w/a team IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SuperJoint said:

Well, Goodell's job for the NFL has always been characterized as "Protect the Shield". A deal that gets the product on the field is his top concern assuming he has a similar role. I don't know why a commissioner is even needed if he doesn't have autonomy from either side. Selig is the antithesis of this of course - his "temporary" stint as commish went on for quite a while, while he also owned a team. Manfred is a career exec guy unaffiliated w/a team IIRC.

Maybe that's what his role should be, but his about face on "100%" over the course of one business day based on the players mentioning the one card they have left to play - a grievance against the "50 game plan" - suggests he views his role otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Maybe that's what his role should be, but his about face on "100%" over the course of one business day based on the players mentioning the one card they have left to play - a grievance against the "50 game plan" - suggests he views his role otherwise.

Wouldn't the length of time a "grievance" may take necessarily reduce the # of games played? ST can't start obviously until the grievance is settled and then let's say the players "win". All that does is mean they have to go back to the table. By this point - why bother. ST needs to basically start NOW for this thing to get off the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.