On Thursday, the filthy rich baseball owners delivered their initial salvo going into the negotiations regarding the possibility of a strike at the end of this season. It outlined a hard salary cap of a ceiling of $245.3mil (nice round number) and a floor of $171.2mil.
The length of the owner's offer is seven years.
The player’s union has already responded saying the only thing the greedy owners want is more money in their pockets. There is a better chance of President Trump accepting a deal from Iran that keeps their nuclear material in place than the players accepting a salary cap.
As for the Mets, what would they look like with a payroll of around $100mil less? Could be a quick solution to all the mistakes made in the off-season.
This isn't a lengthy post. It's just a reminder that this issue is in play and there is a good chance that the only baseball you will be able to watch next year is the Savannah Bananas.
Look at the bright side... the team will come out of this with only Calvin Zeigler on the IL.
In my opinion, the owners care about their profit margin much more than the players on their payroll. How much profit, you say? Well, a sizable amount of these teams have increased their value ONE BILLION DOLLARS +;more since the current agreement was signed.
That's one billion with a B.
And yet, a salary cap like this one would only increase that profit.
Please don't ever call this a game anymore.
13 comments:
There will be a strike. Owners are greedy. So are the really richly compensated players. The lower compensated players get screwed.
Thankfully, the NBA playoffs will be a watching substitute.
Too bad we the fans aren’t organized enough to strike on them. We are the ones paying these high prices that they ask for and making this snowball bigger and bigger each year.
I too believe there will be a strike... and a long one to boot.
Money ruins much of sports
Given the Mets operational collapse - I’m not sure I’d mind a strike next year. Bad contract years expire & the players don’t get paid:
Manaea, Bichette, Polanco, Soto (not bad but expensive), Semien, Lindor (not bad but expensive)…
I good way to clean up the balance sheet a bit…
Gotta look for the Silver Lining somewhere
So we have the greedy owners vs the greedy players. Wonder how many greedy owners made a profit last year.
Same old same old millionares fighting billionares how exciting can't wait like it was ever about the fans ......yeah right
I remember last year looking up prices when St Lucie crossed the state to come over to the west coast to play Bradenton ( I live in Sarasota )and saw single ticket prices were $89 shit they won't ever see me again. The last time I went which was before covid it was 15 bucks what happened?
Soto 750M contract
Wow, $89 bucks? I can get good seats for a Mets game for a lot less.
I agree Mack with probabilities and up you one: 100% likely Trump signs such a deal and 0% like the player's union rejects that deal.
In my limited experience being part of negotiations at universities with unions, either those covering staff alone or in some cases, so called contingent faculty (adjuncts, contract faculty), the first statements are not part of the actual negotiations at all. They are signals to the side you are representing -- not the side you are negotiating with. They are designed to signal two things with one purpose: 1. that you can count on us to negotiate on your behalf and 2. that we will do so in good faith. The goal is to develop trust with those you represent. At some point, and it rarely comes early in negotiations, but it is the main thing both sides are looking at from the other side, and that is, a statement made from one side that is actually directed at the other, and not designed primarily to provide either a signal to one's own side or to the public at large.
So the usual progression is: negotiators signal first to their own side; then continuing to do so also signal to the public to see if they can exert influence on the public that can pressure the other side -- all this is about setting the context in which negotiations will eventually take place. That goes on until both sides realize that the initial context for negotiations are now known by both sides; Then negotiations take place, which almost always has its own internal logic and pace, but is always mindful of not losing anyone in the group you had in the initial context, if possible, strengthening their will, establishing a willingness to do what it takes to get what is only right and fair, while trying to figure out internally, where the pain points are and what you can compromise on and what would be required in return.
The fact that all this takes place in public is part of what makes the process so fraught and usually lengthens it unduly.
I am reminded of a saying among lawyers who work in private law (my area of teaching) which goes something like this. A good contract between parties is typically mutually advantageous and both sides feel good about it. A good settlement of a dispute is one that makes both sides unhappy to some extent.
Tom, remember this when you hear how much this is for the fans.
Post a Comment