Looking at that projection here would be my shopping list once the lockout/strike ends: 1. Add an elite lefty reliever. This would bump Taylor to the minors and leave them with a BP of Pressly, TBD, Neris, Maton, Stanek, Baez, Montero, and Javier. That is a STACKED staff. Not sure what the Brewers would require for Hader but that would be my first call. 2. Add another good bat. This could come in the form of a corner OF like Conforto who would push Tucker to CF, a super-utility trade target like Jorge Polanco who would provide insurance for Pena and backup Altuve and Bregman, or a stud SS like Correa or Story who would push Pena down to the minors or into a bench role. 3. Keep tabs on the SP market. They have a surplus of SP but it would be ideal if they could consolidate some of that into another ToR arm. The Marlins, Reds, and A’s might be shopping their good SP, and John Means is likely available. I think a lockout/strike that eats into the season will benefit Houston due to a couple of factors: They have a veteran roster and don’t have a lot of new players to integrate into their system. They have SP who would benefit from a shorter season with fewer games (specifically Verlander). The shortened free agency period may make it more likely that Correa or Story are open to coming to Houston on a short deal.
That's all fine and well as long as Pressly isn't 45 years old when the lockout ends And make no doubt about it, this is a lockout, not a strike
It is a lockout until the owners end that, which WILL happen soon if they don’t reach an agreement. At that point it becomes a strike. That’s semantics; from my perspective this is a strike, since the owners are likely far more content with the status quo than the players. (Note: As a fan I favor the players’ proposals over the owners.)
Wrong though It doesn’t “become” a strike If the lockout is ended players go back to work unless they “declare” to be on strike I don’t favor either side, both sides are being fools But the owners have instituted this, if not for their actions players would have reported already
You really think the players would have reported without a collective bargaining agreement. That is really wrong and foolish.
MLBTR had a pretty interesting article where they broke down previous strikes and why they happened. His conclusion was that this doesn't really fit the mold for a player's strike, and so long as MLB has the unilateral ability to end the lockout, it's hard to blame the players until they actually strike.
I agree with that. And that’s why I said in my previous comment that this is technically a lockout until it’s not. Beard’s contention is that the players would just return to work if the owners ended the lockout. There’s zero % chance of that happening. It’s fine to say the union won’t technically strike, but in that event, the union would just agree to a new CBA that very closely resembles the previous one. They wouldn’t just report to camp without a CBA. Edit to note: there seems to be the notion that characterizing what’s happening as a “strike” implies the players are at fault and deserve blame. That’s definitely not the case for me. I believe the players are justified in wanting a new CBA that pays younger players a lot more and addresses tanking
Lol Yes they absolutely would have reported without one. For them the value of their contracts is the same for games in April as it is for games in September, for the owners that isn't the case. That's why players strikes are much more effective during the season Call me foolish all you want, but the players were not ever going to go on strike at this time
You can call me out on my comment all you want, but you are wrong on this one bud. Not sure why you seemingly took my initial post on this personally But the players would absolutely show up to work immediately if the owners ended the lockout Also, there is no such thing as "technically a lockout" or "technically a strike". Both of those are very straight forward terms and situations. Truth be told the leaders of the mlbpa would be fine continuing on with the status quoa. Union leadership is made up of players making huge money. They talk of the need for players to make more money early on in their careers, and i'm sure for most of them they generally mean and believe in what they are saying. But have no doubt about the fact that a system that pays "them", with them being union leadership, 9 figure salaries that are climbing and climbing, isn't one they are going to fight real hard to change. What they want is to make sure the owners don't end up with a system that limits the upper end of those deals while still not paying significantly more early on. The negotiation, well what little negotiating there has actually been, show this pretty clearly also. The biggest thing the players have to hold over the owners is expanded playoffs, that is a cash cow for the owners. I loved hearing the players say if they miss any games this year then expanded playoffs this year are off the table. That is the one thing that could force the owners to actually negotiate
Bud, your comment shows a deep misunderstanding on your part about the source of the disagreement between the owners and the union and honestly bud you are in complete ignorance about how collective bargaining works in general. First of all, there is ZERO chance the players show up and play games without a CBA. Second of all, the list of issues under discussion show the players are asking for more than the owners (which again, I agree with). The owners want expanded playoffs and otherwise want the status quo. The players want a higher CBT threshold (which goes to your point about the top end players continuing to get paid) and more money for younger players. Every issue aside from expanded playoffs is one in which the players are requesting to change the status quo to benefit them. I’ll leave it at this. If the players said, we’ll keep everything the same if you drop expanded playoffs, the owners would absolutely jump at that, having locked in a static CBT threshold that has been functioning pretty effectively as a salary cap along with being able to manipulate service time of the best players to keep them extremely cheap for 7 seasons. But if the owners said we will drop expanded playoffs if we keep everything else the same, the players would say no way, because they would be effectively reducing salaries across the board when factoring inflation, not to mention the previous CBA favored the owners in virtually every way, evidenced extremely strongly by the ever-increasing values of the franchises. So yes, semantics aside, this is effectively a strike since the players are the ones who (justifiably) want to change the agreement the most.
There might be some good stuff in here but I’ll never know, I stopped reading when you said I was completely ignorant about how collective bargaining works in general. I literally make a living teaching about economics which includes collective bargaining. I’ve taken upper level college courses specifically on collective bargaining You contribute a lot to the board, especially when it comes to prospects. But you seem to always need to be right, and rarely are willing to accept that others have knowledge of things also. Hell you were spurting about a two week spring training in another thread, and you call me ignorant Have a good day guy
