Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

2021-22 CBA Negotiation/Lockout Thread (DEAL IS AGREED TO)


mmc

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mark68 said:

Why not just have the #2 play #7, 3 play 6, 4 play 5? Why add the "picking" of opponents?

Would you have picked the Braves or the Dodgers if you were the Giants? 

I like it.

I'm not opposed to 8 Team playoffs, but I'd prefer that if they realigned to 4 divisions per league 4 teams per division (yes I realize that means expansion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Would you have picked the Braves or the Dodgers if you were the Giants? 

I like it.

I'm not opposed to 8 Team playoffs, but I'd prefer that if they realigned to 4 divisions per league 4 teams per division (yes I realize that means expansion).

Under my (every other sport's) scenario, the Giants would have gotten the bye, the Brewers would have played the Phillies, the Braves would have played the Reds, and the Dodgers would have played the Cardinals. Not sure how your question is relevant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

Under my (every other sport's) scenario, the Giants would have gotten the bye, the Brewers would have played the Phillies, the Braves would have played the Reds, and the Dodgers would have played the Cardinals. Not sure how your question is relevant...

In last season's scenario, the #4 seed Dodgers beat the #5 seed Cardinals in the Wild Card series, and then played the #1 seed Giants, while the #2 seed Brewers played the #3 seed and eventual WS Champ and 88 win Braves.

If the Giants could've picked, they'd have picked the Brewers probably, and let the Braves have the Dodgers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

This sounds like they are fairly close. A realignment but with more playoff teams sounds fine. 

Not close if they stick to the 12 team postseason.   

MLB sold the tv rights to ESPN on a 14 team format..  Players are making this a sticking point because they technically stop getting paid once the season ends...  Both sides want more playoff money, basically.

Hilarious that MLB sold something to ESPN that had not yet been bargained for with the MLBPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

Not close at if they stick to the 12 team postseason.   

MLB sold the tv rights to ESPN on a 14 team format..  Players are making this a sticking point because they technically stop getting paid once the season ends...  Both sides want more playoff money, basically.

Hilarious that MLB sold something to ESPN that had not yet been bargained for with the MLBPA.

There had to be language in that deal that addresses potential changes.  There is no way they are that sloppy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Not close at if they stick to the 12 team postseason.   

MLB sold the tv rights to ESPN on a 14 team format..  Players are making this a sticking point because they technically stop getting paid once the season ends...  Both sides want more playoff money, basically.

Hilarious that MLB sold something to ESPN that had not yet been bargained for with the MLBPA.

I wasn't aware of that, strange. I wonder if players will use that as leverage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, totdprods said:

@Jeff Fletcher, do the Angels have a union rep or anyone involved in these negotiations? 

I believe Heaney was the last rep but that's off top of my head, curious if someone else has that role now.

That’s a good question. I don’t know who the alternate rep was besides Heaney. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jeff Fletcher said:

That’s a good question. I don’t know who the alternate rep was besides Heaney. 

I noticed there was about 40 players involved and a handful of owners I believed, but doubted that Arte was among that group. 

Just curious if the Halos had anyone present at these, not that it really matters much specific to the team. General curiosity. I'm always weirdly intrigued by who winds up reppin' each team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

ESPN lawyers would also have to be equally naive or stupid or sloppy over a huge detail like this.

Not buying it.   But have your fun with it if you want.

What exactly are you not buying?   

The agreement is known, there is an additional 100 million at stake.  The parameters were agreed to by ESPN and MLB last May or June despite there being no agreement in place with the players union for expanded playoffs.  

That's why its a bargaining chip for the players now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

What exactly are you not buying?   

The agreement is known, there is an additional 100 million at stake.  The parameters were agreed to by ESPN and MLB last May or June despite there being no agreement in place with the players union for expanded playoffs.  

That's why its a bargaining chip for the players now.

Whatever risk you think there is to one or more of the parties involved, I am merely saying it is almost completely unbelievable that there is no language in the existing deal that addressed it.

It is very much not believable that all parties missed this detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...