2022 Blue Jays Off-Season Thread

[flamingred89]

I've read that Greinke is a fantastic teammate and very well liked wherever he has gone. The Astros even had a dress like Greinke roadtrip this season. I think some of the negative connotations around him are strictly from the media who he can be a little bit prickly with. The dude is super eccentric and I love it. I'd also love to see some 50mph Eephus pitches. But with declining production and at 40 years old it would be hard to see a spot for him.

Not going to lie I was expecting some more fireworks today in regards to big contracts. I thought players and their agents would be all over the bags of cash being thrown around and sign before the uncertainty of the lockout.

[DoubleK]

@Harry Lime very good thoughts.

Maybe you should apply to their front office?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

@Harry Lime very good thoughts.

Maybe you should apply to their front office?

I'll do it for $19/hour, 1000 sq/ft apartment rental and a team leased Honda Civic.

[Roof-Daddy]

Couldn't have a lock out when the Jays were rebuilding and a total garbage team.

[KelVarnsen]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1466139585059172352

[Heavy Jack]

Wore #34 when he was with the giants as well to honour Doc. Pretty cool stuff!

[calculoso]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1466089845160349705

[Heavy Jack]

Must have got that done ahead of the lockout taking effect. Solid righty relief, helps beef up the pen as well. Man I’m with roof-daddy, this really had to be the year for the first lockout in a quarter century?? So frustrating with the team that’s manifesting.

[bluejays]

What are the owners fighting for this time? I haven't read anything about what they're going for? And haven't they learned from the previous lockouts, that the owners will always cave to the players, and the Yanks and Sox will always backstab the smaller clubs? I'm sure this will be a classic negotiation and in the 11th hour, say, Jan 31st, they'll both come to an agreement.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by fleury

What are the owners fighting for this time? I haven't read anything about what they're going for? And haven't they learned from the previous lockouts, that the owners will always cave to the players, and the Yanks and Sox will always backstab the smaller clubs? I'm sure this will be a classic negotiation and in the 11th hour, say, Jan 31st, they'll both come to an agreement.

The 11th hour isn't in January, it is in March.

From what I've read, the owners want the status quo. The players want free agency sooner and a salary cap floor.

Billionaires v Millionaires. Who you got?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by fleury

What are the owners fighting for this time? I haven't read anything about what they're going for? And haven't they learned from the previous lockouts, that the owners will always cave to the players, and the Yanks and Sox will always backstab the smaller clubs? I'm sure this will be a classic negotiation and in the 11th hour, say, Jan 31st, they'll both come to an agreement.

good article here:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ooming-lockout

Players feel, with the emergence of analytics within front offices, that fewer and fewer second- and third-tier players are getting paid when they finally become free agents after six years of major league service time, which is often when a player turns 30 or very close to it. In general, players would like to be paid more at younger ages because that's when they are in their prime. The system also favors keeping players in the minor leagues for several weeks extra to slow down their major league service time.

[Harry Lime]

If the players want more money at a younger age, then they are looking at some kind of salary cap instead of a tax. I agree that there should be less of a discrepancy between the top players and the rest of the team, but that is not what the players are talking about. They want more money at the lower levels, and the 43M/per salary for Scherzer.

I see this ending in an NBA style soft cap/basement with a league maximum/raised minimum on salary based on revenue.

The teams are going to resent that kind of transparency.

[Roof-Daddy]

I have no problem with players making more money when they are younger.

But on the flip side, no player should be able to sign a contract that takes them past their 35 year old season then. Once they hit 35 they are a free agent and can only sign 1 year deals. Keep performing and you keep getting paid year by year. Performance starts to drop off then so does your pay each year until eventually you aren't good enough to get another contract.

Hard for teams to pay the younger players when they have so much money committed to veteran former stars who's play has fallen off a cliff.

[bluejays]

All interesting arguments which are logical. If history is any indication though, players will win every issue in a landslide.

On another note, just go a notification that Jays discussed Jackie Bradley Jr. for Randal. While I’d prefer if they got a young guy with potential, any freeing up of Grichuk’s useless salary is good in my books.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by fleury

All interesting arguments which are logical. If history is any indication though, players will win every issue in a landslide.

On another note, just go a notification that Jays discussed Jackie Bradley Jr. for Randal. While I’d prefer if they got a young guy with potential, any freeing up of Grichuk’s useless salary is good in my books.

Why do you think the players will win in a landslide

I would say if history is any indicator the owners will win as they have in basically every labour dispute ever.

Billionaires can out-wait millionaires

[Harry Lime]

The one thing that is positive about this is that there will likely be a resolution before spring ball. Both the union and owners know that it took years to recover from the last lockout, and revenues took a massive hit. They don't want that again.

The negative thing is that movement will be restricted for months, and a very unentertaining offseason.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The one thing that is positive about this is that there will likely be a resolution before spring ball. Both the union and owners know that it took years to recover from the last lockout, and revenues took a massive hit. They don't want that again.

The negative thing is that movement will be restricted for months, and a very unentertaining offseason.

Yeah I really don't think either side will push this into the regular season.

I don't see the Union fighting to the death for minor leaguers and low earners when they have just witness the owners shelling out records deals.

We'll get a salary floor, FA guaranteed at 30 (So late bloomers like Josh Donaldson don't miss their prime FA years), and a changed bonus pool for rookies to let high performers earn more.

Not sure if owners will give up 7 years of control so I imagine that will remain with tweaks to the service manipulation loopholes.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Why do you think the players will win in a landslide

I would say if history is any indicator the owners will win as they have in basically every labour dispute ever.

Billionaires can out-wait millionaires

In most leagues yes. If owners remain united, they hold all the cards at the end of the day.

The problem baseball has though, is that there is much more discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots. No matter what rule changes are decided upon, the Yankees, the Dodgers, and the Red Sox are going to make money. Lots of money. So there is only one thing they don't want - a stoppage.

So they are very prone to caving.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

In most leagues yes. If owners remain united, they hold all the cards at the end of the day.

The problem baseball has though, is that there is much more discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots. No matter what rule changes are decided upon, the Yankees, the Dodgers, and the Red Sox are going to make money. Lots of money. So there is only one thing they don't want - a stoppage.

So they are very prone to caving.

In the history of baseball the owners have never caved

That’s why baseball doesn’t have a hard cap , has the weakest soft cap penalties , and no cap floor

Why would the top clubs cave when they have the deep pockets to wait out the players and ensure another decade of financial dominance ? If anything it’s the lower revenue clubs who would be prone to cave . But the Yankees and Dodgers line their owners pockets with profits through luxury tax and national
TV deals and allow them not to spend on players so they have no incentive either

[bluejays]

A few years ago I read an article outlining each dispute and the owners gave in each time. The gist of most disputes was the few extreme rich teams like the Yanks and Sox putting pressure on the other teams to not keep going and just to come to an agreement. Under Donald Fehr's rein the MLB union was especially powerful. I'm certain in every dispute the players came out ahead.