• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The 2020 Cleveland Indians

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Any further word on this fire sale rumor? I'll be honest, it's wildly intriguing. The team was pretty much screwed by this pandemic- this really was the last go round for this core, the team was looking at a modest rebuild after this year anyway but lost out on the time to develop replacements. Just going scorched watch and maybe, possibly taking advantage of a deeper pocketed team that is willing to sacrifice to win in this shortened season and load up on prospects seems like an intriguing idea. About the only 'vet' I don't want to see go is Santana.

Personally I don't think we will be fire selling at all. We have too good if a roster to be doing that. Though that being said, guys like Carlos Santana, Brad Hand etc who have a team option year will get cut for next season if they have a bad season. Also we wont be able to spend a penny in free agency next season outside of minor league invites with incentives. Who will be Hernandez's replacement, i have no clue at the current moment. We also may not be able to extend Clev now as well.
 
Edit: not worth it. I'll meet you at the bottom of the slippery slope

Its not that @The Human Q-Tip doesnt want to discuss things he just doesn't trust that people won't start attacking each other about differing opinions of the virus issue. That's why he is shutting down certain things right away. I dont blame him for that since its too easy to take things the wrong way
 
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I just passed two groups of kids - boys playing baseball and 11 or 12 year old girls playing organized softball (with masked coaches and everything) - on a short, five mile bike ride around my neighborhood.
 

How is the league's determination that it couldn't play any more than 60 games any more "bad faith" than the players' refusal to play for anything less than 100% pro rata? The players refused to negotiate that point at all -- at least the owners actually made some offers that were more than 60 games. Had the players accepted them, Manfred's point is that it is unlikely the season would have been completed.
 
Last edited:
Its not that @The Human Q-Tip doesnt want to discuss things he just doesn't trust that people won't start attacking each other about differing opinions of the virus issue. That's why he is shutting down certain things right away. I dont blame him for that since its too easy to take things the wrong way

If people want to discuss the coronavirus, how severe it is, whether the responses have been adequate, the studies, analysis, critiques, etc., they can do so here, in another forum, or in any number of other places on the web:


I will point out two facts: 1) there is an ironclad forum rule that all political discussions belong in the political forum, and 2) coronavirus discussions were determined to be political by the folks running the forum when the coronavirus thread was moved from general Off Topic to the political forum. I didn't make either of those rules, but it is my job to enforce them.
 
I have no issue with the league putting a cap on how many games they're willing to play as long as they're upfront with that during negotiations, which I feel like they were once they pushed to 60 games.

The problem is "Boulwarism" which is a (stupid in my opinion) legal doctrine courts and the NLRB have developed that says you can't just put your best offer out there and say "take it or leave it." So if the owners would have said "60 games, that's it, and we're not budging", that would be an unfair labor practice charge.

What that means is that if the owners would have said "60 games" up front, and the players would have said "80 games", then everyone would have said "they should just split the difference and make it 70", and if the owners had refused, the NLRB may well have found them guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusing to move off their initial offer.

Now in fairness to the owners, they did actually make offers of more than 60 games earlier on, when the data was less clear. But they made those pro rata because they pretty much knew the season likely wouldn't finish, and they'd take less of a bath if they didn't pay full salaries.

Honestly, the owners should a lot more flexibility than the players ever did, because the players held rigidly to the "full pro rata" position and refused to budge off it. The owners ended up moving off both their season lengths, and pro rata/revenue sharing.
 
The problem is "Boulwarism" which is a (stupid in my opinion) legal doctrine courts and the NLRB have developed that says you can't just put your best offer out there and say "take it or leave it." So if the owners would have said "60 games, that's it, and we're not budging", that would be an unfair labor practice charge.

What that means is that if the owners would have said "60 games" up front, and the players would have said "80 games", then everyone would have said "they should just split the difference and make it 70", and if the owners had refused, the NLRB may well have found them guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusing to move off their initial offer.

Now in fairness to the owners, they did actually make offers of more than 60 games earlier on, when the data was less clear. But they made those pro rata because they pretty much knew the season likely wouldn't finish, and they'd take less of a bath if they didn't pay full salaries.

Honestly, the owners should a lot more flexibility than the players ever did, because the players held rigidly to the "full pro rata" position and refused to budge off it. The owners ended up moving off both their season lengths, and pro rata/revenue sharing.
well you have already said what i came here to say.

No matter what Manfred said in this interview the owners went above and beyond that offer, showing a greater willingness to bargain than the players. Ultimately the players shot themselves in the foot and there is absolutely 0 other way to look at it.

the players had a chance to come out smelling like roses. They could have taken the deal the owners offered thus ensuring a better deal than they are currently playing for, and shown the entire world they meant it when they said "when and where". Instead, they lowered themselves taking a worse deal and looking just as bad as the owners.
 
well you have already said what i came here to say.

No matter what Manfred said in this interview the owners went above and beyond that offer, showing a greater willingness to bargain than the players. Ultimately the players shot themselves in the foot and there is absolutely 0 other way to look at it.

the players had a chance to come out smelling like roses. They could have taken the deal the owners offered thus ensuring a better deal than they are currently playing for, and shown the entire world they meant it when they said "when and where". Instead, they lowered themselves taking a worse deal and looking just as bad as the owners.

Real inclusive here.
 
well you have already said what i came here to say.

No matter what Manfred said in this interview the owners went above and beyond that offer, showing a greater willingness to bargain than the players. Ultimately the players shot themselves in the foot and there is absolutely 0 other way to look at it.

the players had a chance to come out smelling like roses. They could have taken the deal the owners offered thus ensuring a better deal than they are currently playing for, and shown the entire world they meant it when they said "when and where". Instead, they lowered themselves taking a worse deal and looking just as bad as the owners.
Do you want to back this up factually ???

Because the deals where the owners proposed something less than full pro rata the players ended up with less every time I calculated it.
 
Now in fairness to the owners, they did actually make offers of more than 60 games earlier on, when the data was less clear. But they made those pro rata because they pretty much knew the season likely wouldn't finish, and they'd take less of a bath if they didn't pay full salaries.

Honestly, the owners should a lot more flexibility than the players ever did, because the players held rigidly to the "full pro rata" position and refused to budge off it. The owners ended up moving off both their season lengths, and pro rata/revenue sharing.
So if you take Manfred at his word, when he says the league never intended on playing more than 60 games, then it is pretty hard to understand how an offer for more games was made in good faith. And if they never intended on playing more than 60 games, which is what he said, then what the heck does - when the data was less clear - have to do with it.

So I will pay you for 20 hours of work this week, but if you want to work 40 you can, but I will only pay you half as much per hour. But the owners offer was even better, play 72 games (12 more) for 70% on all 72 games. So that works out to be 12 games at 70% (or 8.4 games at 100%) and for those extra 12 games, the owners get the other 60 games at a 30% discount (net 42 games at 100%). Pretty good deal - more games for a lot less money (50.4 games at 100% versus 60)
 
Last edited:
I have no issue with the league putting a cap on how many games they're willing to play as long as they're upfront with that during negotiations, which I feel like they were once they pushed to 60 games.
What is - "up front once they pushed to 60 games" - ???

Is that kind of like telling someone there is a tornado in the area after it has already wiped out their house. If they had determined they were not playing anymore than 60 games from the outset, then waiting until the negotiations forced them to reveal that isn't being upfront about it, it is after the fact. Kind of like the tornado that has already done the damage.
 
Not to get off topic, but how do you guys see the Tribe doing this year?

Can I come back to Baseball fandom?
 
What is - "up front once they pushed to 60 games" - ???

Is that kind of like telling someone there is a tornado in the area after it has already wiped out their house. If they had determined they were not playing anymore than 60 games from the outset, then waiting until the negotiations forced them to reveal that isn't being upfront about it, it is after the fact. Kind of like the tornado that has already done the damage.
It means I thought they negotiated in bad faith until the MLBPA cut off negotiations, but once they resumed, I think the owners were fine.

Without multi-quoting @The Human Q-Tip, you can I will not agree on this, I'm sure. However, I just have to chime in that I'm not sure how you can say that the owners showed more flexibility than the players. The players showed far more flexibility IMO Tony Clark was the only one who made a mistake leaving that sitdown with Manfred allowing him to think a deal was in place. Big gaffe on his end.

Also, I don't really care about the legal side of negotiations. You even say you think "Boulwarism" is stupid, and I agree. We're all smart enough to know that legality doesn't determine right and wrong.

@bob2the2nd I'm not sure how you can say the players shot themselves in the foot? They got the most possible games out of the owners and didn't have to give up their right to a grievance nor do they have to play expanded playoffs.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top