If they don't reach an agreement, why are we so sure there will be a lockout?

[John Bonnes]

Ok, somebody tell me what factor I'm missing. I had missed this story from Dayn Perry about the state of the CBA negotiations when it came out. I found this part interesting:

"A lockout means the owners shut down the industry as a means to hasten and add urgency to CBA negotiations. When a labor stoppage happens on the player side, it's a strike, but that's not likely to happen. That's because the owners will almost certainly lock out the players if no agreement is in place soon after the outgoing one expires. The owners could allow the offseason to proceed under the usual circumstances while negotiations continued, but that's probably not going to happen."

Why are we so sure that the owners would do that, exactly? They are, seemingly, happy with the agreement right now. Player salaries have gone down. For the most part it is the players pushing for changes to things like tanking, service time, qualifying offers, etc. 

Wouldn't it be better for the owners to decide they are happy to keep the usual circumstances in place? Make the players strike if they want to change things. Plus the uncertainty of where all this is going puts a natural damper on the marketplace. 

It makes me think we might have a fairly "normal" offseason after all. What factor am I missing here?

[chpettit19]

My understanding is that the owners fear a strike and a repeat of 94-95. A lockout gives them a better chance of getting things figured out before they start losing games from the schedule. If they wait for the players to strike it raises the chances that we don't get 162 games in 2022.

[John Bonnes]

  On 11/19/2021 at 3:24 PM, chpettit19 said:

My understanding is that the owners fear a strike and a repeat of 94-95. A lockout gives them a better chance of getting things figured out before they start losing games from the schedule. If they wait for the players to strike it raises the chances that we don't get 162 games in 2022.

Expand  

Hmm. OK. So they are locking them out so the players can't strike in August?

I mean, I guess. That would certainly be the worst case scenario for the owners. I have trouble believing the players would do that, but I suppose it's a pretty big risk to go into the season with. 

[Mike Sixel]

The side that takes the action has the leverage. If the owners don't lock out the players, the players always have the threat of a strike.  It's all about who has the leverage and control. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

The reason I think the owners lock out players is because:

A. It gives them slight leverage

B. The owners have a long track record of squeezing blood from a stone at the expense of the game itself

C. The owners have a long track record of squeezing blood from a stone at the expense of the game itself

D. The owners have a long track record of squeezing blood from a stone at the expense of the game itself

[Richie the Rally Goat]

  On 11/19/2021 at 3:29 PM, John Bonnes said:

Hmm. OK. So they are locking them out so the players can't strike in August?

I mean, I guess. That would certainly be the worst case scenario for the owners. I have trouble believing the players would do that, but I suppose it's a pretty big risk to go into the season with. 

Expand  

What leverage do players have over the owners, outside of lost games? The players will most certainly try to drag this out as long as possible to make the owners sweat.

[MN_ExPat]

  On 11/19/2021 at 3:24 PM, chpettit19 said:

My understanding is that the owners fear a strike and a repeat of 94-95. A lockout gives them a better chance of getting things figured out before they start losing games from the schedule. If they wait for the players to strike it raises the chances that we don't get 162 games in 2022.

Expand  

  On 11/19/2021 at 3:20 PM, John Bonnes said:

Wouldn't it be better for the owners to decide they are happy to keep the usual circumstances in place? Make the players strike if they want to change things. Plus the uncertainty of where all this is going puts a natural damper on the marketplace. 

It makes me think we might have a fairly "normal" offseason after all. What factor am I missing here?

Expand  

I can't help but wonder if you both may be "right" on this one.  So far we've seen a good bit of activity and rumor from players and teams.  But, then come December and the end of the current CBA, I don't think anyone truly knows how it's going to play out from there.

I've seen hardball and cryptic comments (more so from the team owners lapdog Manfraud, than the players union) that seem to indicate that both sides are spoiling for a "fight"; but at the same time both the players and league seem at least a little bit hesitant to start a full scale culling.

Seems a lot like a middle school fight right now...

- You mad? You scared? Come at me bro?

- Nah bro! I ain't scared! Come at me bro!

- (both) Hold me back bro! Hold me back!!

[bean5302]

  On 11/19/2021 at 3:29 PM, John Bonnes said:

Hmm. OK. So they are locking them out so the players can't strike in August?

I mean, I guess. That would certainly be the worst case scenario for the owners. I have trouble believing the players would do that, but I suppose it's a pretty big risk to go into the season with. 

Expand  

I'd imagine there's a pretty huge overhead to start the season. Spring Training, getting stadiums up and running, getting staff hired, contracts in place for vendors, etc. If the players strike early in the season, the owners have no revenue to offset those expenditures. They'd also have to refund tickets already purchased, etc.

If the owners lock the players out, they have more control over the expenditures and financial situation. 

[old nurse]

What is there, 10=11 billion recent, 5 billion for the player. Is either side really that wealthy they would forgo that much money. Millionaire VS Billionaires. In the court of public opinion does anyone win?