It just seems to me that the potential downside of throwing away all the good will that has been accumulated by MLB with the MLBPA in recent years by taking a confrontation "big hammer" approach (i.e. lockout) far outweighs the potential benefit of what they would gain, especially when it's possible (maybe not likely, but certainly can be used as a bargaining chip) that the "void contracts for PED use" could be mutually agreed upon in the next CBA.

I just don't see it happening.

Posted by examinerebb on 8/2/2013 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/2/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
That would be a horribly bad idea on the part of MLB.

Relations between MLB and the MLBPA right now is the best they have ever been.  The past couple of CBAs have been negotiated uneventfully with not even a remote threat of strike/lockout; the MLBPA agreed to the JDA without much public resistance; and, as the Braun case seems to indicate, the MLBPA is willing to work with MLB to clean up the game.

Seeing that the MLBPA has traditionally had the upper hand in labor relations over MLB, it would be a HUGE mistake on the part of MLB to think that the tables have turned to the point where they can now swing the big hammer to beat the MLBPA into submission over this.  That would send labor relations back around 15 years.

Would it be a horrible idea?  Look at it from their side (not that I'm advocating a lockout in any way):

In every labor negotiation, you have to deal with the strongest union in professional sports.  Labor relations are good only because you have accepted that you lose everytime you fight.   Now you have a hammer issue that could, in some measure, weaken the union - why not use it?  In addition, the ability to void contracts for PED use could be seen as the first step toward gradually getting rid of guaranteed contracts - something you and every other owner would love to do.  And you've already learned from the NFL and NHL that you can have a lockout today and bounce back from it just fine.

Again, I'm not saying they should do it.  I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did.

The players would never agree to giving up guaranteed contracts. That will never be an option.

And I don't think MLB can really look to the NFL or NHL as a model for how they would bounce back from a lockout.  The NFL is the NFL, and didn't lose a single regular season game anyhow.  The NHL is still more of a niche sport in the US with a fan base that's more largely comprised of the die-hards who aren't going anywhere regardless of how ****** they claim to be.  They didn't have a lot to lose.  It took MLB years (and 'roids) to recover from the 1994 strike, I don't see a lot of evidence that this would be any different.

Does anyone else find the term "labor" when used in reference to MLB players just a little bit funny?

Posted by rsp777 on 8/2/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone else find the term "labor" when used in reference to MLB players just a little bit funny?

No. You don't think it's hard work to get to the major leagues and stay there?