poppysox

I quit the Blackhawks cold turkey when they let Bobby Hull leave. I have never watched another game.

Yep...JR knows what he's doing.

Thanks!

Phil Rodgers the sportswriter or Phil Rodgers the Pro Golfer?

FYI..." important white people like Manfred" is a racist-sounding statement. I'm sure it was not your intention to come off in that manner. If someone on this forum said important black people like Obama...this forum would explode.

If you have a $100 buy-in at the poker table it's a fair game. Someone will get better cards, have better luck, and all-in-all play better. I don't want to play where someone gets to start with $500 against everyone else's $100 and can bully the smaller stacks. Baseball needs a fair playing field but it's hard to get the bullies to give up their advantage.

So what is the realistic price to pay?

You can't much blame a FO who is given 25% of the payroll of their competitor. My thought is to find a way to narrow or eliminate this overwhelming advantage that the New York and Los Angles type teams have. Let's find out who really has a sharp FO and great scouting. I know asking the Yankees or Dodgers to subsidize their poor relatives is probably a non-starter but it would make the game enjoyable for all fans. No more tanking...no more advantage in going after every player in the market.

Yep...the more they are able to shrink the variance between the lowest and highest payroll the better. True competitive balance solves all this tanking nonsense and allows a fair playing field for all. Major markets will always need to support their little market rivals...but that should have been known when we started to allow small markets into the game with expansion.

Seems obvious, doesn't it.

Not one poster claims to be under 16 years old. When I was 16 you would have trouble keeping me off a White Sox forum if one had existed. Baseball is not the end all be all was. Many things compete for youngster attention. The smart guys in the FO need to brainstorm how to get kids interested. Of course, winning would help.

Burger and a bag of baseballs would be my offer. I like his 18-20 but lack of recent success and perceived attitude lowers the price for me.

P.T. Barnum was quoted as saying " say anything you like about me...just spell my name right."

My Cub fan older brother (78) lives in another state yet we talk two or three times a week. Yes...we use the phone...not smoke signals. Seldom do we not discuss baseball at some point in the conversation and it is a real bond we have. He is now jealous of the great team we have while he feels he doesn't have many years left to be watching "his crappy team". Baseball has had this place in many families and it's because we were fans as 10-year-olds. Baseball people should be careful to cultivate the young baseball fan or there won't be any game for them to fight over.

I agree that sabermetrics has very little support among the senior crowd (70+). I will always believe a .320 average or 100+ rbi's or 40 HR means something and I am a big believer in OBP being a huge stat. I don't doubt that sabermetrics can uncover some hidden strengths or weaknesses for those making projections for future success. That said, the eye test works very well. I can remember watching Hunter Pence III playing CF for the AA Hooks in Corpus Christy and saying we will be seeing him soon in the ML. The eye test can see throwing to the wrong base and lack of hustle...along with great speed and playing smart baseball. Most people in the HOF would pass the eye test and the WAR type of evaluation.

There is no market for grumpy old people.

At 76 years old...you are a young whippersnapper to me. Like you...long time lurker.

Neither side would go for it... but a system that had very little range (something like 20M) between the lowest payroll of $180 million & the highest $200million without the ability to pay a penalty would be great by me. It would be fun to watch teams actually think twice about how to handle payroll instead of just having more money than the opposition. Tanking would have no purpose and the vast majority of teams would be spending appreciably more than today. Attendance would increase dramatically since every game would matter in theory. A last-place team would indicate poor management and winning would indicate some talent on the part of FO and scouting staff.

I agree that the players are not in a good position to win much by way of concessions. However, I am sympathetic to the non-competitiveness of teams having 5 X the payroll of some of the competition.

More posters should be giving JR credit for spending the money and player capital to attempt to strengthen our chances for a WS run. Didn't work out but he did push the money into the pot.

I expect the players to win the point of raising the minimum a team needs to spend to around $100. The point of more competitiveness is just too valid to ignore. Some form of lottery to discourage tanking also has some legs IMO. Universal DH will also be a slam dunk and the owners will claim that is a win for players. Wanting a faster track to arbitration and free agency is one of those players "asks" things that they know is a non-starter. Six to eight weeks is still my educated guess. Longer than that and it starts to get expensive for both sides. The deepest pockets will almost always win that line-in-the-sand point of negotiations.

Balta being Balta.

Thank you for the suggestion to watch the Rose interview with Gio, Britton, and Semien. I agree that it was informative and shed light on the player's perspective of the process. It would be great if Rose could do the same with a trio of owners. The players framed their position as wanting to incentivize teams to be competitive which I support totally. They want to "realize their potential earlier" which will be a very hard sell IMO...and they don't want to give back what they have already won such as arbitration and free agency which I agree is a reasonable position to take. They also stated clearly that both sides "want baseball to be successful". Zach made the interesting comment that we understand this is a business and negotiating has tactics. The largest frustration is the players feel their proposals are clear and the owners have been unresponsive. I have not changed my opinions because this interview follows what I have been saying: 1) it is normal for both sides in any union negotiation to ask for things they know they will not get...2) until a lockout or strike no one is motivated to give up any negotiation leverage...3) when people miss paychecks or revenues everyone involved gets much more serious about what they can really live with...4) the average fan is not happy with what is perceived as spoiled rich kid players and filthy rich baseball owners fighting over how to split up all the money the fans give them. Thanks for the respectful suggestion to watch what is an hour-long interview. Likewise, I hope you see this as a thoughtful and respectful response.

Yes...I see. You have more faith in the press than I do. Union negotiations are a "two sides" thing whether you want to believe it or not.

Do you seriously not understand the point I am making? Why don't you try stating what YOU think is going on with the talks instead of implying others just don't understand? You and others with your point of view simply come off as intolerant of other people's views. I get that you think the players are 100% going to stand together and take away all the money that the evil owners have. My view is the players will make some modest gains after a few months of posturing and the fans will pay for whatever those gains end up being. The art of negotiations is to let both sides claim some victory and admit to not getting everything we hoped for. My prediction is this will take another 6-8 weeks and end with the words like I just indicated. If you disagree...state what you think will be the outcome and we will see who is correct in their point of view.