Jump to content

The MLB lockout is lifted!


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, fathom said:

So back to the actual topic....it will look quite poorly if/when they cancel Jackie Robinson’s 75th Anniversary.  That day is next up on the calendar of scheduled games.

Making Friday April 15th the new battleground....you either have Opening Day on Thurs/one Wed game or combine the two concepts together.

It will be a terrible look for RBI/ACE etc., initiatives, and only brings added attention to the fact that MLB is failing to attract African American teenagers vis a vis NBA, NFL, MMA, etc.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Mumbles something angry about a person who insisted the players would cave…

You sound like this is somehow a manly contest of who has the biggest balls.  I have hardly bothered to comment once we passed D-day where games are lost.  We are in uncharted water at this point and none of us know what's going on.  Do you find it angry to say the lawyers are making lots of money?  Truer words were never spoken.   The owners obviously want to get on with the season and have come further than I would have expected.  The players are smelling blood in the water...meaning they believe the owners want to end this more than the union leadership.  If this plays out to a month or two more... there will be big losers on both sides of the table IMO.  I learned a long time ago that negotiations need to end with both sides feeling they won some and lost some.  When you try to clean the other guys' clock it oftentimes comes back to bite you in the ass.   I cleaned my golf clubs today so am preparing myself for a nice long wait in negotiations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Because it will kill competitive balance. So unproven talent years away from a MLB lineup if they ever get there being able to choose which organization they want to play for is bad. Proven MLB All Star talent being able to choose which organization they play for is OK? Which really has a bigger impact on competitive balance? 

But I'm sure the owners appreciate your support. 

You clearly don’t understand the value of amateur talent.  If the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. could just outbid the the low market teams for said players it would be game over from a competitive integrity standpoint.  I can’t believe we’re actually having this debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, poppysox said:

You sound like this is somehow a manly contest of who has the biggest balls.  I have hardly bothered to comment once we passed D-day where games are lost.  We are in uncharted water at this point and none of us know what's going on.  Do you find it angry to say the lawyers are making lots of money?  Truer words were never spoken.   The owners obviously want to get on with the season and have come further than I would have expected.  The players are smelling blood in the water...meaning they believe the owners want to end this more than the union leadership.  If this plays out to a month or two more... there will be big losers on both sides of the table IMO.  I learned a long time ago that negotiations need to end with both sides feeling they won some and lost some.  When you try to clean the other guys' clock it oftentimes comes back to bite you in the ass.   I cleaned my golf clubs today so am preparing myself for a nice long wait in negotiations.  

It would help if the weather would warm up so we could hit the links earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually a great sign that even after all this - they are still continuing to work aggressively (or seemingly aggressively). I also think we are closer now than they were a week and a half ago (players have made real progress but owners also have something they can rally around on there side as a win too...which lets be honest, needs to happen in these types of negotiations). 

Fact that they continue to hack away at this makes me think there is still a possibility we get good news in next 24/48 hours.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It would help if the weather would warm up so we could hit the links earlier.

Just like an opening day in baseball...I have played in some really crappy weather that first round or two of the year.  I'm getting the itch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I really used to think that bonus pools and individual player limits were the answer, but you guys pointed out ways in which that could be corrupted so it sucks. 

 

Yep. There maybe a way to make it equitable without a draft but it is above my paygrade and brainpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

That's because the owners choose it to be that way. All of the owners have the money to play ball like NY and LA. They just choose not to. 

That's ownership deliberately choosing to be non-competitive, and nothing else. 

There is nothing you could do to convince me that if there were players that warranted it, that every team couldn't spend as much as the Dodgers and Yankees do on a regular basis. Non-competition is a choice. Don't like it? Don't own a baseball team. 

Your lack of business sense is astounding.  Look at the god damn regional TV deals and tell me with a straight face the Rays & Marlins can spend as much as the Dodgers & Yankees.  You are legit embarrassing yourself with these takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Your lack of business sense is astounding.  Look at the god damn regional TV deals and tell me with a straight face the Rays & Marlins can spend as much as the Dodgers & Yankees.  You are legit embarrassing yourself with these takes.

I hold teams to a different standard. If they're not willing to spend to that level, if the team warrants it, ownership should not be allowed in the club. 

I've told you a million times that I think sports franchises are hobbies for billionaires so my view is that ownership should be willing to pour money from their personal bank account into the product on the field. They should be willing to run the teams at a modest deficit during competitive windows. They can make up their losses when the team is re-building. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that owners have an obligation to maximize a contention window when one presents itself. 

 

MLB owners are, um, completely ass backwards when it comes to the business of sports. They should be more willing to split up money in revenue sharing. They've lost the forest from the trees. 

The one thing that I disagree about with the MLBPA is the salary cap, and I think that a cap and floor would be good for middle tier veterans and younger players. The stars will still get theirs. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I hold teams to a different standard. If they're not willing to spend to that level, if the team warrants it, ownership should not be allowed in the club. 

I've told you a million times that I think sports franchises are hobbies for billionaires so my view is that ownership should be willing to pour money from their personal bank account into the product on the field. They should be willing to run the teams at a modest deficit during competitive windows. They can make up their losses when the team is re-building. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that owners have an obligation to maximize a contention window when one presents itself. 

You say all of that, and then watch the Chicago sports franchises, or even sports in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...