Jump to content

The MLB lockout is lifted!


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The players play the game to win.  They don't like being on teams that are built to lose. Their #1 priority in these negotiations is to fix a broken system that the owners are fully taking advantage of to field losing teams and maiximize profits.  The players want more teams trying to win and to make the game more competitive. They want to make the game a better product......for the fans.  

I agree that players play to win. As do most everyone in the organization.So if players play to win why would any free agent sign with a 60 win team when they can sign with a 90 win team? I say they only will if there is a bigger paycheck in it for them. They won't go to bad team to ensure competitive balance and make the game more exciting for fans for less money. If that was the case they already could do that. But they might for a bigger paycheck. So the player's theory is that once the lower payroll teams are required to increase payroll, magically there will be more competition.

To achieve competitive balance, teams need to spend about the same. That could also be accomplished with a max payroll assuring that big market teams don't buy a world series. I can't imagine players arguing that teams should cut payroll to match the lowest spenders but it would pass easily and achieve their #1 goal in your eyes.

I'll say it again, owners want to keep their enormous profits and players want a bigger slice of the profits. If anyone else benefits, that is a bonus. Neither side wants to kill the golden goose. Both sides play to win and have track records of winning or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. Owners have won profits , players have won games. It's a battle royal that makes great spectacle. In the end not much will change. Teams will be bad, teams will be good.

And by the way, I'm cheering for a quick end over one side or the other. Most of what I would like to see changed are not part of the CBA. I'm certain the players will improve their position and the owners won't lose much. Just make it happen so I know while player's bobblehead I'll get in June.   

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

I agree that players play to win. As do most everyone in the organization.So if players play to win why would any free agent sign with a 60 win team when they can sign with a 90 win team? I say they only will if there is a bigger paycheck in it for them. They won't go to bad team to ensure competitive balance and make the game more exciting for fans for less money. If that was the case they already could do that. But they might for a bigger paycheck. So the player's theory is that once the lower payroll teams are required to increase payroll, magically there will be more competition.

To achieve competitive balance, teams need to spend about the same. That could also be accomplished with a max payroll assuring that big market teams don't buy a world series. I can't imagine players arguing that teams should cut payroll to match the lowest spenders but it would pass easily and achieve their #1 goal in your eyes.

I'll say it again, owners want to keep their enormous profits and players want a bigger slice of the profits. If anyone else benefits, that is a bonus. Neither side wants to kill the golden goose. Both sides play to win and have track records of winning or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. Owners have won profits , players have won games. It's a battle royal that makes great spectacle. In the end not much will change. Teams will be bad, teams will be good.

And by the way, I'm cheering for a quick end over one side or the other. Most of what I would like to see changed are not part of the CBA. I'm certain the players will improve their position and the owners won't lose much. Just make it happen so I know while player's bobblehead I'll get in June.   

 

I am all for a salary cap, and floor, and even NBA style max contracts in MLB - but not so owners can rake in unlimited profits at the same time.  I want those profits invested in the organization to take care of the regular employees as we've discussed.  I don't foresee either side ever agreeing to such drastic changes, so give me a universal DH, some concession on service time to help arb guys get paid sooner, and something to incentivize teams from perpetually tanking for profit.  Baseball people much smarter about this stuff than me can hash something out, and the sooner the better.  The owners need to come to the table with legit offers soon and quit burning days counting down to a delayed season and lost games. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“When you have an extremely profitable, well-financed corporation (or team) owned by one of the wealthiest guys in the world, you know what, you should not be demanding wage cuts from your workers/players and cuts in their (health care) benefits. That’s just wrong,” _____________ said in an interview Wednesday.

 

https://www.thethings.com/the-16-absolute-worst-sports-owners-of-all-time/

I'm also going to take issue with Poppy's characterization that all these owners would/could/should be doing great at almost anything they attempt.

For every Mark Cuban in the NBA, there's Donald Sterling, the terrible situation in Phoenix (despite a great team), Portland, the Knicks under Dolan...not even sure what Daniel Snyder could do successfully.

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...