poppysox

If you were as smart as you obviously think you are...the name-calling wouldn't be necessary.

I am sure you realize revenue is not profit. The "assbags" have agreed to raise the minimum by 60K the last time I looked.

I'm sure you are aware that both you and I have a bias as I stated. You are claiming to have knowledge of how many people I interact with in my regular life. You obviously have no idea of the size of my "group" and you have no idea if I have a basement. I guess you were engaging in hyperbole.

I suppose that is correct. In a way, anyone who picks a side acts as a shill for that side.

Good Luck with attaining whichever of those is your goal. I would have been happy to play baseball for a living for damn near any amount of pay the owner wanted to give me. That is why Jose is the popular player he is. He wants to play for the WS whatever the cost might be in dollars.

Pyrrhic Victory is a victory won at too high a cost to have been worthwhile. I think that might be the case when big money spars with big egos.

A scab is someone who crosses a picket line and works for the employer while a strike is in progress. Has some player decided to do that?

I disagree with your premise that the public favors the players. Most of us tend to hang around with people who think like ourselves. We tend to read the articles and watch/listen to media that supports our point of view. You hang with a crowd that thinks the players are being unfairly treated. The primary reasoning of your crowd is the owners are making tons and therefore should part with a bigger piece of the pie. I hang with a crowd that thinks the players are unbelievably greedy. My group thinks that when a player has shown himself to be really good the individual owners have rewarded their players with unimaginable salaries of 20 and 30 million dollars (hardly miserly). It is true that after serving an apprenticeship...the player is free to go to work for the highest bidder. I realize that I am just hitting on a couple of talking points for both sides and some will want to amplify their side's points of view. I would agree that the demographics of this forum favor the players. The public at large is a different matter.

Neither side could be that dumb...I hope.

I plan on the same symbolic act on Monday evening. Until then...I refuse to believe both sides are stupid enough to kill their golden goose.

It was always going to be a last-day situation. Just the way it is. Frankly, I am happy the owners have come down hard on "a deadline is a deadline." Nothing is going to be agreed on in a month or two that can't be settled in the next few days. The only people who will be hurt are the fans and the young guys hoping to make a spring impression. A few low-level FA's might find it hard to find a landing spot as well.

You do realize I supported raising the wage of the player you describe.

Some forum members simply think that no matter how much the players make...they should get more. Jerry makes tons of money so he is a greedy owner, etc. For all we know he might give every dime he makes to White Sox Charities. I would fully support raising the minimum wage along the line that is currently being offered by the owners. However, I look at our major league payroll and don't see anyone being underpaid IMO. I just want this to be over and start the fun. If the owners want to pay the players demands...fine. If not...fine. I am very tired of rich guys arguing about money.

Just answering the man's question.

Someone purported the lost revenues to be $60M per day but didn't supply the profit or loss number.

If the owners were the jerks some here think they are...the owners would agree to the players' asking number and then just not spend to it Wink/Wink.

When talking about the luxury tax it just gives spending room to a few teams that already have an advantage. None of the teams are required to spend anything. If they want to graduate a minimum floor up to something more reasonable it would do more in the long run for all players. While some teams are spending $40M and others already spending $230M...makes no sense to worry about the top end while leaving half the league to cry poor. My big beef is that both sides claimed parity was the "big" need. Obviously, that was just BS.

Nice story! Good guys wear black.

The luxury tax only helps the Yanks/Dodgers type of team. It doesn't make anybody spend money. Institute a minimum and make everyone spend 75 million and you do get more money for the players and get some parity. Everyone gets what they said they wanted.

I see it reported that Scherzer loses $232,000 per day for every day lost to the lockout. Won't take long before that becomes money.

Both sides claimed that parity was the primary goal in these negotiations and yet no mention of minimum team payroll. Raising the cap just leads to more disparity.

Just something to give up in later negotiations much like the players giving up on free agency after 2 years. Neither was ever a serious want IMO.

Hammer meet nail.

It won't take until April 10th IMO but I agree with your reasoning.

Pointless...just hurting themselves.