poppysox

That explains it. Thanks!

Obviously. What kind of person would do it for no pay?

It would be interesting to know how the WS stack up with the other 29 teams in their treatment of the minor league guys. I would certainly feel kindly toward my owner if I were to learn he was among the leaders in generosity to those players.

I am referring to the minor leaguers. If no union represents the minors then I would assume some owners would be more generous in their housing allowances, per diem, and even salaries.

That's where my crystal ball has it pegged as well.

Am I to understand that all owners are in the same boat on this? Why would this be? It seems that some owner/owners would be more generous than others when dealing with employees. These are people who made millions in the normal workplace and most employers have a degree of fairness in the employee ranks IMO. Not all business owners are self-indulgent money grubbers any more than every employee is a lazy not too bright malingerer.

I don't disagree but there is no denying that Jose is a team leader for the young players. His presence on the bench is obvious.

Jose has been Mr. White Sox since 2013. Today's birthday #35 make me wonder when the Konerko transition will begin. I would like to see Jose transition to a player/coach role in the not too distant future. The young players obviously look up to him as a team leader.

I like it.

Yeah...let's have more of those owners who don't want to compete.

I prefer to do away with divisions and play a "balanced schedule" in each league and yes...the team with the most wins is the champ. Why is it more entertaining to play the same 4 bad teams 18 times each? Yes, I prefer the way it was done prior to the playoffs system where some team gets lucky and knocks off the far superior team. If you think that's "regressive" ...fine with me.

Approximately 25% of current teams can't draw enough interest to compete. Expansion should not be discussed in your lifetime.

What do you find so shocking about the best team in each league having qualified for the WS? I understand that baseball wants the money generated by playoff baseball so we will never go back in time. In 1959 we were undeniably the best team in the AL. Some fluky .500 team didn't get to represent the AL in those days.

Vaughn and Sheets in a platoon would outproduce Schwarber IMO. More importantly...we use available resources at 2nd base, backup catcher, and pitching.

Playing at the same time was something I didn't worry about initially because I was simply saying I like the old way of a balanced schedule to arrive at an AL or NL champion. It is obviously easier to work around even #'s but not impossible IMO. I have no desire to keep up this silly back and forth because it isn't going to happen under any circumstance. Half the problems that are trying to be solved about non-competitive balance are because we have too many teams from small market cities.

I believe that if the WS played their 14 rivels 12 games each that would require 168 games. Since the WS would be 7 games or 9 or 11 whatever...the total # of games would be in the neighborhood of today's 162+3 or 5 +7.

You'll figure it out in time.

If the NL plays a balanced schedule against each NL team...one of them will have the best record. Same with the AL.

Why can't the team with the most wins in each league play each other in the WS? We did it for 100 years.

I stated in an earlier post that it can't happen because of money. Just my preference.

Get rid of it. I'll take my interleague play in the WS.

People like myself favor a balanced schedule and the team with the best record goes to the WS. I favor this format because it is the fair method of selecting the most deserving team to represent each league. The playoff system with division champs, etc. is favored by those that want lots of teams in the hunt for as long as possible. The second group wins because it makes more money. I am resigned to the fact that I won't win this battle for the obvious reason.

I tend toward the owner's side of the argument but Monfort's statement doesn't help. If he can't afford the game he shouldn't be playing.

You are preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. We both know that money is the reason for this playoff silliness.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all union/employer negotiations are hostile or entail "big drama". All contracts have an end date and that serves as the deadline in most cases. Usually, a new contract is in place without the need for lockouts and strikes. Generally, there is little animosity and the process is nice and polite. A very public negotiation conducted between high profile people doesn't have that luxury as a general rule.