poppysox

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.

Very seldom are union/employer negotiations concluded before some form of deadline is established. Who knows...maybe the other side will blink and give you something you weren't expecting.

This is the phase of negotiations where we give up the crap we never thought had a chance. Today the players drop FA eligibility before 6 years...tomorrow I expect owners to give up on the expanded 14 team playoffs. I expect the owners to give the $600K ML minimum because it's already $570.5 I believe. A few more tweaks like universal DH and its "play ball". Could have been done months ago but everyone would complain we left too much on the table.

No divisions with a balanced schedule would be perfect. Of course, there would be no reason to have a playoff since we already would know who won the league fair and square. As an old-time fan that would be my preference but of course, the money made off the playoffs would make that dead on arrival.

Bummed would be putting it mildly. Why bother with a regular-season at all?

I would call it being realistic.

I agree. It is obvious from the lack of interest in these forums that baseball is hurting itself. Neither side will win if the fans tune out.

I agree. It is much easier to keep 30 owners unified than 1200 players. If the union overlays its hand the end result won't be pretty.

Robot umpires can't come soon enough to suit me. It is just as important to get balls and strikes correct as a bang...bang play at first IMO.

Both sides move slowly thinking time is on their side. After receiving this response the owners will take over a week to respond. One big frustrating game. Once we hit mid-February things will heat up and it will take two or three days to hammer out what could have happened months ago.