poppysox

A cap of $200 million (not wanted by players) and a bottom of $100 million (not wanted by owners) and some form of revenue sharing would go a long way to solving what ails MLB baseball.

It seems to be working.

Agreed! Appears to be one of the bright spots in the organization.

Well...that's something...but I think the owners should sweeten the pot next month when they talk again.

Mets have a payroll of $236 million and Cleveland $29 million. Someone needs to address this ridiculous disparity or these negotiations will still be going on in July.

Why?? What was the offer?

Yeah...the weekend.

You have to admit it's easy to keep up with the breaking news.

Part of winning games is having enough payroll and having a minimum allowed payroll number seems a reasonable target IMO. It defies all odds that a team spending 40 million can compete with teams spending 5 times that amount. Yes, I know some teams have done it in spite of the odds. In any event...if that is the type of advancement the union is trying to win I can understand it. The three players interviewed by Rose stated that was the primary goal. However, any attempt to shorten the period of control teams have on their players will inevitably lead to a protracted lockout.

Good point to consider.

Like most things in life, you have owners from both positions I would imagine. The majority of owners have been winners in life so I suspect they consider winning games the object of playing the game. Most of these owners can make money in just about anything they touch so baseball is more a hobby than a business with most of them. JR being a baseball nut since childhood is a well-documented fact. For the most part...the teams spending the most money are the teams in the largest markets. Baseball...in my view has over-expanded and more or less set up some teams to fail. Surprisingly, some teams like Tampa and Minnesota have frequently succeeded in spite of being economically disadvantaged. Pretty obvious that some teams have really good people in the FO.

So...competitive balance. Dick Allen also had this answer. I agree with both of you that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Most owners would probably agree that this is a major problem so perhaps it's not an insurmountable issue to find some agreement on.

You smooth talker. I agree as usual.

Still a young pup. Lot's of WS championships in your future.

Yep...those people hoping for one side or the other to win are going to be disappointed. No one is going to win this. At the very best the season looks like it will be delayed and maybe result in games missed. I would say the young players playing for the league minimum and the low-level FA's will be the losers. The well-established players along with the owners will go forward with perhaps a little less money in their pockets. Once again many fans will be turned off by what they perceive to be rich people fighting over money.

What a great idea. This should settle the work stoppage for sure. Just make all players independent contractors and pay all players what they were worth each and every season. If I am an owner I jump on that.

No problem. I was really trying to make the point that when some posters try to make 17 points in one post it is hard if not impossible to respond with any degree of clarity. I frequently find myself in agreement with some points the poster is making but can end up debating some points I don't even care about.

I didn't underline or bold anything. It was there when I responded to it.

I would be curious to know what "one" issue those of you who support the players feel is a must-win.

TLTR

There are industries like airlines where people work all over the world and have a different person they report to every week. You are just a number and a bargaining unit is necessary to offer some degree of representation. The vast number of us work in environments where our own contributions can be evaluated by bosses who have supervised our efforts for many years in some cases. If you want to be treated as just another person who performs such and such type of work...by all means...join the union. As most of you know, many businesses today allow you to join a union or not. Pressure is applied to the employee by union reps but ultimately the employee decides what he is comfortable with. Baseball has vast numbers of rules brought about by the players union fighting for things such as arbitration and free agency and I would admit that those advances came about by negotiating together as a group and fighting together for those improvements. Almost all of us have the benefits we have for some hard-fought battles between unions and employers. Most employers today pay the going wage for the type of work required...along with benefits, etc. in order to attract the caliber of employee they want. In many but not all situations...unions have largely outlived their usefulness IMO. Now...back to baseball.

This would take a very long time to discuss and be inappropriate to get into a baseball site. We will be getting plenty of politics later in the year.

I have worked in both union and non-union environments. I negotiated contracts on behalf of employers for 30+ years and have a wife who was required to belong to the union of her employer, a major airline for 25 years. I might not know everything there is to know about this subject...but I know a fair amount.

The players clearly expect the owners to cave. Not happening.

Lighten up...you will be a lot happier.