poppysox

Everyone is tradeable for the right price...but, Sheets is someone I want to keep if at all possible.

If the only criteria for the HOF are talent...Allen would be a lock.

He has built himself back up to having some decent value. That in itself is a happy surprise.

We should return to those good old days of 7-yard end zones with our current team makeup.

I'll reserve judgment. Juan Uribe didn't much look like a typical infielder either.

I think you are a little bit low on that 98% figure.

In that little clip, he seems to move quite well. I think he surprised us all last year when we got a look-see of him at third.

They have been preparing the counter-proposal for weeks would be my guess. Just needs some modification to fit the owner's offer.

I'll bet you could put a counter-proposal on the table in a day. I predict it will take them over a week.

Slow playing negotiations are how most of these things are done. Players will now take their time and counter with an equally non-starter counter offer.

The owners are using their economic advantage to win this battle. What you or I think is unimportant to either side IMO.

Competitive balance is a noble endeavor but will not be achieved in these negotiations IMO. Some small improvements will be all that is accomplished. If the players would give up some room on the team cap more could be given on the lower end but I don't see that happening. All this macho talk of staying out for as long as it takes loses its appeal when paychecks and ticket sales start to be missed. A good chunk of ST will probably be lost unless something unexpected happens soon.

I don't think asking the owners to shorten the time of control over players has any chance of success. Higher minimum wage, higher minimum team cap, universal DH could all happen but that's about it.

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.