poppysox

Your bias is keeping you from seeing reality in this case. There is no little guy or a nice guy trying to earn a living for his family in this case. Robin Hood would not be in the least interest in getting involved in this clash of the wealthy IMO. I can assure you that not all employees feel underappreciated or under-compensated. Actually, most employees are doing just fine for themselves without a union. A union is most helpful to the underperforming employee and helps him get the wage of the best employees IMO. I am admittedly biased in favor of starting the season on time.

Do you ever side with management in a labor dispute?

You just keep reading them...it will all become clear after you get over the nitpick bs.

Reread my posts. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Yep...it's a balancing act of charging what the market will bear and breaking the camel's back.

Additionally, any gains made by players will be paid for by fans. Business plans don't generally call for making fewer profits.

I really don't understand why everyone wants to play the blame game. Unions and businesses have these negotiation issues all the time. The players and owners make a ton of money and neither side has any right to be upset with their respective situations IMO. If they insist on killing the golden goose...that's on them.

When Landis was asked to be commissioner after the Black Sox scandal...he insisted on complete control of everything baseball. His intent was to instill trust in baseball and used as his governing standard "best interest of baseball." Pete Rose is banned largely because of the standards set by Judge Landis. The commissioner's office still oversees the hiring of umps, negotiates contracts, and oversees everything baseball connected. The commissioner has always been paid by the owners but is expected to adhere to "best interest of baseball" standards is my understanding. Ideally, the commissioner would work to get both sides talking and act as something of an arbitrator in these matters. I understand that there is a difference between theory and reality.

I thought the commissioner worked in the best interest of baseball. He should be the guy who gets both sides to the table.

I think both sides deserve credit for this and certainly not just JR. What does the commissioner do to earn his money?

I quit the Blackhawks cold turkey when they let Bobby Hull leave. I have never watched another game.

Yep...JR knows what he's doing.

Thanks!

Phil Rodgers the sportswriter or Phil Rodgers the Pro Golfer?

FYI..." important white people like Manfred" is a racist-sounding statement. I'm sure it was not your intention to come off in that manner. If someone on this forum said important black people like Obama...this forum would explode.

If you have a $100 buy-in at the poker table it's a fair game. Someone will get better cards, have better luck, and all-in-all play better. I don't want to play where someone gets to start with $500 against everyone else's $100 and can bully the smaller stacks. Baseball needs a fair playing field but it's hard to get the bullies to give up their advantage.

So what is the realistic price to pay?

You can't much blame a FO who is given 25% of the payroll of their competitor. My thought is to find a way to narrow or eliminate this overwhelming advantage that the New York and Los Angles type teams have. Let's find out who really has a sharp FO and great scouting. I know asking the Yankees or Dodgers to subsidize their poor relatives is probably a non-starter but it would make the game enjoyable for all fans. No more tanking...no more advantage in going after every player in the market.

Yep...the more they are able to shrink the variance between the lowest and highest payroll the better. True competitive balance solves all this tanking nonsense and allows a fair playing field for all. Major markets will always need to support their little market rivals...but that should have been known when we started to allow small markets into the game with expansion.

Seems obvious, doesn't it.

Not one poster claims to be under 16 years old. When I was 16 you would have trouble keeping me off a White Sox forum if one had existed. Baseball is not the end all be all was. Many things compete for youngster attention. The smart guys in the FO need to brainstorm how to get kids interested. Of course, winning would help.

Burger and a bag of baseballs would be my offer. I like his 18-20 but lack of recent success and perceived attitude lowers the price for me.

P.T. Barnum was quoted as saying " say anything you like about me...just spell my name right."

My Cub fan older brother (78) lives in another state yet we talk two or three times a week. Yes...we use the phone...not smoke signals. Seldom do we not discuss baseball at some point in the conversation and it is a real bond we have. He is now jealous of the great team we have while he feels he doesn't have many years left to be watching "his crappy team". Baseball has had this place in many families and it's because we were fans as 10-year-olds. Baseball people should be careful to cultivate the young baseball fan or there won't be any game for them to fight over.

I agree that sabermetrics has very little support among the senior crowd (70+). I will always believe a .320 average or 100+ rbi's or 40 HR means something and I am a big believer in OBP being a huge stat. I don't doubt that sabermetrics can uncover some hidden strengths or weaknesses for those making projections for future success. That said, the eye test works very well. I can remember watching Hunter Pence III playing CF for the AA Hooks in Corpus Christy and saying we will be seeing him soon in the ML. The eye test can see throwing to the wrong base and lack of hustle...along with great speed and playing smart baseball. Most people in the HOF would pass the eye test and the WAR type of evaluation.