poppysox

There is no market for grumpy old people.

At 76 years old...you are a young whippersnapper to me. Like you...long time lurker.

Neither side would go for it... but a system that had very little range (something like 20M) between the lowest payroll of $180 million & the highest $200million without the ability to pay a penalty would be great by me. It would be fun to watch teams actually think twice about how to handle payroll instead of just having more money than the opposition. Tanking would have no purpose and the vast majority of teams would be spending appreciably more than today. Attendance would increase dramatically since every game would matter in theory. A last-place team would indicate poor management and winning would indicate some talent on the part of FO and scouting staff.

I agree that the players are not in a good position to win much by way of concessions. However, I am sympathetic to the non-competitiveness of teams having 5 X the payroll of some of the competition.

More posters should be giving JR credit for spending the money and player capital to attempt to strengthen our chances for a WS run. Didn't work out but he did push the money into the pot.

I expect the players to win the point of raising the minimum a team needs to spend to around $100. The point of more competitiveness is just too valid to ignore. Some form of lottery to discourage tanking also has some legs IMO. Universal DH will also be a slam dunk and the owners will claim that is a win for players. Wanting a faster track to arbitration and free agency is one of those players "asks" things that they know is a non-starter. Six to eight weeks is still my educated guess. Longer than that and it starts to get expensive for both sides. The deepest pockets will almost always win that line-in-the-sand point of negotiations.

Balta being Balta.

Thank you for the suggestion to watch the Rose interview with Gio, Britton, and Semien. I agree that it was informative and shed light on the player's perspective of the process. It would be great if Rose could do the same with a trio of owners. The players framed their position as wanting to incentivize teams to be competitive which I support totally. They want to "realize their potential earlier" which will be a very hard sell IMO...and they don't want to give back what they have already won such as arbitration and free agency which I agree is a reasonable position to take. They also stated clearly that both sides "want baseball to be successful". Zach made the interesting comment that we understand this is a business and negotiating has tactics. The largest frustration is the players feel their proposals are clear and the owners have been unresponsive. I have not changed my opinions because this interview follows what I have been saying: 1) it is normal for both sides in any union negotiation to ask for things they know they will not get...2) until a lockout or strike no one is motivated to give up any negotiation leverage...3) when people miss paychecks or revenues everyone involved gets much more serious about what they can really live with...4) the average fan is not happy with what is perceived as spoiled rich kid players and filthy rich baseball owners fighting over how to split up all the money the fans give them. Thanks for the respectful suggestion to watch what is an hour-long interview. Likewise, I hope you see this as a thoughtful and respectful response.

Yes...I see. You have more faith in the press than I do. Union negotiations are a "two sides" thing whether you want to believe it or not.

Do you seriously not understand the point I am making? Why don't you try stating what YOU think is going on with the talks instead of implying others just don't understand? You and others with your point of view simply come off as intolerant of other people's views. I get that you think the players are 100% going to stand together and take away all the money that the evil owners have. My view is the players will make some modest gains after a few months of posturing and the fans will pay for whatever those gains end up being. The art of negotiations is to let both sides claim some victory and admit to not getting everything we hoped for. My prediction is this will take another 6-8 weeks and end with the words like I just indicated. If you disagree...state what you think will be the outcome and we will see who is correct in their point of view.

Sounds like typical union/management negotiations to me. Both sides will ask for outrageous things and ultimately settle claiming they gave up more than they intended. At this point, I would say very expected responses on both sides.

So the Commissioner of baseball charged with upholding the integrity of the game said they are ready to talk at any time. Sounds very open to discussing the player's grievances. Sounds like a huge misunderstanding to me. Perhaps both sides should sit down and discuss this soon.

JR will not be involved in the next tanking. We are talking about future events obviously.

Show me where that's right. Neither of us knows what has been said or for that matter agreed upon. For baseball's sake, I do hope they can agree on a minimum payroll of let's say 100 million. I also hope some form of deterrent to discourage tanking would also be good. Add the universal DH and that would be the end of this for me. In my opinion, JR would agree to all of that and it wouldn't affect him at all. He already adheres to all of that. I think those things could be given without JR needing to raise prices, etc. If that isn't enough this lockout will last a long, long time.

So you admit the owners have made proposals. Enough said.

This isn't close to acurate.

Yeah...I saw a similar quote from owners saying they had made a number of offers to include universal DH and improvements in the minor league conditions but received no response. I notice your example of players stating opinions is from two high-priced players who are not the average players that I have referred to many times. Just for the record ...I hope this lockout ends tomorrow and I don't really care if the owners give in or hold firm. I enjoyed baseball better when my players stayed on the WS and were associated with the WS team. This new era of players playing for the highest bidder will ultimately ruin the game.

Yeah...I am unable to voice my opinions clearly as you have.

No...I am not listening to the noise created by people who have a vested interest in trying to sway fan opinion.

There you go again. "Lack of reply by owners and no fair proposals"...where do you get this stuff. Because no one is keeping us up to date on negotiations doesn't mean they are not sitting down at this very moment. You have player bias and you accuse me of owner bias. You favor the players getting as much compensation as they can and I think they are well compensated and should fix a few unfair arbitration issues and start Spring baseball on time.

Many of you use this little debate device of restating the other debaters' words with your personal slant to make it what you wanted him to say rather than what he is saying. I have never used the term "players will cave in and the owners are right" in any of these discussions. I have said the majority of players have little to gain and don't want to miss paychecks and whatever the players win cost-wise will be passed on to the fan. My statement about service time manipulation stated I was referring to Kris Bryant type of situation as you well know. I know you are being deliberately obtuse when you restate my positions so no offense taken.

Nothing new here to respond to.

Poop!

Neither of us can prove his position to be correct. Time will tell.

We will see, won't we?