ptatc

Interesting that the deadline went from after the owners get their money Nov. 15 to before they get their money July 25.

People just don't read. Each of those final offers was tied to a specific event, ie, this is the final offer before this will occur.

It does because if it gets past the point of 162 games, they will need to start negotiating if the players get paid for and get service time for 162. The players will want to get paid and service time for games they didn't play. You're right where it doesn't change the current topics but those additional topics will go to the forefront for the union.

Sure it is. Each one of those final offers was for a specific event they planned out. The first one was for the start of spring training. The next one was for opening day to start on time. The current one is get be able to fir 162 into a reasonable timeframe. Each "deadline" is calculated for games and season. They understand it all too well. They are willing to sacrifice games that don't generate them much revenue early in the season.

Interesting discussion with David Sampson on the radio yesterday. He said that new owners can spend wildly for 5 years due to some depreciation, tax regulations. you don't see the real spending habits of the owners until after 5 years.

They are. Everyone is just looking for a person to blame. The owners aren't idiots. They know more than Manfred the issues with cancelling games. They know they situation for each team. David Sampson, a previous exec with the Marlins under Loria was quoting the situation of each team from 2017 when he arranged the sale of the team. They all know all of it. They are just split between the high revenue and low revenue teams. This is where Manfred has failed. To try to get a consensus. Or at least 23 votes.

Can't argue with that.

Correct.

Doesn't Congress have better things to do than mediate a dispute in an entertainment industry.

In the first part he is comparing MLB owners to Russian oligarchs who are currently involved in a war. So being overly dramatic would be my guess.

But many if them get paid more for their bad seasons toward the end of contracts so it even out somewhat.

Agreed. Those that were part of the union should have more benefits.

The floor and cap would be the one thing that would change the whole game. That us the one thing we can agree on. But the players will never agree to it.

They have been left behind because they aren't part of the union.

Yep. There maybe a way to make it equitable without a draft but it is above my paygrade and brainpower.

That is the issue.

It would help if the weather would warm up so we could hit the links earlier.

Agreed.

Again, not all owners have the same amount of money. So your scenario is impossible.

Bit then you go back to teams passing on the best players because the agents have a deal with the Yankees to pay more than the team picking first. That's what used to happen all the time.

It would make a huge difference without the draft. Any team could have selected Seager and had him for 6 years. Without the draft he would have been there the whole time.

How does that equate to not having a draft. Your scenario does occur for years after so teams had a set time to build with them. So it isn't the same. This is why control of the player is a big issue.

I hate to tell you this but the NFL and NBA have drafts. And salary caps. Many ways to limit players movement and freedom of choice.

The owners don't choose that. Believe it or not some owners have more money than others. The larger markets generate more revenue. They can pay more. Just because they have more money than the average person does not mean they all have the same amount of money. I know you believe all sports teams should run at a massive loss but it just isn't teue.

So you are in favor of total non-competive leagues? That's what will happen with no draft. Must other businesses don't rely on competitive balance for a good product so your example is irrelevant.