ptatc

What does that have to do with this deal? If the players get things back, it's still a loss for the players?

That would be the best option too, I think

I get it. I just don't see it as an obvious owners win if the players get the raise in CBT and an increase in the minimum salary.

Agreed. A draft of 16 years olds seems better. Maybe the 12 year olds are getting paid under the table to help the family and the players don't want that to stop. That's 4 years of payment the families wouldn't get. My pure speculation. Why else wouldn't the DR want the MLB clubs to leave the kids alone until a later date.

That I understand. Going from FA even with a cap, to a draft can be intimidating. Hopefully, the owners are just using it as a negotiating chip and say, "OK we'll give up the idea of an international draft for X" and it's acceptable for the players.

Well you know what side Rongey is on. The whole deal looks better than the last CBA on the surface. I guess if you say the owners didn't get everything they wanted, it s an owners win.

I guess I don't see the MASSIVE get. There is already a spending cap. The top picks getting 5+ million. Sure it helps some but.......

I guess it will make it easier to get my Cuban sandwich and beer during the games. They will drive the fans away for a few years like 1994.

Uh oh. Here comes the "I guess we weren't as close as we thought" leaks.

I think it's just a way to get a couple of the best players more service time. If they do the top 3 they are usually the best players at the time.

The latter does. The former gets them to FA sooner. The owners did give in a little for a couple of players per year.

Wow. Wentz gets a third chance.

That's what I thought.

Agreed. But I haven't seen anything as far as the service time manipulation and reaching FA faster concepts are concerned as he stated.

Everyone meaning the players. The owners definitely want to limit this as much as possible. It looks like the owners are giving in somewhat with raising the minimum salary. But I haven't read anything about service time changing or getting the players to FA faster in any of the proposed deals. Raising the minimum wage is much cheaper for the owners than getting the players to FA faster.

That turns into teams with the most money wins. The Dodgers would be the the Yankees of the 20's and 30s winning all the time because they bought the other teams players. As long as you don't mind the NY, LA teams winning everything every year, you can have it. Talk about pure capitalism at its best or worst depending on your view.

Not for salaries. As far as I've seen anyway. The salaries will be constant for the individual teams even if they go up. It's the bonuses that are under discussion with the draft.

No. The salaries in the minor leagues are all the same for a team. It's the bonus that the international players negotiate. It does benefit the owners because it would probably a controlled bonus amount like the US draft.

Draft limits bonuses not salaries. It limits the large investment in unproven players.

The MLB gave some things to the players and added some things for themselves? Isn't that what negotiations are supposed to be?

That's because after the owners used replacement players and essentially broke the union, they have dominated the union and there isn't labor strife. Its settled without much issue.

Always baseball.

That's the issue. The difference between believing and thinking.

I may generate economic activity but not for myself. ? I of course do not disagree but that is not the way of the world.

Revenue sharing negates this somewhat. As players in a smaller market are supplemented by money larger markets. However, in general you are correct as it's the more fans want to see a player or team the Revenue increases whether by ticket price or advertising revenue. The reason why professional athletes and actors make more money than us teachers. They bring in revenue and we cost tax payers money.