Jack Parkman

And it's the business model that is the problem. I've already stated that a business should not be legally allowed to operate while paying their employees less than a living wage.

They don't deserve to be in business if they can't. Their shitty business model is nobody's fault but their own. It's either that or start lowering prices of necessities.

^^^^^^

Yeah. They've expanded too much to pay a reasonable wage. They've spread their business too thin.

Then they have either overextended themselves or don't deserve to be in business. Their exploitative business model is not their employees problem.

No man, people who are better at their jobs and have more responsibility should get paid more. I have no problem with that. I'm more against high levels of income inequality rather than income differences. I don't think the gaps between the best and the middle, and the experienced and the entry level should be as high as they are. Like I think that top performers in companies should get compensated outside of their nominal salary with things like stock options and bonuses, but salary differences shouldn't be that high. CEOs making 1000+ times more than their lowest paid employee is beyond absurd and quite frankly theft. When I think of performance based, hard data outside of sports I think of the Amazon dystopia where they track the efficiency of delivery drivers and they can't stop to take a shit or eat lunch without getting threatened with losing their job. Where corporate makes you clock out when you have to use the john, and the toilets that are designed to be painful. So to put it frankly, people who are better at their job should get paid the best, but the difference between the best and the entry level employee shouldn't be so high, and the rewards for top performers should be in bonuses and stock options rather than their already higher salary.

50 HRs is 50 HRs. What does it matter if it's coming from 1B or CF? If they had a way to even it out without taking position into account, I'd be more open to the idea. Position players shouldn't be paid less for the same offense just because of the position they play.

You're incredibly naive if you think that objective measures wouldn't be used to funnel wages toward the top 10% of employees. It's always about wage suppression. That's just business. (or so they say) There are no profits without wage suppression. I mean just look at what sabermetrics are doing to baseball. Making the game more unwatchable, and widening income inequality between players. Ask an Amazon employee what it's like to have to shit in paper bags and piss in a bottle, and then talk to me about "objective measures"

That's a damn good question. I've never been in disagreement from you when you point out that stuff.

It is when its only being used to suppress wages. Ideally, you'd like objectivity, but I don't think people would like objectivity if it meant everyone getting paid less except the absolute top producers. Do you think you're in the top 10% of your profession? If not, objective measures would likely be used to suppress your wages. I hate subjective bullshit as much(if not more) as anyone, but I can put up with it if it means getting paid fairly. The search for "economic efficiency" is hurting the world.

Given that all major pro sports leagues have unions, I agree. A revenue split should be part of the negotiation in MLB. It happens in all of the other leagues, why not here?

Yes, and it's wrong there too. The club shouldn't be lowballing a player like, say, Mookie Betts in arbitration, just because they can. There is no reason why arbitration should be a regularity rather than a rarity. Teams and players are allowed to agree to a one year contract without going to arbitration. My opinion is and always has been that if a business can't pay it's employees a living wage in regular society, or a fair wage based on profits in pro sports, then the business shouldn't be allowed to exist or the owner shouldn't be allowed to own the team. Sports franchises are not normal businesses and are a) public trusts and b) a hobby for the ultra wealthy. Unfortunately, the people that own sports franchises have convinced the public otherwise.

MLB in their initial proposal wanted to pay players with a formula based on fWAR rather than through arbitration. That was ridiculous and a non-starter, but it still existed. It's bullshit because certain positions are devalued in fWAR calculations, like 1B and corner OF.

what the fuck is so funny.........we do treat them like cattle on this board, all too often. We all gave Jose Contreras shit that one year without knowing he was going through a divorce.

I'm starting to have a problem with data and sites like fangraphs. Not because data is inherently wrong, but because it's used to devalue and commodify players. Pro athletes are human beings too.

There's negotiating happening, but it is the MLBPA against itself.

I didn't think it was Jerry until Bob came out and started spewing ownership propaganda. Then I remembered who is usually the mouthpiece for Sox ownership in the offseason.

His history. Jerry thinks he owns a mid-market team. Jerry only re-signs his players if they'll give a hometown discount. They have never actually signed a 9 figure contract. (I know about Wheeler) I don't know for sure that he's in the asshole owner group but I am very suspicious.

We won't know for years. JR has a long history of being on the wrong side of this bullshit, even on the Manfred commish vote relatively recently. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. If it is reported later that he wasn't part of the group playing hardball, I'll give him credit for learning his lesson from '94.

I can agree with you that the MLBPA should be more interested in raising the league minimum for 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players than the bonus pool stuff. It's weird how the MLBPA looks out more for the superstars than the rank and file. That's also a problem.

Idk how long it's going to be before the next negotiating session but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen until April.

100M is $3.33M per team. That's the cost of a shitty bench player or reliever on the open market.

Jerry is but one of a group of somewhere between 8-30 that is responsible for this fiasco imo. If it's 8-10 owners holding things up, it would not surprise me one bit if Jerry was one of them based on his history. I have mixed feelings on Jerry. He seems like about as good of a dude as a billionaire can be but he's a ruthless businessman.

I happen to think it's completely reasonable with the extra revenue that will be generated from legalized gambling, expanded playoffs and jersey ads.

We do know that he didn't vote for Manfred because he thought that Manfred was too soft on the MLBPA.