Texsox

The owners. For the fifth time. The owners could end this right now and have generational wealth for their grandchildren's children. Has the union been perfect in this?

I think we can also agree that the middle of each issue isn't always a fair settlement. One side may get 70% of one issue while giving 70% in another. Plus if one side's initial position is too extreme and is countered by something reasonable, the middle wouldn't be fair but something closer to the reasonable would be.

Agreed. It also seemed like the union's starting position was put out there knowing it wasn't close to being something MLB would accept. I'm not suggesting the union was wrong in my their strategy. Just the opposite, it made perfect sense. I think we saw both extremes.

I believed both sides have made offers that they knew would not be accepted. I guess we could call that outlandish and unreasonable but that may too extreme.

To a much earlier point I made about not shedding any tears for players earning millions. Amazon is posting record profits while increasing the cost of a Prime membership and fighting all efforts by their employees to unionize. It is so much easier for me to care about their plight than players struggling to get by on $500,000 a year. And because I'm a hypocrite, I smiled when I opened my Schwab app this morning. Would I be selling in protest or just grabbing profits?

I was agreeing 100% until the last sentence. It seems like you are saying once the owners locked out the players, whatever proposal the union made should be a take it or leave it without any room to concede. I don't think that's realistic for either side.

Exactly. Like I said revenue and profits are why they should spend more. It wouldn't go far but I believe any team receiving revenue sharing should have their profits capped and it shouldn't be much. Those funds should augment their spending not replace their spending.

So far neither side has made an offer that they thought had a snowballs chance of being accepted. But since this is a lockout and not a strike, I blame the owners more. You started it, it's up to you to end it.

Of course they can spend an extra ten million. But specific to looking at average valuation. Using personal finances as an analogy, just because your home value increases doesn't mean you can spend more money. The reason MLB owners can and should spend more money is revenue and profits are increasing. I still contend that's also a reason that teams should pay taxes, improve the communities they serve, and increase wages for all employees, not just the ones earning the largest checks and have the most bargaining power. It's also going to cost more than $10 million to end this.

Further to my point, the current financial situation in baseball is so one sided towards the owners that in these negotiations they do not need any concessions from the players. This isn't a situation where if I do this for you I need you to do this for me. I'm seeing it as proof how good the owners have it. But as I've also stated, I'm pro settlement. If the union accepted the last offer I wouldn't shed any tears for a player at the league minimum.

Where is this addressed in the CBA? I'm looking but I can't find anything.

Agreed. I never said they were asking for anything crazy. What I said was looking at the last CBA and this one, the players aren't being asked to give up anything, it will all be a much deserved, easily absorbed for most teams, gain for the players. I don't see any points in the CBA that the players were asked to accept less than the last CBA. Yes, profits grew faster than salaries and players deserve higher salaries. For at least the third time. Once again I will say, the owners could end this today by accepting the union's last offer and still retain generational wealth that will outlive their children's children. If the players accepted the last offer from the owners they will have a gain. I don't believe they should take the last offer, they would be leaving a lot of money on the table. I place 100% of the blame on the owners that this hasn't been settled. They have made offers that are ridiculous in scope. They locked out the players, it's up to them to make a serious offer.

So the owners were violating the CBA? And the union can't get a court to decide in their favor?

Then help me here. I don't see anything in the owners proposal that is worse than what the players have now. It's far from what the player's union asked for, but slightly better than what they have now. What am I missing?

They just want to give the fans a better product. Those guys on teams like the Dodgers and Tampa Bay realize them winning 100+ games isn't a good product for the fans and want their teams to win less and Baltimore to win more.

No, it's more like the car company having record profits and the salesperson says we want a 10% raise and the company counters with a .02% raise. No one is asking the players to give back anything they earned in the last CBA.

It's a small win but at least so far it seems like the players haven't had to give anything up that they already have. Basically this is all about how much of what the owners currently have can be switched to the players. If the players were being asked to give something up that they already have I doubt this could ever be settled.

Maybe he's struggling because whatever they say will expose the organization. We're going to start following the law? We're going to start doing what any decent human being would have done? He reminds me of an eight year old having a tantrum,covering his ears and screaming, I can't hear you!!

NFL being rocked by a pay to lose scandal and racist hiring practices MLB Lockout NHL Blackhawks scandal Olympics in China MLB Steroids still in the news Minority hiring in about every league I'm thinking this is the lowest point for self inflicted problems in American sports in my lifetime. I'm thinking of the Munich Olympics and thinking that's the worst single moment in my lifetime, but the sheer number of self inflicted issues today is horrible.

Wait, the side that has shown the least flexibility is calling for a mediator? The side that waited how many days to make a proposal?

The infuriating thing is the changes they have to make are basically to just do the right thing. How difficult is it to say we won't tolerate illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior at any level of this organization ever again and will constantly monitor our organization for signs of those behaviors. We've hired an outside investigation or law firm, without ties to the organization or the NHL, to conduct annual, confidential interviews, with all employees. These same investigators have established a 24 hour reporting system that all employees will have access to without fear of retaliation. That took me all of five minutes to think of. The Hawks can't be just above average in fighting this.They have to be the absolute #1 organization in stopping this kind of behavior and turn themselves into the model for other teams to emulate and even then they aren't free and clear. That's just the beginning. But Rocky's seemingly arrogance and lack of compassion and understanding is breathtaking in it's inappropriateness.

The unknown is what competitive balance leads to. Basically no one wants to see a 100 win team and a 55 win team anymore, we want those wins to be redistributed. What spread does that lead to? Let's take the AL east from last year and take away 24 wins from the top teams and give them to Baltimore. After TB 94 Bos / NY 86 Tor 85 Balt 76 If every division looked like that would we perhaps want 14 teams? The three division winners receive a bye week at the end of the season (last week in September) while the four runner ups play to a winner. (Two three game series) Or top two in each division and one wild card. Again using last year Bos v. Cleveland* and Yankees v. Seattle After those two winners play off that winner would have played Tampa Bay while the Sox and Astros played. *easily the worst aspect of this plan. Toronto or Oakland deserves a playoff spot before a losing record Cleveland team. But again, once competitive balance steps are taken, the Sox wouldn't win 93 games, it's better if some of those wins are redistributed across the division. After running through this I think 12 is my max.

From my keyboard it seems really, really, easy to do. Plus it's the most decent human thing to do.

Are you thinking of wrestling admitting it was a pre scripted entertainment event to avoid sports regulations?

Great point. Horse racing is in the middle of a suit for doping and gambling. I wonder if a human was found to have been using a banned substance if bettors could sue? It's a novel concept. One obvious difference here is the NFL does not put on the games for gamblers, while horse races are run for the gambling. I'm not certain a gambler could sue the NFL because they bet with a casino.