Texsox

If you can't be first, be last. Last in payroll. Last in record.

There are multiple questions here, each with long answers. I've watched games (like most people here) from low level to high. I go to games without a team to root for because I enjoy the game. That's why they should go. It's what has kept me a Sox fan through the shitty stretches. I just enjoy the game. But that ignores the bigger point you make. With TV being the main driver and most people not living next to a local team, perhaps they don't care. I agree about the revenue sharing. At first glance I'm thinking it should be at least 50%, or less, of a team's payroll.

This is why I like the team with the best record who didn't make the playoffs to get the top pick. Stop rewarding the last place team. If they can't try to win through the draft they will have to spend money and try the FA route to get out of the hole.

Lol. My daughter jokes that in their circle of friends graduating from Urbana with honors was totally slumming. Besides being brilliant my son in law is also one of the most genuinely nice guys I've ever met. And I was very suspicious in the beginning.

@tony agreed. The chances are miniscule.

?

Was that from not trying or incompetence?

Wasn't Dick Cheney the head of Bush's committee to vet VP candidates? I can just hear the presser . . . we worked so well together . . . impressed with how well he fit into our culture . . . hall of fame credentials . . . But I really don't see it happening. I actually think they will get this right.

I think we have to define winning. Some fans prefer multiple years of above .500 records without a World Series others want that World Series and will accept multiple sub .500 seasons to get there. I think what most fans want, even those in advantaged situations like LA and NY, is every team having a shot to win once in a while. Having a few franchises that are set up to be the Washington Generals of baseball tarnishes the game. Contraction is one answer, but taking away teams from small markets seems harsh. I believe one league tried this, perhaps in football. Have all players be employees of the league and basically redraft players every year. It can't work on the MLB level and is brutal for players, especially those with families, but imagine how competitive it would be every year.

If I was reading this correctly part of the problem is the collusion regarding the amounts of financial aid offered. Basically the schools didn't want to compete on price for top students. I think we know that rich kids will have an advantage from cradle to grave. Better nutrition, better health care, access to enrichment activities, access to a network of wealthy people when seeking employment. Preferred admission into top universities is yet another perk. I may not like it but I'll be honest I think about my soon to be born grandson and it makes me happy knowing the financial situation he's being born into. Having a dad who is a Harvard Business School Baker scholar will open doors for him that I could never imagine. I'd be lying if I said I'd be against my daughter and son in law using those advantages. Hopefully I will be around to see him enroll in a top university.

I agree. I think the debate is in defining keeping it healthy. If we just are looking at the financial health we should line up with the owners and profits. There aren't too many businesses that failed while turning a profit. The owners "winning" keeps the game going without any threats. But I think for most fans healthy also means every market having a chance to win once in a while. Healthy means a team being able to draft and hang onto a talented player and watch them develop into a superstar while playing at least a season or two for them before leaving. Healthy to me is all the employees earning a livable wage (I'm looking at you MiLB). Based on the growth in value for most MLB teams and the profits that most report, there is room to make the non owners "healthier" while not risking the long term financial health of teams and the game itself.

It's like the NBA, nothing matters until the end.

No matter how this ends no owner will throw up their hands and sell and no player will quit playing and get another job. It won't make a difference in the lives of fans or the folks who work for the teams. Someone will get a little richer and someone will be a little less wealthy.

The offer he can't refuse may be a huge say in GM matters.

Pay them the $40 mil during that season to be really fair. Cancel contracts and put players on commission.

The entire entertainment field is like that. Film stars getting their first big break. Bands signing their first contact. Basically anyone signing a contract without any verifiable success.

That's my only Harbaugh worry. He seems to want a portion of the GM role as well. It seems from a distance that the Bears ownership doesn't seem to meddle too much so it's probably a great fit for a GM.

It may be battling semantics here but it appears they are recommending, not having the power to negotiate and sign contracts. If he listens to them great. And I don't have to remind you the Bears history of fucking things up in contact negotiations with a HC.

He's at the top of my list, but there are a couple of possibilities that wouldn't cause me to throw up in my mouth. Really I think the GM spot is more critical. I prefer the two spots be independent of each other. I wouldn't want to settle on a weak GM candidate if that's what it takes to get Harbaugh. (We don't know it would, but it seems like a possibility based on his public comments)

Someone has to hire the top football guy and it isn't going to be a football guy in this situation, they have both been fired. I don't trust the franchise to hire one good football guy, why would I trust them to hire a President and a GM? When that doesn't work out next time it will be hire a CEO to hire a President to hire the GM. Find a good GM and get the hell out of the way, again.

That's exactly what I was thinking. While I'm a big fan of hiring Harbaugh I'm not certain I like the idea of doing that first given that my gut tells me he would demand input into the GM selection.

Now which comes first? Generally speaking I don't want the HC picking the GM but that may be what it takes to get their guy. Unless they have a GM lined up that search could take a while.

No exaggeration. The market forces on wages are all downward. Businesses aren't charities. If they can get the job done for less they will and they will be more "successful". Wages go up because a business can't hire and retain qualified employees at their current levels.

Whose best interest? Fans? Owners? Players? Making a profit and increasing wealth for shareholders is how our society judges most companies as successful. Amazon, Tesla, Apple, and Walmart offer horrible pay and working conditions as they became industry leaders. More profits = more likely to be around for a long time. Owners tend to have longer careers in baseball than just about anyone. It's their industry. Like all American businesses they pay employees as little as they can. From an American business standpoint the best interest of baseball is anti player. I don't think we want that.

65 is scary young.