Texsox

If the goal is moving better players from large payroll teams to small payroll teams wouldn't that lower those payrolls naturally? After all we want to move wins from the Rays and Giants to the Orioles and Pirates so there will be more competition. Why wouldn't the Rays and Giant's payrolls go down? If total wages remain the same the players should be OK with that, after all their #1 concern is competitive balance. So lower the max and raise the min. I don't know. I am not a part of the negotiations nor do I have inside knowledge of the strategies being developed. What's your opinion? What points are the players willing to compromise on?

Is pointing out that both sides have highly trained and paid strategists defending anyone? I am glad you woke up to the fact that both sides are using people for their own gain. Which is why I really don't care how this is settled.

Would it? The Mets could make $25 mil with a $300 mil payroll and the Pirates could make $25 mil with a $30 mil payroll? It seems like it would encourage the bigger market teams to spend even more. To be competitive across the league teams have to field a roster based on the economics of the lowest among them or redistribute money from bigger market teams to smaller market, The idea is getting better players from LA, Chicago, and NY to play in Pittsburg and Baltimore. You have to make the big markets less desirable and the small markets more desirable. That only happens when the big market teams spend less and the small market teams spend more. If the big market teams are allowed to increase spending at the same rate as the smaller markets nothing will change.

That's not going to put a dent in the competitive balance. They have to stop the highest payroll teams from outbidding the small market teams thus buying championships. All they are doing with the above is forcing the small market clubs to pay more for the same players. There has to be a way to force superstars to smaller markets for competitive balance.

I don't find any of the players ideas bad. They all could work. I hope they dig in and don't compromise. I'd rather see the season cancelled. I also don't think the game is broken that bad. There will always be bad teams. Injuries, bad draft picks, etc all drag down a team. So if the owners don't want to give in on everything, go for it, dig in. If we don't play in 2022 it won't be the end of the world.

If all the owners "open their checkbook" and increase their payrolls 100%, how will that address the competitive balance? The Mets payroll will still be huge compared to others. For competitive balance each team's payroll should be close to each other. Doesn't that mean having the bigger market teams slow down spending? And remember this isn't going to suddenly lure better players into MLB. Already the greatest players on the planet are playing here. For competitiveness the idea is to move them around from the big market teams like the Sox and to the small market teams like the Pirates. The sooner Roberts is a Pirate the better the game will be. (or so the theory goes)

Are you surprised that the owners have a strategy that helps their side? Do you think the union has been sitting around doing nothing? Both sides have a strategy. Spoiler alert - the players want to use you in a PR battle.

Or bring the Mets payroll to $35 million. If competition is really the goal, that would work also. What the players want is to use competition as a means to increase payrolls. The owners also want to use competition as an excuse to hang onto profits. The Luxury tax was going to be the solution to keep teams from buying a championship, which fans dearly wanted so many years ago. Until players show a willingness to go to small market, currently losing teams (which is unreasonable I think to ask) more time, not less time, with the teams that drafted them will help the lesser teams to be competitive.

I like the idea of rewarding teams for not manipulating service time but a system that eliminates the possibility would be better. I still like the X years from the draft or X years old format.

I agree. It seems like they are playing it safe and interviewing candidates that are capable with solid track records. I'm still very optimistic about this change. More than I have been in the past.

I rarely buy new. The Goodwill store via eBay was my go to before I decided to reduce my library. At one time I was over a 1,000 volumes.

I agree that players play to win. As do most everyone in the organization.So if players play to win why would any free agent sign with a 60 win team when they can sign with a 90 win team? I say they only will if there is a bigger paycheck in it for them. They won't go to bad team to ensure competitive balance and make the game more exciting for fans for less money. If that was the case they already could do that. But they might for a bigger paycheck. So the player's theory is that once the lower payroll teams are required to increase payroll, magically there will be more competition. To achieve competitive balance, teams need to spend about the same. That could also be accomplished with a max payroll assuring that big market teams don't buy a world series. I can't imagine players arguing that teams should cut payroll to match the lowest spenders but it would pass easily and achieve their #1 goal in your eyes. I'll say it again, owners want to keep their enormous profits and players want a bigger slice of the profits. If anyone else benefits, that is a bonus. Neither side wants to kill the golden goose. Both sides play to win and have track records of winning or they wouldn't be in the position they are in. Owners have won profits , players have won games. It's a battle royal that makes great spectacle. In the end not much will change. Teams will be bad, teams will be good. And by the way, I'm cheering for a quick end over one side or the other. Most of what I would like to see changed are not part of the CBA. I'm certain the players will improve their position and the owners won't lose much. Just make it happen so I know while player's bobblehead I'll get in June.

I just want the Cane Guy Bobblehead.

I agree 100%. I'd love to see a livable wage rule be passed for every employee. It's really about time to fix MiLB and the rest of the organization. Unfortunately the only employees with bargaining power, the MLBPA, aren't really in a position to make that happen.

Which should be balanced by a FO and players who value winning over profits. In that balance we find the franchises fans call successful. Someone in the company needs to be concerned about turning a profit. Others should be caring about market share (in this case wins)

And to fix the system they are proposing items that will also increase their pay. They believe fixing the system will be accomplished by becoming free agents sooner (quicker path to a big payday) and teams being required to pay players more through changes in the luxury tax. I remember when fans complained about players, we'll use Boras' clients as an example, only caring about their paychecks and not about winning. It's nice to see that has changed. What you call their #1 priority also seems to align with what I say their #1 priority is.

For owners IMHO the long term business prospects are to protect profits, keep labor costs controllable, and if they can damage the MLBPA in the process, they will. It's all about the money. Owners have it and they don't want to give it away without a fight. Competitive balance? That comes when the elite teams can make more money with the Pirates being competitive, until then, keep cashing the checks.

In these negotiations, the owners care about protecting their profits and the players care about increased earnings. They don't need a CBA to work on winning games.

No team that I'm aware of is in any sort of financial crisis. They are all healthy and under the current business conditions we shouldn't worry about the long term business prospects of the league.

The health of the game is financial. Teams have to remain profitable. That's how every business in America remains healthy. Neither side really has competitiveness and winning as a core value. Both sides are looking to profit from this negotiation. The owners wish to give up as little profit as they can and the players want to gain as much profit as they can. Only the fans care about things like winning and last I saw, they don't have a seat at the table.

Of the attempts at starting sports leagues all failed financially, not because of a lack of competitive teams. Job #1 of the league is to have financially sound teams. Having teams fail on the field isn't nearly as big a problem as having teams fail financially.

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.