Texsox

Ah the Hardy Boys. They were my gateway drug also. I was crushed when I learned that Franklin W. Dixon wasn't a real person. I channelled his memory during a project I just completed. That business model is alive and well today. The past ten years or so one of my favorite light reading are series set where we vacation. So Doiron's series in Maine. Houston in Wisconsin. Krueger in Minnesota. Harry on SPI. CJ Box in the Rockies etc. There was another one in Moab but I forget the author. I'm also always on the lookout for decent Kindle Unlimited series. Non fiction runs towards topics that I'm researching or catch my eye. I was just checking the library for books on labor negotiations in America thanks to @Balta1701. I needed to learn a little about CFOs and got caught up in some Enron books. All my life in books written pages. I was blessed to be raised by a mom who read and grandparents who fed my Hardy Boys habit.

Whatever helps you to enjoy the game. I believe about 98% of American workers have it worse than baseball players, but I guess they need someone to stick up for them.

You can't help but smile remembering him.

Great point. Why aren't the players picking their next head coach?

Great then we don't have to worry about it. We have a court system to fix it. So I answered your question why I'm in this thread, why are you?

Hopefully all the low budget teams will be forced into spending more money on free agents and we'll have a better chance of filling needs.

I agree with you. I think we'll see some of the same stuff we see in other industries. More part time employees without benefits. Why hire high priced professors to teach underclass classes is their thought process. I think there will be more of a makeover of college as a job training program. @greg775 I don't think education moves that fast.

Has the union made that accusation?

I wonder if some guys buy into the hype when they are hired and think that somehow now they have to be 2x better at what got them to this point. It seems like the guys that really flame out try to be smarter than they are. Just keep doing what got you to this point and grow into the job. The Bears ownership and fans will give you your full contract time to make it work.

Making pitchers happy, while making their hitters less happy. I'm glad that baseball still has differences in stadiums. I know it makes stats messy for number purists, but I think it adds to the charm of baseball. I remember when hockey was played on different size rinks. Teams would build their rosters around those home game ice differences.

I would think everyone in the MiLB organization that could play 2nd is considering it and if they can't play second how about right field? Catcher? . . .

It's good to have options.

How many lawyers are reading these proposals? Plus the details, figuring out how some team could get around the intent. Just look at the minimum wage rules. How many games does a player have to be on the roster to earn the minimum? Prorating? All that would have to be refigured. Obviously the owners stalled, but I think one week is reasonable for the counter offer. If it happens sooner great.

MLB should be proud of guys like Buerhle. I'd rather hold him up as an example of what is right in the game than some of the guys that embarrassed the game.

I hope he keeps finding places to play.

The union couldn't do much until the owners made a proposal. Putting something together that the owners will accept will take time.

That five year service time just helps the big market teams with deeper pockets. I could see the team owners deeply divided on that. Even the $1 mil minimum helps the large market team by tying more more payroll on the bottom players small market teams have even less to compete for better players. On a small payroll team cheap draft picks that develop, a few low priced veterans, and a mid level FA might be their best lineup. It seems that capping the biggest spenders while forcing a minimum until there isn't more than a 2X difference between the highest and lowest will bring teaming towards the middle. The goal is to take away from the most talented teams and move those players to the worse teams. Just increasing salaries won't do that.

I wouldn't be surprised if they took a week to make a counter offer.

I care about the players and don't want them to play one more game under these horrid conditions. I hope they hold out until they get every one of their demands. But we both know they are too willing to compromise. They want to play and show the fans a good time. Sadly, the players are bargaining in good faith and will be offering the owners a deal the owners will accept. So Balta is this the 1% rule? If you agree with anything from the owner's perspective you are on the owner's side? How are you deciding who is on what side? For the record I'm on the side of end this quickly and could care less which side claims they won. I guess that puts me on the owner's side in your eyes.

I'm bored. After testing positive for Covid I use this as a break from other projects. Why are you in this thread?

So what the owners is doing is illegal? OK. Now I'm as upset as you! What can we do about it?? I'm pissed. Seriously, why care? In the end they will both compromise and baseball will be played. Eventually there will be another round of negotiations and the whatever this agreement is will be the worst thing ever. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. But since the players are bargaining in good faith this will be over soon. They will make an offer that the owners will like and it will all be over. Because making an offer that isn't acceptable to the other party is bargaining in bad faith.

But if the goal is to move better players from the high spending teams to the lower spending teams shouldn't the payrolls drop for the currently high spending teams as their talent level drops towards average? What seems to be the argument is move a few big contracts from the haves and send them to the have nots. Thus raising the payroll at the lower teams and lowering them for the higher teams.

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.