Texsox

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.

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.