Texsox

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.

@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.