Tnetennba

I’d imagine Castellanos wouldn’t require a 4+ year commitment so that probably has appeal to this FO(owner).

$230M always felt to me like a good middle ground between the two sides. If the Pirates, A's, & Marlins were on board, that should bode well.

Not sure if this is real but ?

Oh look, the players are starting a fund to take care of stadium staff screwed over by the lockout, while the owners are squabbling with labor over minuscule costs like meal money. But the players are the greedy ones and ownership deserves all of the spoils because of "risk"...

Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it were this.

Things we speculated were true but now have actual reporting to refute one narrative floating around here.

DBacks and Reds make sense. But Angles & Detroit? They must really want a more level playing field vs LAD, NYY, & Boston.

I get why, but that day after is just boring AF after all of the hype of Opening Day. Even if I’m not glued to every game it’s great background noise. I want the constant every day of baseball for as many days as possible.

Not me. I hate the weather off day after opening day. I want baseball rain or shine.

Lonzo really developed away from LA. Ingram is good but not really transcendent. Randle really came into his own in NY, and who knows if he would playing behind Lebron. Kuzma I feel was better in LA, but who knows if that continues if he stayed. Its tough to say. They are probably better than the mess they are now, but I don't think that squads wins a ring in the bubble, so its a trade off.

Oh I am aware. The lack of consensus amongst all 30 owners is a problem in its own right.

Seven minutes in heaven.

Oh I agree. The lottery is a fine idea but its a bandaid fix for a much larger problem. It might make bad teams try a little bit more knowing that completely bottoming out is no longer a guarantee of the top pick, but in no way forces low payroll teams to spend on talent. A salary floor, or rules that function to require Oak, Pitt, Balt, Az, Denver, Miami, etc to all spend a certain threshold does much more to keep those teams competitive IMO. Or at least keeps them from running out laughably low payrolls while banking free dollars - which is more of a perpetual issue for them as opposed to outright tanking for years on end.

I was probably conflating cheap ownership manifesting as perpetual tanking but perhaps this isn’t accurate. I think of the Pittsburghs of the world that never seem to spend and are rarely competitive for long. But I think your right and calling them perpetual tankers wouldn’t be accurate.

Tanking for the sake of a rebuild isn’t a bad thing IMO. Unless you’re a talent factory like StL or Tampa or always has $$ to sign big names & ring chasers, your system needs a reset every so often. Perpetually tanking simply to bank luxury tax dollars is a big problem that needs a solution. I’m not sure any of the proposals really solve that though. And when a group of cheap owners can veto ideas that would require them to spend nothing gets fixed.

Yes it does.

They’ll meet in 2 weeks, owners will put out the same BS offer, say they tried, and will go silent again until June-ish.

Eugene’s threads are great reads.

I’m not saying they will other than trying to be optimistic in the moment. When honestly there is little reason to be. Two weeks probably doesn’t change the calculus much when the owners already have a set number of games in mind that they are willing to miss. In two weeks we are likely right back where we were yesterday with more posturing over best and final offers that still aren’t good enough. Attempt after futile attempt to make the Union cave. Until owners feel that pain of lost revenue I fear this is going nowhere.