PDA

View Full Version : Message from King George


Paulwny
07-07-2002, 01:12 PM
"tough Cookies"

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-trade072776385jul07.story?coll=ny%2Dbaseball%2Dhea dlines

Jerry_Manuel
07-07-2002, 01:25 PM
He's right, there's a lot of other rich owners out there. However, not every owner is willing to risk losing money. Anyone can spend 120 million a year but making that money back and still earning a profit is hard. Not so tough when you have your own cable network.

Paulwny
07-07-2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Not so tough when you have your own cable network.

Many people forget this LITTLE item on his bottom line.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-07-2002, 01:41 PM
I wonder what the Yankees would do if attendance slumped. My guess is nothing different. I don't like Steinbrenner, but you have to admit, the guy will do whatever it takes not to lose, and you have to admire that. Too bad we can't get some of that here on the Southside.

:reinsy

One hundred million, one hundred twenty... What's all that shouting? Dammit, Look what you fans did!! I lost count of my money. Everything is your fault!!

Randar68
07-07-2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
I wonder what the Yankees would do if attendance slumped. My guess is nothing different. I don't like Steinbrenner, but you have to admit, the guy will do whatever it takes not to lose, and you have to admire that. Too bad we can't get some of that here on the Southside.



You can admire it, but you can't admire his disregard for the good of the game and on doing things in a way that doesn't take the chance to win away from 29 other teams.

He has attempted to single-handedly destroy the fan base in 28 other cities.

Paulwny
07-07-2002, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


You can admire it, but you can't admire his disregard for the good of the game and on doing things in a way that doesn't take the chance to win away from 29 other teams.

He has attempted to single-handedly destroy the fan base in 28 other cities.

It's funny, many yankmee fans actually think a power house yankmee team is good for baseball by noting the attendance increase in parks they visit. For some reason they neglect to think that tight division races would increase attendance for all games.

.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-07-2002, 02:08 PM
Don't get me wrong Randar, I think the Yankees winning almost every freaking year is killing the game, but what King George does is allowed under the current rules. Much like the use of steroid, which has been beaten to death in another thread, the level of spending is not regulated so some owners are "juicing" their lineups by buying all the talent at whatever the cost. We need a salary cap/floor in order to combat this, just like we need drug testing. Look at the NFL, where you have the ultimate amount of competitive balance. Unless you are the Bengals or Cardinals, every team is in the playoff race from the start of the season. This is largely due to the fact that the cap levels the playing field so teams like Green Bay, Kansas City, and other smaller cities can compete and win. A floor also has to be in place to prevent cheap a$$es from paying peanuts and pocketing money received from the league (like the Twins and Expos have done in the past). There are other things that also let the NFL be as balanced as it is(like non-guarenteed contacts), but I think the cap is the biggest reason.

(Note: I am only comparing the steroid issue and cap issue only because they are both issues facing baseball that need to be corrected. A clear distinction needs to be made though. Steroids are illegal and people go to jail for using/selling them; whereas an owner throwing around bucks will not land him in the slammer.)

Lip Man 1
07-07-2002, 02:56 PM
Just a thought for all of you who may be screaming for a "salary cap" and think that'll solve the Sox problems.

A salary cap won't solve the "intellegence" issue will it?

Does anybody really think that even with a cap, the Sox front office will "outsmart" people who run the N.Y., San Fran, Oakland, Boston etc...organizations?

All a salary cap will do is make it even harder to win.

At least without a cap, the Sox have an option to try to spend money to make up for their shortcomings...with a cap, they no longer have a way to overcome their stupidity!

Also ask NFL fans in San Francisco, Minnesota, Washington and Dallas how much they like a cap? Especially after their clubs had to unload good productive players because of it.

Or how about all of the "deals" now NOT being done in the NBA because teams that badly need help, can't complete trades because of the cap?

In my opinion, the answer isn't a cap, but instead getting rid of owners like Reinsdorf, McClain, Glass, Pohland etc who automatically throw up their hands and say "we can't compete" and bring in more owners like Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, Bill Gates etc who CAN and WILL.

Lip

Bucktown
07-07-2002, 03:49 PM
I think the solution is to make "big markets" into small markets by adding teams. If you move the Expos to the Bronx then that would move some fans from the Yankees.

It is impossible to give the rest of the owners as much revenue as Steinbrenner. So, the answer is to bring him down to the level of the other owners. George won't like that, but I would tell him "tough cookies."

soxtalker
07-07-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just a thought for all of you who may be screaming for a "salary cap" and think that'll solve the Sox problems.

A salary cap won't solve the "intellegence" issue will it?

Does anybody really think that even with a cap, the Sox front office will "outsmart" people who run the N.Y., San Fran, Oakland, Boston etc...organizations?

Lip

This is a great point. George has learned a great deal over the years, and his organization is a very smart one. If a salary cap were imposed, he'd find other ways to gain a competitive edge -- e.g., spending on a lot more scouting and minor league development. Now, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but the point is that being able to buy major league players does not alone guarantee success. (I'm not betting on Texas being able to win just because they spent the most on a player.) Money will help -- salary cap or no salary cap -- in that it allows an owner to make up for mistakes.

soxtalker
07-07-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
I think the solution is to make "big markets" into small markets by adding teams. If you move the Expos to the Bronx then that would move some fans from the Yankees.

It is impossible to give the rest of the owners as much revenue as Steinbrenner. So, the answer is to bring him down to the level of the other owners. George won't like that, but I would tell him "tough cookies."

That's a very interesting concept. Of course, it would take quite awhile for other teams that were moved into the NYC metro area to pull fans away from the Yankees, but it would eventually dilute their fan base. Now, I'm sure that George would fight this tooth and nail, but I wonder which he'd rather see -- some sort of salary cap with profit sharing or another one (or preferably two) teams to compete against. The Mets would, of course, also oppose it.

guillen4life13
07-07-2002, 06:52 PM
my theory here is going to be a bit different, but I think many will agree with me.

lets not fuss with the salary cap stuff. What I really think could boost this game is a gradually reducing the amount of money these baseball players are getting. ever since pay-rod signed his huge contract, big name players have been asking for atrocious amounts of money. really, a guy like Royce Clayton is making 5 million dollars?!? Albert Belle is making over $10 million and he isn't even playing! Does a player like Alex Rodriguez really deserve 25 million dollars a year? I think that the highest paid baseball player should be earning around $6 million... at most! 6 million can get them the mansion they want, the toys they want and then some.... and it gives the other teams more opportunities to sign good players.

but what makes my theory so hard is that there are going to be bidding wars, and we are going to end up right back where we are now if we are ever able to get my theory in action. the only way I could see it happening is if the rules are changed to match what i've said (or any other theories that may be even more logical).

WhiteSoxWinner
07-07-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Also ask NFL fans in San Francisco, Minnesota, Washington and Dallas how much they like a cap? Especially after their clubs had to unload good productive players because of it.


Uh, those teams all mortgage the future to try to win. Anything wrong with that? San Fran had a great run. Minnesota gave away the farm for Hershel Walker (dumb, but aggresive), Washington tried to get all veterans and win, and Dallas won a couple titles. All those teams have a commitment to winning in common. All those teams tried to win, might or might not have, but all tried. More than I can say for a lot of MLB teams, Southside included. Does anyone think we'll see Uncle Jerry go for broke and get the talent to win? Fat chance.

So there was/is some painful rebuilding. It is the nature of sports. Hockey goes through the same thing after a team has a run because they can't draft the top talent. So, what does the salary cap have anything to do with rebuilding? Without a cap, teams like the Yankees can just keep on buying the talent to stay at the top, which is the whole point of this thread.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-07-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
my theory here is going to be a bit different, but I think many will agree with me.

lets not fuss with the salary cap stuff. What I really think could boost this game is a gradually reducing the amount of money these baseball players are getting. ever since pay-rod signed his huge contract, big name players have been asking for atrocious amounts of money. really, a guy like Royce Clayton is making 5 million dollars?!? Albert Belle is making over $10 million and he isn't even playing! Does a player like Alex Rodriguez really deserve 25 million dollars a year? I think that the highest paid baseball player should be earning around $6 million... at most! 6 million can get them the mansion they want, the toys they want and then some.... and it gives the other teams more opportunities to sign good players.

but what makes my theory so hard is that there are going to be bidding wars, and we are going to end up right back where we are now if we are ever able to get my theory in action. the only way I could see it happening is if the rules are changed to match what i've said (or any other theories that may be even more logical).

Ya know the NBA did when Kevin Garnett signs a $120 million deal for 12 years along with other guys like Glenn Robinson (lots of dollars and about 8+ years)? That's right, a hard cap. Their cap was a joke because of the Larry Bird Exemption, allowing a team exceed the cap in order to resign their players. As soon as players starting signing these ridiculous contracts in terms of length and dollars, the NBA cracked down (leadership and the rank and file players getting together to get a deal done). I hate basketball, but they did get that right. I don't need to talk about the NFL's balance due to their cap. Hockey will be faced with the same issue in the very near future.

MarkEdward
07-07-2002, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner


Uh, those teams all mortgage the future to try to win. Anything wrong with that? San Fran had a great run. Minnesota gave away the farm for Hershel Walker (dumb, but aggresive), Washington tried to get all veterans and win, and Dallas won a couple titles. All those teams have a commitment to winning in common. All those teams tried to win, might or might not have, but all tried. More than I can say for a lot of MLB teams, Southside included. Does anyone think we'll see Uncle Jerry go for broke and get the talent to win? Fat chance.

So there was/is some painful rebuilding. It is the nature of sports. Hockey goes through the same thing after a team has a run because they can't draft the top talent. So, what does the salary cap have anything to do with rebuilding? Without a cap, teams like the Yankees can just keep on buying the talent to stay at the top, which is the whole point of this thread.


Even without a cap, teams still have to rebuild. The Tigers, Royals, and Orioles all had their runs of glory, and are now rebuilding. It was only 9 years ago that the Yankees finished a season below .500. Now, they're going through a winning period.

The problem I see with rebuilding in a salary cap league is the quickness that championship team must dismantle. Look at the Ravens. Super Bowl in 2000 (?), now they'll be lucky to finish above .500 this year. It's like if the Sox had to dump Thomas, Durham, and Konerko after their amazing 2000 season. It's like the cap punishes teams for winning.

Lip Man 1
07-07-2002, 10:45 PM
Mark:

Exactly! That's what I was trying to say in my message about those successful NFL teams having to dismantle because they weren't allowed to pay to keep their very good players.

Perhaps I wasn't clear and some folks misunderstood. If that's the case, I apologize.

Lip

mrwag
07-07-2002, 11:02 PM
The problem is that most MLB teams are the "minor league" for teams like the Yanks. As soon as someone good comes up and gets a few years under their belt (guys like Burhle, Ventura, Giambi) and are worth some real $$$, off they go to NY. Occasionaly theres an exception, like A-Rod, but how long do you think the Rangers will keep him with their record.

MarkEdward
07-07-2002, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
The problem is that most MLB teams are the "minor league" for teams like the Yanks. As soon as someone good comes up and gets a few years under their belt (guys like Burhle, Ventura, Giambi) and are worth some real $$$, off they go to NY. Occasionaly theres an exception, like A-Rod, but how long do you think the Rangers will keep him with their record.

Last I checked, Buehrle was still on the Sox. Ventura came to the Yankees in a trade, so they didn't "buy" him. Oakland could have kept Giambi, but management wouldn't waive the no-trade clause if I remember correctly. Besides, watch how Giambi declines in the next few years. It would have been ridiculous for the A's (or anyone) to sign him to a 7 year contract. Finally, as long as Jeter's the shortstop for the Yankees, we won't see A-Rod in pinstripes.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-08-2002, 12:24 AM
I understand that all teams have to rebuild, and salary caps do require NFL teams to drop talent. However, the difference is that the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts. That's the difference between the NFL and MLB. Another point, what's to stop an MLB team without an owner willing to drop cash like King George from ditching all his talent after winning, a la the Marlins?

I agree that the NFL does have a lot of movement, but I guess it is the price to be paid for competitive balance. Maybe this would be mitigated in MLB with guaranteed contacts. I would rather see balance than the Yankees winning it year after year.

MarkEdward
07-08-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
I understand that all teams have to rebuild, and salary caps do require NFL teams to drop talent. However, the difference is that the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts. That's the difference between the NFL and MLB. Another point, what's to stop an MLB team without an owner willing to drop cash like King George from ditching all his talent after winning, a la the Marlins?

I agree that the NFL does have a lot of movement, but I guess it is the price to be paid for competitive balance. Maybe this would be mitigated in MLB with guaranteed contacts. I would rather see balance than the Yankees winning it year after year.

Wouldn't guaranteed contracts drive up players' salaries? If a player doesn't get much offered in the form of money, he'd at least want security. If the owners asked to end guaranteed contracts, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-08-2002, 02:02 AM
Sorry, must have confused you. I wasn't advocating for MLB to give up guaranteed contracts. I think with a salary cap AND the guaranteed contacts, there might not be as much movement after a championship like in the NFL (although the Rams do a pretty good job of keeping the main players). If owners sign a guy for a huge amount under a hard cap, it would be tough to get any support around him. It would also be tough to move his salary in the future, so maybe we wouldn't see one guy getting $25 million of a say $75 million cap.

To put it another way, NFL teams are usually dismantled with guys being cut through non-guaranteed contacts. This wouldn't happen in MLB because there are guaranteed contacts, so teams, as long as they are under the cap, will get to keep there guys.

I know there would be a lot of logistic around implementing a cap, but I think it is something to consider.

Mathew
07-08-2002, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

In my opinion, the answer isn't a cap, but instead getting rid of owners like Reinsdorf, McClain, Glass, Pohland etc who automatically throw up their hands and say "we can't compete" and bring in more owners like Mark Cuban, Paul Allen, Bill Gates etc who CAN and WILL.

Lip


So we need 30 people like Steinbrenner, Richer than God, spending more so that players like A-Rod get 500 million instead of his measily 250.

The problem I see with rebuilding in a salary cap league is the quickness that championship team must dismantle. Look at the Ravens. Super Bowl in 2000 (?), now they'll be lucky to finish above .500 this year. It's like if the Sox had to dump Thomas, Durham, and Konerko after their amazing 2000 season. It's like the cap punishes teams for winning.


Though I understand the logic, I disagree with it. I think Baltimore is an isolated example. Granted they lost some of their players which led them to the Super Bowl victory, but teams like the Packers, Steelers, Rams have been good consistantly by managing their possible position shortcomings well and retooling just as competitively within the cap. Baltimore wasn't substatially different they simply didn't fill their holes very well. Spent too much on a quarterback that was a dissapointment and allowed to many holes unfilled.

mrwag
07-08-2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Last I checked, Buehrle was still on the Sox. Ventura came to the Yankees in a trade, so they didn't "buy" him. Oakland could have kept Giambi, but management wouldn't waive the no-trade clause if I remember correctly. Besides, watch how Giambi declines in the next few years. It would have been ridiculous for the A's (or anyone) to sign him to a 7 year contract. Finally, as long as Jeter's the shortstop for the Yankees, we won't see A-Rod in pinstripes.

sorry, I got a little bit ahead of myself. does anyone actually think the Sox will sign Mark to a big chunk of money when he's eligible?

Lip Man 1
07-08-2002, 02:21 PM
Mathew:

Exactly!

How do we REALLY know that Reinsdorf, McClain, Glass etc "can't compete"? Have they even tried??

David Glass is the head and heir to the Wal Mart family fortune. If anybody thinks he can't afford 80 million a seaon on payroll, they are delusional.

Carl Pohland, the Twins owner, according to Forbes Business Magazine, is one of the ten richest individuals in this country. He has assets reportedly worth over 2 BILLION dollars. Yet he has the unmitigated gall to insist that he'll fold the Twins rather then use his own money to build the new ballpark he says he has to have (a la San Fancisco and Florida)

These are just some examples of the duplicity from the owners.

They CHOOSE to throw up their hands and say "we can't compete..." Fine, if they can't, SELL or go out of business.

I'm not defending (totally) the Steinbrenners of the world but the name of the game is WINNING not making a profit in sports. This isn't the local utility company or the grocery store. These teams are public trusts in the respective community they are in.

If these owners are trying to make a buck at the expense of why sports are played in the first place, if they can't compete with other organizations who are playing by the exsisting rules, then
GET OUT of the business and bring in someone who can.

Just my opinion

Lip

Randar68
07-08-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm not defending (totally) the Steinbrenners of the world but the name of the game is WINNING not making a profit in sports. This isn't the local utility company or the grocery store. These teams are public trusts in the respective community they are in.


You're full of crap. These guys didn't get rich by throwing money down the tubes, and nobody can withstand throwing away millions every year. None of these teams are OWNED by the fans.

I'm not defending the owners, but there's only so many Mark Cuban's in this world. To say they should flush money down the toilet year after year is assinine.

Paulwny
07-08-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I'm not defending (totally) the Steinbrenners of the world but the name of the game is WINNING not making a profit in sports. This isn't the local utility company or the grocery store. These teams are public trusts in the respective community they are in.
Lip [/B]

During yesterdays yankmee game the announcers were defending George's spending. They mentioned that based on projected attendance and broadcast rights King George will gross $240 mil.
Winning may be important to him but, I doubt he'd have a payroll that would exceed $240 mil, that's total team pay outs, front office, players ,etc. George is not spending any of his own personal money for this team.
How can any team compete with $240 mil.

Dadawg_77
07-08-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner


Ya know the NBA did when Kevin Garnett signs a $120 million deal for 12 years along with other guys like Glenn Robinson (lots of dollars and about 8+ years)? That's right, a hard cap. Their cap was a joke because of the Larry Bird Exemption, allowing a team exceed the cap in order to resign their players. As soon as players starting signing these ridiculous contracts in terms of length and dollars, the NBA cracked down (leadership and the rank and file players getting together to get a deal done). I hate basketball, but they did get that right. I don't need to talk about the NFL's balance due to their cap. Hockey will be faced with the same issue in the very near future.

Only the NFL has a hardcap. The NBA has a max salary a player can make, depending on thier time in the league, but a soft cap since they still allow for the Larry Bird exemption and other means which allow a team to go over the cap. What many teams are afraid of is the luxury tax, they will have to play if the teams salary goes over a certain amount. Also the NBA CBA call for a 10% tax on players salary if in the previous year, players made more then 52% of the rev the NBA takes in. Thats is what the NBA has in place, it might be close, but it isn't a hard cap.

Dadawg_77
07-08-2002, 04:20 PM
I really don't think the NFL system would work in any other sport. Part of the reason it works so well is players teams, get out of the draft. Most first rounders can contribute their rookie to thrid year in the league. Baseball and Hockey isn't setup that way and basketball is becoming like baseball and hockey.
I personally don't like the NFL system, sure the parity is great, but when players change teams every year its hard to follow a team. I want to see a young a Frank Thomas, a young Paul Konerko grow on a team through out the years. I don't want a veteran FA replaces by another every year.

MarkEdward
07-08-2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by mrwag


sorry, I got a little bit ahead of myself. does anyone actually think the Sox will sign Mark to a big chunk of money when he's eligible?


The Sox could have signed him to a long-term contract this past off season. They didn't, and that was very stupid. I wouldn't blame Buehrle if he left after this year. Signing him to a long-term deal a few months ago would have been expensive, but it's going to be much more expensive after this year. Buehrle's contract status shows the stupidity of Williams.

Daver
07-08-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



The Sox could have signed him to a long-term contract this past off season. They didn't, and that was very stupid. I wouldn't blame Buehrle if he left after this year. Signing him to a long-term deal a few months ago would have been expensive, but it's going to be much more expensive after this year. Buehrle's contract status shows the stupidity of Williams.

Buehrle's rights are owned by the Sox for at least two more years,he has no say in that.

MarkEdward
07-08-2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by daver


Buehrle's rights are owned by the Sox for at least two more years,he has no say in that.


Whoops. Somebody better tell this guy, then: http://www.bluemanc.demon.co.uk/baseball/mlbcontracts.htm

He has Buehrle under the one-year deal status.

Daver
07-08-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Whoops. Somebody better tell this guy, then: http://www.bluemanc.demon.co.uk/baseball/mlbcontracts.htm

He has Buehrle under the one-year deal status.

He is signed to a one year deal,but he is not eligible for FA,he does not have enough MLB service time.

mrwag
07-08-2002, 10:36 PM
My point is that teams like ours never cough up the cash to keep the talent they've grown.

MarkEdward
07-08-2002, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
My point is that teams like ours never cough up the cash to keep the talent they've grown.


Will a salary cap change this? Just because a cap's in place doesn't mean an onwer has to spend money.

LongDistanceFan
07-08-2002, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Will a salary cap change this? Just because a cap's in place doesn't mean an onwer has to spend money. if their is a cap and a luxury tax .... ala new nba contract, george would be willing to pay the tax............ even i would if i was george.

Daver
07-08-2002, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Will a salary cap change this? Just because a cap's in place doesn't mean an onwer has to spend money.

MLB has never discussed a cap with the players since it was shot down in 94,they came up with the luxury tax that allotted money to the smaller market teams at the commisioners discretion,which implies that they are to trust Bud to decide who is using the money and who is pocketing it.

Still wonder why a strike is inevetible?

nut_stock
07-08-2002, 11:38 PM
They don't need a cap, first off , increase revenue sharing to 50% like Bud wants. The main disparity is local TV revenue. Enact a luxury tax on a payroll over a certain amount. Oh my God! The owners are trying for both of them.... I think you know who's side I'm on if there's a strike. (although I'll admit the owners created the mess, but the system is to blame as well here folks.)

nut_stock
07-08-2002, 11:40 PM
Oh and for the fans, I'd like to see a clause that states 10,000 seats (sorry Boston) at each ballpalk must be priced at $10 or less, mandatory steroid testing, and a price freeze on Beer.

Daver
07-08-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
They don't need a cap, first off , increase revenue sharing to 50% like Bud wants. The main disparity is local TV revenue. Enact a luxury tax on a payroll over a certain amount. Oh my God! The owners are trying for both of them.... I think you know who's side I'm on if there's a strike. (although I'll admit the owners created the mess, but the system is to blame as well here folks.)

Then let the owners lay in the mess they created,instead of telling the players to give back what they worked for for over fifty years.I never heard the owners complaining when they had the upper hand on the players,but now that the field is level the owners are crying poor.

Fine,then let the teams that can't hack it go bankrupt,and the courts will fix the system for them,but they can't do that without opening their books to the courts,and have it proven without a doubt that the owners have been lying all along.

I have zero pity for the owners in this.

nut_stock
07-08-2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by daver


Fine,then let the teams that can't hack it go bankrupt,and the courts will fix the system for them,but they can't do that without opening their books to the courts,and have it proven without a doubt that the owners have been lying all along.



I have no problem with the owners being forced to open their books,(in fact, i'd encourage it) but the fact that the players would strike when getting paid exuberant amounts of money is ridiculous.

Daver
07-08-2002, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock


I have no problem with the owners being forced to open their books,(in fact, i'd encourage it) but the fact that the players would strike when getting paid exuberant amounts of money is ridiculous.

Do you even know why the player's are going to strike?

nut_stock
07-09-2002, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by daver


Do you even know why the player's are going to strike?


To my knowledge they are afraid that the owners will implement new work rules after the WS that will include a increased revenue sharing above all things which they believe will discourage a Steinbrenner. Open books or not, how is this so life threatening to them?

Ok, it hasn't been proven that the owners are losing money, but you can't deny that disparity exists. What would you propose to solve this issue ?

Daver
07-09-2002, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock



To my knowledge they are afraid that the owners will implement new work rules after the WS that will include a increased revenue sharing above all things which they believe will discourage a Steinbrenner. Open books or not, how is this so life threatening to them?

Ok, it hasn't been proven that the owners are losing money, but you can't deny that disparity exists. What would you propose to solve this issue ?

No,at the end of the season the owners will institute a new working balance to the game at their discretion and then lock the players out when the don't agree,ala what the NBA did.
One of the things the owners would like to reinstitute is the reserve clause,which enslaves a player to the team without benefit of arbitration,I have to say I side with the players on this one.

A strike is the only way that the players have to keep this from happening,they have more leverage in a strike than they do in a lockout.

nut_stock
07-09-2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by daver


No,at the end of the season the owners will institute a new working balance to the game at their discretion and then lock the players out when the don't agree,ala what the NBA did.
One of the things the owners would like to reinstitute is the reserve clause,which enslaves a player to the team without benefit of arbitration,I have to say I side with the players on this one.

A strike is the only way that the players have to keep this from happening,they have more leverage in a strike than they do in a lockout.

Thanks for the info, but you still haven't said what you'd like to see done to level the playing field between teams?

Daver
07-09-2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock


Thanks for the info, but you still haven't said what you'd like to see done to level the playing field between teams?

Well,it would start with an independent commissioner,Jesse Ventura comes to mind,and from there out I would have to think about it.

nut_stock
07-09-2002, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by daver


Well,it would start with an independent commissioner,Jesse Ventura comes to mind,and from there out I would have to think about it.


owners unwilling to cooperate would be subject to bodyslam.

Daver
07-09-2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock



owners unwilling to cooperate would be subject to bodyslam.

Jesse is actually an articulate and intelligent politician,and has shown that he can turn around a mess in a hurry,he would also lend some help with the Capitol Hill folks that are itching to strip MLB of its antitrust exemption.

nut_stock
07-09-2002, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by daver


Jesse is actually an articulate and intelligent politician,and has shown that he can turn around a mess in a hurry,he would also lend some help with the Capitol Hill folks that are itching to strip MLB of its antitrust exemption.

Well, he should have an open schedule now that he's not running for reelection.

Lip Man 1
07-09-2002, 01:23 AM
Randar 68:

Sorry you disagree with me but this is reality.

The players will NEVER agree to ANY type of salary cap...they'll shut the game down or form their own league first (remember the overwhelming majority of stadiums are owned by the state and or city, not the owners. They'll let a players league use them rather then stay empty)

so you're only choices are:

A. Get used to losing for another 50 years because owners say "I can't compete..." especially the one on the South Side

B. Root for and do what you can to get an owner in place who desires to win more then making money, a la Steinbrenner or Murdoch (for example by boycotting any games at New Comiskey Park)

or C. Stop rooting for or caring at all about baseball.

To me (and this is my personal opinion) B is the best for the Sox and their fans.

Lip

MarkEdward
07-09-2002, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by daver


Jesse is actually an articulate and intelligent politician,and has shown that he can turn around a mess in a hurry,he would also lend some help with the Capitol Hill folks that are itching to strip MLB of its antitrust exemption.

Do you want the antitrust exemption ended?

Daver
07-09-2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Do you want the antitrust exemption ended?

No,far from it,baseball as we know it ends when the antitrust exemption is lost.

ma-gaga
07-09-2002, 10:27 AM
Daver,

Ventura: I would love to see this happen. My main concern is that he would institute rules that would help teams like the Twins more than anyone else. Similar to Bud helping out teams like ... hmm... the Brewers! Amazingly enough.

Not that there is anything wrong with helping out teams like the Twins mind you. :smile: Just there wouldn't be that grand vision to help out ALL of baseball. I'd be tempted to go with a group commission based by a SABR's. Ahh. But they would help out teams like the Oaklands and Torontos. Whatever. No matter whom they put into the role as commissioner they'll be sure to screw something up.

Strike: I was listening to the beat writer for the Twins last night and he that his gut feeling was that the players will strike, but not as early as everyone has been saying. He figured the way the talk was going, was that it would be at the end of September, or they might actually play out this season and not report to spring training next year. Even though this seems odd, the reasoning was strictly PR. They didn't want to be blamed for another lost post-season.

SO, if the players finish up this year without agreeing to a new CBA, the owners implement their CBA and the players walk out this winter, what happens next? I'm assuming that they can negotiate AGAIN in the spring. Do you know? Without knowing the entire legal rules, I'd assume that if the MLBPA doesn't sign off on the owner's CBA they don't have to play under it. Noone is forcing them to play under rules they haven't agreed to. Is this correct?

ma-gaga
07-09-2002, 10:30 AM
Sure. I post, then I read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/sports/baseball/09LABO.html) which says they are leaning towards striking during the season... Have to change my sig though.

Daver
07-09-2002, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Daver,



SO, if the players finish up this year without agreeing to a new CBA, the owners implement their CBA and the players walk out this winter, what happens next? I'm assuming that they can negotiate AGAIN in the spring. Do you know? Without knowing the entire legal rules, I'd assume that if the MLBPA doesn't sign off on the owner's CBA they don't have to play under it. Noone is forcing them to play under rules they haven't agreed to. Is this correct?

They will appeal the owners rule changes to the NLRB,the same as they did in 94.

voodoochile
07-09-2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Randar 68:

Sorry you disagree with me but this is reality.

The players will NEVER agree to ANY type of salary cap...they'll shut the game down or form their own league first (remember the overwhelming majority of stadiums are owned by the state and or city, not the owners. They'll let a players league use them rather then stay empty)

so you're only choices are:

A. Get used to losing for another 50 years because owners say "I can't compete..." especially the one on the South Side

B. Root for and do what you can to get an owner in place who desires to win more then making money, a la Steinbrenner or Murdoch (for example by boycotting any games at New Comiskey Park)

or C. Stop rooting for or caring at all about baseball.

To me (and this is my personal opinion) B is the best for the Sox and their fans.

Lip

A players league would go over like a lead baloon. Don't believe me? Just ask CART how successful it was to go head to head against the IRL?

Fans care about tradition and the uniforms. Players come and players go, but they won't have the money to compete with the owners in the long run. Owners would simply restock their teams with minor leaguers and wait for the players to come back. A few big names would and that would be the end of it. The players would be out big money and would have nothing to show for it.

Owners wouldn't sit back and allow the state to give away the stadium leases they have signed. They have plenty of guys under contract and at least 10% or more of the current players would tell the union to stick it if they tried this bold of a move. Eventually they would all come back.

Clarkdog
07-09-2002, 02:28 PM
If the players strike, which seems inevitable, they will likely do so around the playoffs, September 1 or 15 (they seem to like to stop work on a 1 or 15). The playoffs and World Series will be canceled.

The owners will declare an impasse and institute their own working rules, and will lock out the players. The players will remain on strike.

In light of this development, serious debate will begin congressional circles on the anti-trust exemption of the MLB. Given that it is an election year in November this is going to be a lightning rod issue to campaign on, and with the control of the House and Senate at stake, the campaigning politicians are going to want to be on the fans side of the issue. This marks for certain doom of the anti-trust exemption, in the next congressional session

Due to the political backlash, all financial institutions who conduct business with MLB teams will begin to call in loans to the teams fearing that they league will not operate in an on-time fashion in 2003, and that the loss of the anti-trust exemption will bring the entire business model into uncertainty.

In the first vote of the 2003 Congressional Session, the MLB anti-trust exemption is repealed, and the game of baseball is open to free market competition.

Small market teams feeling the financial pinch will either go out of business, or ally themselves with similar sized markets within a regional boundary, and create splintered leagues from what was the MLB. They will institute rules for business profitability and a competitive balance. King George will likely not wish to participate, and the Yankees will play in a league of their own with 162 intrasquad games.

Eventually, all several of the smaller leagues will exist in the East, Midwest, Southwest, Southeast, West

The Sox will be in a league with the Cubs, Indians, Reds, Tigers, Brewers, Twins, and Cardinals, and Royals.

As the free market for players to participate in these leagues is open, Kenny Williams will sign free agents Harold Baines, Shawn Abner, and Dick Tidrow and tab as the "core of the team".

Dadawg_77
07-09-2002, 03:09 PM
The biggest problem in this Labor dispute is a complete and total lack of trust. The players fear the old days where player was an indenture servant, if he wanted to play pro ball. Owners fear the players will start demanding more money and if they don't get it they will sue. Neither side trusts the other side and this will cause this negotiations to last til the last minute. I am not sure if this will result in a strike or lockout. But Bud fired MLB former point man, who had built a trust with Fehr and was working toward a deal. Why? I am not sure, but some say its because the owners want to go to war this year.

Recent court actions do help the owners, since the courts ruled the NBA owners didn't have to pay guaranteed contracts during a lockout, it allows for MLB owners not to worry about that cost. The players only leverage is to strike, or they give the owners the power to squeeze them in the off season.

And Clarkdog, what kind of strange fantasy is that? High level pro sports really won't succeed at a regional level. Due to competitive nature of player acquisitions . Somebody will go out there and try to gobble up all the good players.

Clarkdog
07-09-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77

And Clarkdog, what kind of strange fantasy is that? High level pro sports really won't succeed at a regional level. Due to competitive nature of player acquisitions . Somebody will go out there and try to gobble up all the good players.

Strange fantasy indeed. I guess my point was that if the anti-trust exemption is taken away, the MLB will never be the same as it was, and the nature of how the baseball business is run will change just as radically.