PDA

View Full Version : These players have thick skin at times


RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 06:50 PM
For a few innings on tuesday i sat in sec 160 in the second row behind the bullpen. The things that were being yelled were negative to begin with, then some Sox and Twinkie fans joined together to start yelling at the sox bullpen and whoever was in the outfield about being spoiled brats and killing baseball next week. I knew guys like marte , osuna, biddle and ginter heard every word. They didn't even look back. They had nothing to say.

You think the strike of 94 was bad? I think it will be even tougher to get the fans back this time.

:reinsy
Then you can't say **** about cutting pay roll!

Daver
08-24-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
being spoiled brats and killing baseball next week. I knew guys like marte , osuna, biddle and ginter heard every word. They didn't even look back. They had nothing to say.



What do you want them to say?

"Yeah maybe we should let the owners enforce whatever it takes to raise their own profits while cutting our salary structure,thats the ticket!!"

It would be a different story if the players were demanding something,they aren't,they are asking for absolutely nothing.

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by daver


What do you want them to say?

"Yeah maybe we should let the owners enforce whatever it takes to raise their own profits while cutting our salary structure,thats the ticket!!"

It would be a different story if the players were demanding something,they aren't,they are asking for absolutely nothing.

Well who else are the fans going to send their message to? It's not like JR will be walking around talking to fans.

I actually felt bad for the guys in the pen. They took a lot of abuse between fans making fun of how bad this team is and the strike.

Daver
08-24-2002, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Well who else are the fans going to send their message to? It's not like JR will be walking around talking to fans.

I actually felt bad for the guys in the pen. They took a lot of abuse between fans making fun of how bad this team is and the strike.

Blaming the players is not the answer.

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by daver


Blaming the players is not the answer.

Baeball needs fixing. And eventhough the owners are trying to take away alot, a salary cap would be a good idea. Eventhough they're responsible for the salaries along with the agents who tell teh players they're worth that much.

Daver
08-24-2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Baeball needs fixing. And eventhough the owners are trying to take away alot, a salary cap would be a good idea. Eventhough they're responsible for the salaries along with the agents who tell teh players they're worth that much.

Again I ask,why should the MLBPA fix the problems the owners caused for themselves?

No one has given me an answer on this.


Show me a cap that does not line the pockets of people like Carl Pohlad and Michael Glass and I will listen.

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by daver


Again I ask,why should the MLBPA fix the problems the owners caused for themselves?

No one has given me an answer on this.


Show me a cap that does not line the pockets of people like Carl Pohlad and Michael Glass and I will listen.

An 80 million dollar cap would be fitting IMO. The owners did craete the outrageous salaries, but the way things are run now, the Yankees will contend for as long as King George is alive. Every Free agent knows they can get what they want there even if the yanks have a 200 mill payroll. That's the problem i have. As far as contracts tehy signed, i can't argue about that

Daver
08-24-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


An 80 million dollar cap would be fitting IMO. The owners did craete the outrageous salaries, but the way things are run now, the Yankees will contend for as long as King George is alive. Every Free agent knows they can get what they want there even if the yanks have a 200 mill payroll. That's the problem i have. As far as contracts tehy signed, i can't argue about that

You didn't answer the question.

CubKilla
08-24-2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
For a few innings on tuesday i sat in sec 160 in the second row behind the bullpen. The things that were being yelled were negative to begin with, then some Sox and Twinkie fans joined together to start yelling at the sox bullpen and whoever was in the outfield about being spoiled brats and killing baseball next week. I knew guys like marte , osuna, biddle and ginter heard every word. They didn't even look back. They had nothing to say.

You think the strike of 94 was bad? I think it will be even tougher to get the fans back this time.

:reinsy
Then you can't say **** about cutting pay roll!

Who was giving them crap? :D:

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla


Who was giving them crap? :D:

Some guy named CubKilla. lol

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by daver


Again I ask,why should the MLBPA fix the problems the owners caused for themselves?



Beacse this game is going down the tubes no matter who started the problems. And the owners didn't do it alone. The players are a part of it.

Daver
08-24-2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes

And the owners didn't do it alone. The players are a part of it.

How?

Did they insist on salary arbitration in 1974?

Do they set the market price for players?

Does the MLBPA set the signing bonuses for draftees?


Sorry I ain't buying any part of that argument.

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by daver


How?

Did they insist on salary arbitration in 1974?

Do they set the market price for players?

Does the MLBPA set the signing bonuses for draftees?


Sorry I ain't buying any part of that argument.


The way it's set up, the owners have no advantage with contracts. No matter who ****ed it up, they need to take a lesson from the NFL. Guarenteed contracts are rediculous. If you suck at your job, you're not guearenteed to get paid for 5 years after 1 good year. Or if you throw your back out, you have to go through years of law suits to get paid. This whole system is in the players favor and they won't budge on anything. The owners did start it, but it needs to be fixed no matter what.

And guys like Giambi and Pay-rod go elsewhere simply because they can get more then the many millions their original team offers somewhere else. they're just an example. It's not about winning to some of these guys. it's all about money and this system allows it. You actually like the way baseball works? I know you can't stand the owners. I can't either, but my arguement is about fixing the game, not who started it or who is to blame.

Daver
08-24-2002, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes



The way it's set up, the owners have no advantage with contracts. No matter who ****ed it up, they need to take a lesson from the NFL. Guarenteed contracts are rediculous. If you suck at your job, you're not guearenteed to get paid for 5 years after 1 good year. Or if you throw your back out, you have to go through years of law suits to get paid. This whole system is in the players favor and they won't budge on anything. The owners did start it, but it needs to be fixed no matter what.

And guys like Giambi and Pay-rod go elsewhere simply because they can get more then the many millions their original team offers somewhere else. they're just an example. It's not about winning to some of these guys. it's all about money and this system allows it. You actually like the way baseball works? I know you can't stand the owners. I can't either, but my arguement is about fixing the game, not who started it or who is to blame.

Umm,your wrong,the owners do have an advantage on contracts,they are the ones that offer them and agree to them,so how can you say the owners do not have an advantage?

No matter what my opinion of the owners is,this latest strife is about one simple thing,Bud's insistence to institute a flawed system that does not improve competetive balance,but instead rewards the the bottom feeders like Michael Glass and Jeff Loria for mismanaging their franchises,and punishes the franchises that run their business well.

I repeat,come up with a system that works and I am all ears,but don't blame the players for fighting against controlled inequity.

RedPinStripes
08-24-2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by daver


Umm,your wrong,the owners do have an advantage on contracts,they are the ones that offer them and agree to them,so how can you say the owners do not have an advantage?

No matter what my opinion of the owners is,this latest strife is about one simple thing,Bud's insistence to institute a flawed system that does not improve competetive balance,but instead rewards the the bottom feeders like Michael Glass and Jeff Loria for mismanaging their franchises,and punishes the franchises that run their business well.

I repeat,come up with a system that works and I am all ears,but don't blame the players for fighting against controlled inequity.

My idea would stop baseball for a long time. The NFL has the right idea.

Daver
08-24-2002, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


My idea would stop baseball for a long time. The NFL has the right idea.

Then you agree with Tom Hicks,Jerry Reinsdorf,and the other few hawks that want to try and break the union,fine,it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

My idea is to start with a real,auotonomous commisioner and come up with a revenue sharing plan that works for the betterment of competition,not the betterment of the owners bottom line.

Lip Man 1
08-24-2002, 10:07 PM
Daver:

Just FYI, the owner of the Royals is named David Glass. Also I agree with your stance on this labor issue.

If owners like Reinsdorf, Glass, McLain, Loria, Pohland etc honestly feel they can't compete, then sell and get the hell out. It's just like any other business.

Ask NFL fans in Minnesota, Dallas, San Francisco and Washington how much they like a salary cap which forced their teams to let GOOD players go and force them to rebuild.

Ask NBA fans how much they like a cap when the team they root for can't make a trade because it'll put them "over" the cap. Or force a team to try to get a 3rd team involved (a team that has cap space) because they can't make a deal any other way.

Baseball is going to hell primarilly (in my opinion) because of the stupidity and vindictiveness of owner like Jerry Reinsdorf, NOT because of the players (Although I will grant you some players come across as stupid with some of their comments as well.)

Lip

cornball
08-24-2002, 10:38 PM
IMO they are both the blame...yes the players arent asking for anything this time, because they have won what 7/7.....in these negotiations over the years.... they dont want to give up anything....understood

The owners have put themselves in this mess with the unreal salaries given.....

It is a said comment when Giambi went FA last year and the money he would command because of the salary structure...everyone knew last year at this time he would be a yankee......

To claim the players are not at fault because they arent asking for anything this time.....i dont buy it

Drug testing......is a great example....dumb millionaires vs. even dumber billionaires....and the middle class again pays the freight...yes the fans

Daver
08-24-2002, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by cornball


To claim the players are not at fault because they arent asking for anything this time.....i dont buy it

Drug testing......is a great example....dumb millionaires vs. even dumber billionaires....and the middle class again pays the freight...yes the fans

The players agreed to random drug testing,as a concession to the negotiations,so your point is moot.

Want to come up with another excuse to back the owners?

MarkEdward
08-24-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by cornball
IMO they are both the blame...yes the players arent asking for anything this time, because they have won what 7/7.....in these negotiations over the years.... they dont want to give up anything....understood


What have the players actually "won" in previous bargaining sessions? This is a very common misconception.

vegyrex
08-24-2002, 11:07 PM
Hi all. :D:
Wow this my first post here. :smile:
Anyway, I'm on the players side. The owners are a bunch of cry babies, and a bunch of liars as well. Forbes magazine said MLB made $75 million last year, but according to Bud Selig MLB lost $200 million. Why the difference? Forbes had good reason not to trust the figures the owners were using. Especially when you got someone like Paul Beeston, former executive of the Toronto Blue Jays & former president of MLB, saying things like: "I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and get every national accounting firm to agree with me." :o:
To me the best solution is take away MLB's anti trust exemption.

Daver
08-24-2002, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
Hi all. :D:
Wow this my first post here. :smile:
Anyway, I'm on the players side. The owners are a bunch of cry babies, and a bunch of liars as well. Forbes magazine said MLB made $75 million last year, but according to Bud Selig MLB lost $200 million. Why the difference? Forbes had good reason not to trust the figures the owners were using. Especially when you got someone like Paul Beeston, former executive of the Toronto Blue Jays & former president of MLB, saying things like: "I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and get every national accounting firm to agree with me." :o:
To me the best solution is take away MLB's anti trust exemption.

Welcome aboard!!

Taking the anti trust Exemption away creates more problems than it solves though.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-24-2002, 11:27 PM
I have a problem with sportswriters (and others) suggesting "both sides" are to blame for baseball's labor problems. This is the sort of socially-acceptable mediocre thinking that reveals today's new-age non-judgmental education as complete bull****.

Here are the facts. The players haven't made ANY real demands of the owners in at least 25 years. The "victories" ascribed to the ballplayers were NOT WON at the bargaining table--as goofy new-age non-judgmental "I'm okay, you're okay" mental-midget moralists mistakenly believe.

The players won their victories 30 years ago in the courts, in front of the NLRB, and federally-sanctioned arbitrators. In short, they won on the merits of their case under U.S. labor law! If you think the players were to blame for this, make your case why labor law in this country is wrong, too.

The owners have been trying ever since then to roll back the union's gains at the bargaining table, and--failing that--by forcing work stoppages, like the one we're about to suffer next week.

There is no moral equivalency here people. One side has demands, and the other doesn't. If you think baseball's problems will be solved by another work stoppage, I'm sorry to report the last 30 years of the industry's history says you're dead wrong.

I thought 1994-95 was suppose to be "nuclear winter." What a joke...

vegyrex
08-24-2002, 11:30 PM
It would make things worse?? How? In reality they probably never had it so good now. Has a team ever been sold at a loss?? Just wondering. :smile:

Daver
08-24-2002, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
It would make things worse?? How? In reality they probably never had it so good now. Has a team ever been sold at a loss?? Just wondering. :smile:

The antitrust exemption has been discussed here before,but most of the points I made about it can be found here http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20011126barkham.html

They yank it they ruin what baseball is now,

LongDistanceFan
08-24-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by daver


The players agreed to random drug testing,as a concession to the negotiations,so your point is moot.

Want to come up with another excuse to back the owners? the drug testing is some what of a vague consession, they agreed on a form of a drug testing. the details needs to be iron out.

LongDistanceFan
08-25-2002, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
the drug testing is some what of a vague consession, they agreed on a form of a drug testing. the details needs to be iron out.

in addition according to mlb.com

Manfred said the differences that remain on the drug-testing program have to do with the length of the agreement and how many players would have to test positively for steroid use before the discipline portion of the agreement would kick in. The owners want the program to cover each of the four years of the deal. The players previously called for two seasons of preliminary testing with the two seasons of random testing to begin only if 5 percent of the players test positive.

RedPinStripes
08-25-2002, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by daver


Then you agree with Tom Hicks,Jerry Reinsdorf,and the other few hawks that want to try and break the union,fine,it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

My idea is to start with a real,auotonomous commisioner and come up with a revenue sharing plan that works for the betterment of competition,not the betterment of the owners bottom line.

I like your idea better for the short term, but something has to be done about salaries eventhough the guys who are whinning about it are the ones who started it. It makes it tough for me and probably many others to even look at guys like pay-rod and giambi or even Kevin Brown witht he money they make after i grew up around a completly different game inthe early 80's.

Randar68
08-25-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by daver


The players agreed to random drug testing,as a concession to the negotiations,so your point is moot.

Want to come up with another excuse to back the owners?

*****!!!!! Did you take a close look at the proposed system? It is an absolute farce. Window-candy! It's an insult to our intelligence, IMO.

voodoochile
08-25-2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Daver:

Just FYI, the owner of the Royals is named David Glass. Also I agree with your stance on this labor issue.

If owners like Reinsdorf, Glass, McLain, Loria, Pohland etc honestly feel they can't compete, then sell and get the hell out. It's just like any other business.

Ask NFL fans in Minnesota, Dallas, San Francisco and Washington how much they like a salary cap which forced their teams to let GOOD players go and force them to rebuild.

Ask NBA fans how much they like a cap when the team they root for can't make a trade because it'll put them "over" the cap. Or force a team to try to get a 3rd team involved (a team that has cap space) because they can't make a deal any other way.

Baseball is going to hell primarilly (in my opinion) because of the stupidity and vindictiveness of owner like Jerry Reinsdorf, NOT because of the players (Although I will grant you some players come across as stupid with some of their comments as well.)

Lip

The reason those teams in the NFL were forced to do that was because they were trying to stretch the salary cap to its limits with renegotiated contracts and huge signing bonuses with minimal salaries. Eventually they got crushed by the bonuses when the prorated figures added up to too much money. Remember, the 49ers just last year got hit with a huge fine for actively circumventing the cap in its early years. The owners made bad decisions and it cost them. The teams that have worked well within the system are seeing more long term rewards, IMO. Not my fault as a Bears fan that teams that tried to cheat their way to a title got smoked when the bills came due. Learn to work within the system or **** (Not you personally, but the teams that you mentioned)!

NBA is a different situation, and with the amount of exemptions they have to the cap (which is a soft one unlike the NFL) there are few teams who cannot afford to sign solid FA players to help their team get over the hump. Where the NBA screwed up is with the maximum salary thing which caused the best players to start signing with the nice weather teams or with cities that will allow them to make the most advertising money. Screwed the agents too because the best guys now just hire an hourly lawyer to go over the fine print because they know that no matter how hard they negotiate they can only make so much money. Interesting side point, last season for the second straight year, the amount of income paid to the players exceeded their cut of the pie (which is set in the area of 60% of all NBA revenue). As a result every player in the NBA had to cut a check to their team this last spring for roughly 10% of their yearly salary. That includes guys like Garnett and Shaq who are making over $20M a year...

voodoochile
08-25-2002, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by daver


The players agreed to random drug testing,as a concession to the negotiations,so your point is moot.

Want to come up with another excuse to back the owners?

They did? Have they actually proposed a system that will catch anybody this time? Have they changed their stance to include it every year from now on out, or just the next 2 like they started with. That wasn't a drug testing proposal, it was a joke...

RedPinStripes
08-25-2002, 01:09 AM
They'll test guys like Tony Graffinino and Wille Harris. lol

Randar68
08-25-2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


They did? Have they actually proposed a system that will catch anybody this time? Have they changed their stance to include it every year from now on out, or just the next 2 like they started with. That wasn't a drug testing proposal, it was a joke...

Over predetermined periods of time, etc, etc.

Absolute insult. Something to try to get the media and fans to shut up. Certainly won't fix the problem.

voodoochile
08-25-2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Over predetermined periods of time, etc, etc.

Absolute insult. Something to try to get the media and fans to shut up. Certainly won't fix the problem.

The sad part was that the owners lapped it up like it was mana from heaven. They are so whipped, that anything that looks like a concession by the players makes the owners sit up and beg for more, even when the concession is a slap in the face to every fan who wants to see a clean game...

Jerry_Manuel
08-25-2002, 01:45 AM
In the NBA, the cap forces bad players to sign with bad teams. You'll never see a guy like A-Rod signing with the Pirates or the Tigers. If there was a cap he might have no choice but to sign with a bad team and make them better.

Like others have said, the drug testing plan is joke. You would have to be a boob to get caught with this system.

The thing that I find funny is that even if the owners got their plan through, it wouldn't help the Sox. If they recieved more money from a team like the Yankees, Reinsdorf still won't sign pitchers to long-term deals. He still won't talk with Boras guys either. So they can do whatever the hell they want with revenue sharing and luxury tax in my world.

Jerry_Manuel
08-25-2002, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The sad part was that the owners lapped it up like it was mana from heaven. They are so whipped, that anything that looks like a concession by the players makes the owners sit up and beg for more, even when the concession is a slap in the face to every fan who wants to see a clean game...

Maybe the owners don't want a clean game.

For every person who like yourself that wants a clean game, there are people watching for the homers.

Nellie_Fox
08-25-2002, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by daver
Again I ask,why should the MLBPA fix the problems the owners caused for themselves?

No one has given me an answer on this.Because when the owners try to solve it themselves, they get hit with collusion charges.

Players and the union can conspire all they want, sharing any and all information with each other, but if the owners try to get together and bring some sanity to the salary structure, they get sued and lose.

The players cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is not their responsibility to protect the owners from themselves and then sue and file grievances every time the owners try to protect themselves from themselves. They are fiddling while Rome burns.

MarkEdward
08-25-2002, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Over predetermined periods of time, etc, etc.

Absolute insult. Something to try to get the media and fans to shut up. Certainly won't fix the problem.


Fix WHAT problem? Do you have *any* evidence that a significant number of baseball players are on steriods? Any? Because it's really stupid to make accusations based on no fact.

RedPinStripes
08-25-2002, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Fix WHAT problem? Do you have *any* evidence that a significant number of baseball players are on steriods? Any? Because it's really stupid to make accusations based on no fact.

Only one way to find out. And i'll bet that Barry Bonds was on it. Your helmet size should not go up 3x from creatine. Lookat some of these guys. It's pretty obvious.

CLR01
08-25-2002, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Like others have said, the drug testing plan is joke. You would have to be a boob to get caught with this system.



I agree the plan was a joke. Also they would have to be a boob to get caught in almost any system. A guy could take steroids, pop a pill and go take a test a couple hours later and pass. If they are going to test find a way to do it so they cant hide it if they are on it.

Twins8791
08-25-2002, 04:18 AM
Here's one way to get what we fans want:

1) Take today's version of professional baseball and throw it out.

2) Start American Professional Baseball Entertainment Inc.

This company runs baseball as an entertainment enterprise, which is its purpose anyway. The corp owns all the teams, images, rights, contracts, etc. The owners each own one-thirtieth (or thereabouts) of the voting shares, with the rest sold on a major exchange. Each 'owner' gets a team to manage. Every team gets the same number of dollars to spend on players, that number based on revenues & expenses of the whole corporation. This number would rise or fall based on the popularity of the sport and its resulting generated income. The players are just very well-paid employees of the one corp. The shareholders' attitude toward the players will be one of "You want to play baseball for 4 mil a year or be a plumber?" The salaries of players will still be high to stem the drain of potential players to other sports.

The assemblage of teams will be based purely on baseball knowledge because all management teams have the same money to spend. Most games will be competitive and the year's champion will not be foretold at the start of the season.

LongDistanceFan
08-25-2002, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Fix WHAT problem? Do you have *any* evidence that a significant number of baseball players are on steriods? Any? Because it's really stupid to make accusations based on no fact.

well its stupid not to listen to players who are saying that there is steroids use in the mlb. esp when several players came foreword and admitted to the use.

CLR01
08-25-2002, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


well its stupid not to listen to players who are saying that there is steroids use in the mlb. esp when several players came foreword and admitted to the use.


Yeah but if it is not atleast 50% of the players its not a problem.

MarkEdward
08-25-2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


well its stupid not to listen to players who are saying that there is steroids use in the mlb. esp when several players came foreword and admitted to the use.


Yes, steroid allegations came from Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco, a whopping two people. And we know how honest they are, Caminiti being a former drug addict and Jose being a whiny brat. And since we're taking players' accusations for fact, I guess we should just discount the fact that one player said 20% of players use steroids, while another said 80%. But *two* former players said the guys are on the juice, it's gotta be true!

MarkEdward
08-25-2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Only one way to find out.

Which is why the players have agreed to steroid testing.

And i'll bet that Barry Bonds was on it. Your helmet size should not go up 3x from creatine. Lookat some of these guys. It's pretty obvious. [/B]

Yeah, it can't be because of strength and conditioning training.

LongDistanceFan
08-25-2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Yes, steroid allegations came from Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco, a whopping two people. And we know how honest they are, Caminiti being a former drug addict and Jose being a whiny brat. And since we're taking players' accusations for fact, I guess we should just discount the fact that one player said 20% of players use steroids, while another said 80%. But *two* former players said the guys are on the juice, it's gotta be true!

what about mark mcguire during the hr yr?

he admitted to using it. some other player have come out and said the same thing. i don't remember who, but it came from the tx roster and even tony gwyn said something earlier this yr.

where there is smoke there is fire.

Daver
08-25-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Because when the owners try to solve it themselves, they get hit with collusion charges.

Players and the union can conspire all they want, sharing any and all information with each other, but if the owners try to get together and bring some sanity to the salary structure, they get sued and lose.

The players cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is not their responsibility to protect the owners from themselves and then sue and file grievances every time the owners try to protect themselves from themselves. They are fiddling while Rome burns.

The owners did not get sued last off season by not offering huge contracts to FA's,last year was a dismal offseason for any FA not named Giambi.Both Bonds and Boone tested the market and accepted arbitration because the owners were not spending.

The owners can police themselves,most of them prefer not to.

TornLabrum
08-25-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by daver


The owners did not get sued last off season by not offering huge contracts to FA's,last year was a dismal offseason for any FA not named Giambi.Both Bonds and Boone tested the market and accepted arbitration because the owners were not spending.

The owners can police themselves,most of them prefer not to.

And that's the one thing the people who say that if the owners exercise restraint it is considered collusion apparently don't realize. The collusion came because Peter Ueberroth told the owners not to pay high salaries. At least one player was offered a big contract during that period and had the offer suddenly withdrawn. It was a conspiracy directed by the Commissioner. And they had a statement by the Commissioner to prove it.

cornball
08-25-2002, 01:32 PM
I disagree that you take one side or the other as PaleHose suggests because the arrogance on both sides amazes me...

what have the players won over the past 25 years...try arbitration which is also the cause of many of these salaries and new found statistics....what about the players splitting revenues of MLB properties for caps and jackets...ect...for about 200K per yr. each

To say they have agreed to a drug testing policy is a joke....i saw some of the proposals and they are not strong at all...

Plus if you try to work for any Fortune 500 company...you take a drug test before your hired...everyone does...if you fail no hire...then they random the branch each year...not saying this is the answer but in comparison to the real world.....come on

In the real world if a franchise is not profitable ...you close it...will the union let them contract? hmmmmmm they both are wrong....regardless if there is a strike ....they will both feel it too

Daver
08-25-2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by cornball


what have the players won over the past 25 years...try arbitration which is also the cause of many of these salaries and new found statistics....what about the players splitting revenues of MLB properties for caps and jackets...ect...for about 200K per yr. each



The players did not insist on arbitration in 1974,the owners did,the players would have been happy with unlimited FA.

So what have the players won?

cornball
08-25-2002, 01:55 PM
Better yet...what have the owners won since FA of 1974 was inacted.....

The point is the game needs adjustment...the players dont want to ......the majority of the players do not know the issues yet are unified...they are strong union.....but they dont honor the other union strikes do they...ask Frank Thomas...ask the umpires..

MarkEdward
08-25-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


what about mark mcguire during the hr yr?

he admitted to using it. some other player have come out and said the same thing. i don't remember who, but it came from the tx roster and even tony gwyn said something earlier this yr.

where there is smoke there is fire.


Mark McGwire admitted to using steroids? That's news to me.

MarkEdward
08-25-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Better yet...what have the owners won since FA of 1974 was inacted.....

The point is the game needs adjustment...the players dont want to ......the majority of the players do not know the issues yet are unified...they are strong union.....but they dont honor the other union strikes do they...ask Frank Thomas...ask the umpires..


The owners have won a luxury tax, arbitration, revenue sharing, and plenty of other concessions through the years.

Until there's proof that "the game needs adjustment," I won't accept the owners' proposals for "fixing" the game.

cornball
08-25-2002, 04:51 PM
But you will take the players proposal....because they seem to care for the good of the game...

Daver
08-25-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by cornball
But you will take the players proposal....because they seem to care for the good of the game...

You really think that the owners proposal has anything to do with the good of the game?

Look at the proposal as a whole,and it is obvious all they are doing is protecting their bottom line.

TornLabrum
08-25-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by cornball
I disagree that you take one side or the other as PaleHose suggests because the arrogance on both sides amazes me...

what have the players won over the past 25 years...try arbitration which is also the cause of many of these salaries and new found statistics....

The owners offered to let the players have arbitration. Yes, they offered it to the players. Again, give me one good reason to support the owners other than their own stupidity. And stupidity is not a reason to support anyone.

Daver
08-25-2002, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


The owners offered to let the players have arbitration. Yes, they offered it to the players. Again, give me one good reason to support the owners other than their own stupidity. And stupidity is not a reason to support anyone.

I know one owner that was smart enough to be against it,he saw the writing on the wall and sold.

Ol Aches & Pains
08-25-2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by daver


Blaming the players is not the answer.

I'm an equal opportunity blamer - I blame the owners, too. But you have to admit, in these tough economic times, when friends of mine have lost their jobs, and mine is by no means totally safe, it's hard to work up much sympathy for a bunch of spoiled brat millionaires who never had to work a day in their lives, who are set for life the day they graduate from high school. What the *&%^# do they have to strike about? I'd trade places with the lowest paid rookie on the Tampa Bay Double A's in a heartbeat, and thank God for my good fortune.

Barry Bonds was asked in an interview if he thought the fans would have any sympathy for striking players who make an average salary of $2.4 million a year, and he replied "It's not my fault you don't play baseball". You want to tell me I shouldn't blame that ?

Cry me a friggin' river, you young millionaires on strike. :whiner:

Daver
08-25-2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Ol Aches & Pains


I'm an equal opportunity blamer - I blame the owners, too.

All I am trying to do is make people see the real issues,and the real issue here is that the players are asking for nothing,the owners are asking for concessions to the CBA that do nothing but garauntee the owners bottom line,while doing nothing whatsoever to fix the competetive balance of the game.If you were a player would you agree to a plan that does nothing other than rob your salary structure to benefit the owners profit margins?

Ol Aches & Pains
08-25-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by daver


All I am trying to do is make people see the real issues,and the real issue here is that the players are asking for nothing,the owners are asking for concessions to the CBA that do nothing but garauntee the owners bottom line,while doing nothing whatsoever to fix the competetive balance of the game.If you were a player would you agree to a plan that does nothing other than rob your salary structure to benefit the owners profit margins?

The players damned well shouldn't be asking for anything, they have a job every American boy dreams of having. The real issue here is greed, all the participants on both sides are obscenely rich, and they would rather kill the game I love than give up a dime of their millions. They make me want to puke, the players and the owners. They offend me with their arrogance and their greed.

Randar68
08-25-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



The owners have won a luxury tax, arbitration, revenue sharing, and plenty of other concessions through the years.

Until there's proof that "the game needs adjustment," I won't accept the owners' proposals for "fixing" the game.


This apologetic sheet is old. Do you know anything about chemistry or food/nutrition science???

Get off your little soapbox, tibune man, and get with the program. Nobody here is saying it's so because of Ken and Jose. They are saying it's so because since Brady Anderson hit 50 HR's it's been as obvious as day. I have been saying for 33+ years that this game and it's refusal to test/regulate performance enhancing drugs was going to ruin REAL baseball and all of history's glory by tainting it with drugs, on top of the already juiced ball, small stadiums, and bad pitching.

LongDistanceFan
08-25-2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Randar68



tibune man, and get with the program.


???????? :?:

MarkEdward
08-26-2002, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Randar68



Get off your little soapbox, tibune man, and get with the program. Nobody here is saying it's so because of Ken and Jose. They are saying it's so because since Brady Anderson hit 50 HR's it's been as obvious as day.

That was a fluke season. You're not telling me Brady Anderson is on steroids, right?

I have been saying for 33+ years that this game and it's refusal to test/regulate performance enhancing drugs was going to ruin REAL baseball and all of history's glory by tainting it with drugs, on top of the already juiced ball, small stadiums, and bad pitching. [/B]

So maybe we should get rid of all the bad pitching in the game, since it's "tainting" real baseball. Of course there wasn't bad pitching before 1968, right?

RedPinStripes
08-26-2002, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


That was a fluke season. You're not telling me Brady Anderson is on steroids, right?

Andersen took Creatine and that's all i know of.




[i]
So maybe we should get rid of all the bad pitching in the game, since it's "tainting" real baseball. Of course there wasn't bad pitching before 1968, right? [/B]

Just raise the mound like it used to be. that will cut down on the homers.

cornball
08-26-2002, 07:03 AM
The animosity against the player's is there is a current agreement now.....they are not living up to the contract, which runs through the end of the year....yes, you may say they want nothing....but they are the ones that are walking away....going on strike.....a player's strike

For this many blame them, you mean to tell me after knowing a dead line has been pending all this time they cant reach a settlement.....it is a shame, and a disgrace...

Usually people strike for something, not to keep things the same...for this is not defendable...

TornLabrum
08-26-2002, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by cornball
The animosity against the player's is there is a current agreement now.....they are not living up to the contract, which runs through the end of the year....yes, you may say they want nothing....but they are the ones that are walking away....going on strike.....a player's strike

For this many blame them, you mean to tell me after knowing a dead line has been pending all this time they cant reach a settlement.....it is a shame, and a disgrace...

Usually people strike for something, not to keep things the same...for this is not defendable...

Cornball, you are dead wrong. But then again, you are one of the people for whom my next article was intended.

Briefly, here's the deal. A court ruled that the owners were not negotiating in good faith in 1995 and the players and owners went back to work under the old agreement. They finally managed to hammer out a 5-year deal that went into effect in 1996. You count the years. They are playing under an extension of the previous agreement. The players have a right to strike any time they please.

TornLabrum
08-26-2002, 09:16 AM
Just looked it up. The agreement was reached in '97, so don't bother correcting me.

However, there is still a problem with what you say. Let's say the agreement ends on Oct. 31, as it is supposed to. What's to prevent the owners from employing the NBA strategy of locking out the players and imposing their own system. NOTHING! Therefore, the players are forced into a position to strike.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-26-2002, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Just looked it up. The agreement was reached in '97, so don't bother correcting me.

However, there is still a problem with what you say. Let's say the agreement ends on Oct. 31, as it is supposed to. What's to prevent the owners from employing the NBA strategy of locking out the players and imposing their own system. NOTHING! Therefore, the players are forced into a position to strike.

Furthermore, Selig has vowed to not lockout the players "through the remainder of the 2002 season."

Whoop-de-doo! It's to the owners' advantage to declare an impasse AFTER the season ends--just like the NBA did to its players a few years ago. When Selig has been asked to extend his benevolent offer , he has categorically refused.

The ignorance and misinformation that flies around the air waves and the internet on this subject is mind-boggling. When you have management toadies like Phil Rogers writing for the Cubune, it's pretty obvious why so many baseball fans are clueless.

SI1020
08-26-2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Because when the owners try to solve it themselves, they get hit with collusion charges.

Players and the union can conspire all they want, sharing any and all information with each other, but if the owners try to get together and bring some sanity to the salary structure, they get sued and lose.

The players cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is not their responsibility to protect the owners from themselves and then sue and file grievances every time the owners try to protect themselves from themselves. They are fiddling while Rome burns. Thank you for posting this, I feel that this is very important to note because I believe what you are saying is true and it shows the difficulty of the owners position with regards to salaries. As TL pointed out Uebuerroth (sp?) had a solution but the courts took it away. I have other thoughts. I hate "new age" anything, as a matter of fact I don't care much for most of the social and cultural developments of the last 35 years or so. In this situation however there is no one to like on either side. For years the owners had the players by the short hairs and often pulled until it hurt. After the 1957 season the Yankees actually tried to cut Mickey Mantles salary slightly despite the fact that he had just won his second straight MVP. His HR and RBI totals were down from the previous year. Anyway, according to the Mick he settled for a modest raise. The players, although much too young to have memory of this have been taught this part of their history. It is hard to have any kind of "sympathy" for the owners, but at the same time, and call me an idiot if you will, I cannot muster up much feeling for the players. They have "won" much in the last 30 years even if free agency and the stupidity of the owners had as much to do with it as anything won at the bargaining table. Here in Pittsburgh I saw a perfectly good and very exciting team dismantled because the economics of the game demanded it, not because of management stupidity. There is something wrong with the game when this is allowed to happen. The Pirates did just about everything right, and you have to remember this is decidedly a football area and an ecomically depressed one too. I don't agree with Davers seeming support of the players but IMO he is right in many of his criticisms of the owners and in pointing out the folly of current proposals to fix the game financially. Links he provided for "outside the box" solutions were informative and greatly appreciated. A new fresh approach to this problem is needed, and in the meantime the clock is ticking.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-26-2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Because when the owners try to solve it themselves, they get hit with collusion charges.

Players and the union can conspire all they want, sharing any and all information with each other, but if the owners try to get together and bring some sanity to the salary structure, they get sued and lose.

The players cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is not their responsibility to protect the owners from themselves and then sue and file grievances every time the owners try to protect themselves from themselves. They are fiddling while Rome burns.

Look, I would be the last one to begrudge the owners the right to solve their problems themselves. Unfortunately, the collusion charges you refer to weren't the result of the efforts of a savvy labor union. To the contrary, they were the result of the owners breaking U.S. labor law, as written by the U.S. Congress, regulated by the National Labor Relations Board, and made the law of all American commercial enterprise by the United States Constitution.

Sorry. Bud & Friends are just going to have to find another country to break the law in--or perhaps build a stronger military than Uncle Sam's to overthrow the government founded by Washington and Jefferson. With Cubune toadie Phil Rogers already in the fold, how can they possibly lose? :smile:

Commissioner Ueberroth and 26 owners and their 26 GM's were all found GUILTY of collusion. Anybody who doesn't like that verdict needs to make the case why U.S. labor law is wrong.

They were found guilty in 1986. And in 1987. And a third time in 1988. That's no small feat, don't you think?

Contrary to popular myth, the owners didn't pay a nickel's worth of penalty in any of those cases. What they paid was simply damages--the amount the court ruled they unlawfully conspired to keep for themselves through collusion. That's a better deal than you or I would have gotten, where the penalty would have been TREBLE DAMAGES as a deterrent to this sort of behavior.

How did the owners get off cheap? Well, as it turns out, they are exempt from prosecution under U.S. anti-trust laws. There is this remarkable Supreme Court ruling from the 1920's that exempts them, even going so far as to call baseball a "sport" not a business, and not engaged in interstate commerce. Chief Justice Holmes must have been on drugs that day--as subsequent rulings by that same court have tacitly admitted to.

There are plenty of legal ways for the owners to solve the problems some people here are so anxious to believe exist. Breaking the law is not required--or an option.

Sheesh...

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 02:12 PM
The bottom line is this. Under the current system, the game is going in the tank. The best stat that sums it up is that in the past 5 or so years, teams not in the top 25% in salaries have won a total of 5 playoff games. What Minnesota and Oakland prove is that if small market teams are exceptionally managed, they can win in a small window. Meanwhile, teams that are generally mismanaged (i..e Boston under Duquette, LA before Dan Evans) can quickly turn things around because they have the revenues to go get players from smaller market teams as they reach FAs. Bottom line, small markets need to do everything right and still can't sustain long-term success and large markets can make mistakes and contend most years. Meanwhile, the Yankees continue to dominate.

So, are the player-supporters here happy with a system where the Yanks are #1 every year and the only real question is whether a small team can give them some meaningful competition? Where those successful but small market teams are guaranteed of losing their star players as soon as they reach FA? Where even when those teams do well, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to win because the Yanks are always better and can afford to improve more when they pick up salaries at the deadline?

By the way - all those complaining that the current proposals don't address competitive balance should remember - the owners initially proposed a salary floor, which would help ensure that revenue sharing/tax money went back into the player pool. That number was low, but that's what initial proposals are about - start low and work up to a meaningful #. Instead, the players outright rejected the idea because longer term it would reduce their philosophical position on a salary cap. So look back to the players for that part of the current problem as well.

Randar68
08-26-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
The bottom line is this. Under the current system, the game is going in the tank. The best stat that sums it up is that in the past 5 or so years, teams not in the top 25% in salaries have won a total of 5 playoff games. What Minnesota and Oakland prove is that if small market teams are exceptionally managed, they can win in a small window. Meanwhile, teams that are generally mismanaged (i..e Boston under Duquette, LA before Dan Evans) can quickly turn things around because they have the revenues to go get players from smaller market teams as they reach FAs. Bottom line, small markets need to do everything right and still can't sustain long-term success and large markets can make mistakes and contend most years. Meanwhile, the Yankees continue to dominate.

So, are the player-supporters here happy with a system where the Yanks are #1 every year and the only real question is whether a small team can give them some meaningful competition? Where those successful but small market teams are guaranteed of losing their star players as soon as they reach FA? Where even when those teams do well, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to win because the Yanks are always better and can afford to improve more when they pick up salaries at the deadline?

By the way - all those complaining that the current proposals don't address competitive balance should remember - the owners initially proposed a salary floor, which would help ensure that revenue sharing/tax money went back into the player pool. That number was low, but that's what initial proposals are about - start low and work up to a meaningful #. Instead, the players outright rejected the idea because longer term it would reduce their philosophical position on a salary cap. So look back to the players for that part of the current problem as well.


Well said. Welcome aboard.

Daver
08-26-2002, 04:28 PM
The players rejected a salary floor because it would adversely affect veteran players that were not everyday starters,fearing that the owners would replace their mid level salaries completley with younger players that were not eligible for arbitration.

Knowing what I knopw about the owners the MLBPA is probably dead right on this.

voodoochile
08-26-2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by daver
The players rejected a salary floor because it would adversely affect veteran players that were not everyday starters,fearing that the owners would replace their mid level salaries completley with younger players that were not eligible for arbitration.

Knowing what I knopw about the owners the MLBPA is probably dead right on this.

What is the status of Arbitration in the current negotiations? Are the basics of years of restricted service remaining the same? Man, if I'm the players, I am going for some give backs on those issues if the owners are going to insist on salary caps in any form.

Daver
08-26-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


What is the status of Arbitration in the current negotiations? Are the basics of years of restricted service remaining the same? Man, if I'm the players, I am going for some give backs on those issues if the owners are going to insist on salary caps in any form.

As far as I know there is no change to that,it has not been discussed in anything I have read on the subject.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by daver
The players rejected a salary floor because it would adversely affect veteran players that were not everyday starters,fearing that the owners would replace their mid level salaries completley with younger players that were not eligible for arbitration.

Knowing what I knopw about the owners the MLBPA is probably dead right on this.


OK, so the current proposal by the owners doesn't ensure competitive balance because money can go to line the owners pockets....but......the proposal that would make sure that they do put money back onto the field is bad because it adversely affects players that aren't everyday starters.

At what point does the primary lens that we look at things through stop being that of the MLBPA. My point is that the product on the field is better with the salary floor i.e., competitive balance is improved. But because that would drag on salaries for "veteran players that are not everyday starters", it was rejected by the MLBPA.

Again - the owners are making proposals that would enhance competitive balance, the players are not.

PS: By the way, shouldn't veterans who are not everyday starters have reduced salaries anyway? Since when should benchwarmers get anything more than the minimum unless they're somehow high potential guys (i.e. the younger players who are getting established). Way to fight for the $5MM utility infielder.

TornLabrum
08-26-2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


Again - the owners are making proposals that would enhance competitive balance, the players are not.

PS: By the way, shouldn't veterans who are not everyday starters have reduced salaries anyway? Since when should benchwarmers get anything more than the minimum unless they're somehow high potential guys (i.e. the younger players who are getting established). Way to fight for the $5MM utility infielder.

I wonder how much money Jerry Hairston was making compared to the minimum...or Smokey Burgess....

Daver
08-26-2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar



OK, so the current proposal by the owners doesn't ensure competitive balance because money can go to line the owners pockets....but......the proposal that would make sure that they do put money back onto the field is bad because it adversely affects players that aren't everyday starters.

At what point does the primary lens that we look at things through stop being that of the MLBPA. My point is that the product on the field is better with the salary floor i.e., competitive balance is improved. But because that would drag on salaries for "veteran players that are not everyday starters", it was rejected by the MLBPA.

Again - the owners are making proposals that would enhance competitive balance, the players are not.

PS: By the way, shouldn't veterans who are not everyday starters have reduced salaries anyway? Since when should benchwarmers get anything more than the minimum unless they're somehow high potential guys (i.e. the younger players who are getting established). Way to fight for the $5MM utility infielder.

The owners are NOT making proposals that would help competetive balance,that is my whole point.

The proposal on the table right now does little more than financially punish the large market owners to offset the smaller profits from the small market teams,there is no language in the proposal that the money be spent on payroll.There is language in that proposal that the Luxury Tax revenue will be distributed to the teams derserving in the sole discretion of the Commisioner,namely Bud,whom none of the players trust,because he is a proven liar.

Show me a plan that actually does something aimed at competetive balance,and one that names the parameters of how the money be distributed,because the owners sure haven't come up with one.

How people can back 30 of the biggest thieves and liars in the country is beyond me.....

TornLabrum
08-26-2002, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by daver


How people can back 30 of the biggest thieves and liars in the country is beyond me.....

It's the American dream. We identify with rich crooks.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by daver


The owners are NOT making proposals that would help competetive balance,that is my whole point.

The proposal on the table right now does little more than financially punish the large market owners to offset the smaller profits from the small market teams,there is no language in the proposal that the money be spent on payroll.There is language in that proposal that the Luxury Tax revenue will be distributed to the teams derserving in the sole discretion of the Commisioner,namely Bud,whom none of the players trust,because he is a proven liar.

Show me a plan that actually does something aimed at competetive balance,and one that names the parameters of how the money be distributed,because the owners sure haven't come up with one.

How people can back 30 of the biggest thieves and liars in the country is beyond me.....


Ummmmm....that was the original point. The owners started with a proposal that would redistribute the money and have a mechanism for ensuring that that was put back on the field, i.e. a salary floor => spending on payroll. Not sure how much more specific it can get. That was rejected, not because the floor was too low (which could have been negotiated upwards), but because the players did not want anything that philosophically enforced any kind of salaries on teams (cap or floor). So we're back to my original point, which is that the owners have proposed some things that would improve competitive balance, however these were rejected out of hand by the players, leaving us with the profit transfer components but not the competitive balance portions. The owners proposed that , the yplayers rejected and haven't come back with any such competitive balance proposal of their own. You can talk about the proposal on the table all you want and its limitations (I agree with that, by the way), but dismissing the fact that the owners proposed something workable (from a competitive balance perspective) and then blaming the owners for the proposal currently on the table is unfair, don't you think?

Not that the owners are 100% honest by any means, but blind backing of the players seems to me to be equally shortsighted, especially when their avarice and devotion to nothing but the top player salaries is equally obvious.

Anyone wonder why none of the current proposals has been put to a union vote? One reason is that many of the players impacted by the fact that the median salary has been dropping over the past few years while the average goes up might vote for the owners plan.

Daver
08-26-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar



Ummmmm....that was the original point. The owners started with a proposal that would redistribute the money and have a mechanism for ensuring that that was put back on the field, i.e. a salary floor => spending on payroll. Not sure how much more specific it can get. That was rejected, not because the floor was too low (which could have been negotiated upwards), but because the players did not want anything that philosophically enforced any kind of salaries on teams (cap or floor). So we're back to my original point, which is that the owners have proposed some things that would improve competitive balance, however these were rejected out of hand by the players, leaving us with the profit transfer components but not the competitive balance portions. The owners proposed that , the yplayers rejected and haven't come back with any such competitive balance proposal of their own. You can talk about the proposal on the table all you want and its limitations (I agree with that, by the way), but dismissing the fact that the owners proposed something workable (from a competitive balance perspective) and then blaming the owners for the proposal currently on the table is unfair, don't you think?

Not that the owners are 100% honest by any means, but blind backing of the players seems to me to be equally shortsighted, especially when their avarice and devotion to nothing but the top player salaries is equally obvious.

Anyone wonder why none of the current proposals has been put to a union vote? One reason is that many of the players impacted by the fact that the median salary has been dropping over the past few years while the average goes up might vote for the owners plan.

Hate to tell you this but the salary floor was rejected in the last CBA which was negotiated in 1997,it has not been an issue in this round of talks,because the owners never pushed it,and I know why.David Glass,Carl Pohlad,Leff Loria,as well as a few other owners,including MLB themselves(as the "owner"of the Montreal Expos in clear cut case of conflict of interest BTW) do not want a salary minimum,if that existed these guys couldn't continue to cut payroll while continuing to cash the revenue sharing checks at the end of the season.

I am not blindly siding with the MLBPA,I have no use for a group of owners that cry poor yet refuse to open their books,and I have no use in listening to Bud Selig continue to lie about teams losing money.

If these guys are losing money I can tell them to do one of two things,Sell,and take the profit you gain from the value of the franchise,or file for bankruptcy protection and let the courts have access to your books.

Better yet,install an autonomous commisioner and start all over from scratch with a federal mediator and lay all the issues,including the books,on the table.

Paulwny
08-26-2002, 06:03 PM
Until the owners open the books the mistrust will continue. It amazes me that a team can continually lose money but the value of the team increases. Only the team bean counters know the entire story.

MarkEdward
08-26-2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


Ummmmm....that was the original point. The owners started with a proposal that would redistribute the money and have a mechanism for ensuring that that was put back on the field, i.e. a salary floor => spending on payroll. Not sure how much more specific it can get. That was rejected, not because the floor was too low (which could have been negotiated upwards), but because the players did not want anything that philosophically enforced any kind of salaries on teams (cap or floor). So we're back to my original point, which is that the owners have proposed some things that would improve competitive balance, however these were rejected out of hand by the players, leaving us with the profit transfer components but not the competitive balance portions.

Give me one modicum of evidence showing that a salary floor influences competitive balance. The salary floor arguement means payroll correlates to winning, which has already been proven untrue.

The owners proposed that , the yplayers rejected and haven't come back with any such competitive balance proposal of their own.

The luxury tax and revenue sharing proposals put forth by the players foster competitive balance, unlike the owners' proposals, which attempt to line the owners' pockets.

palehosemike
08-26-2002, 06:25 PM
It is really hard for me to feel sorry for the millionaires (players) or the billionaires (owners.)

Overall something is wrong with baseball - there is to much of a difference between the have and have nots - There are teams that can afford 100 million plus payrolls and then there are teams that can barely afford a fraction of that. You have players who cost more than the stadiums that they play in and you have players who's cost is equal to a bag of balls on the MLB pay scale.

It would be easy to solve the problem if we could identify one problem, but it is not that easy. On one hand it is hard for me to digest owners who have made fortunes in the business world yet they buy a baseball team and their business logic flies out the window. On the other hand there are the players. The players who have AGENTS, like Scott Boras, who have manipulated owners and contracts to drive up the prices for players..... It might not be the players directly but there is a player association there with their agents. Some of the agents have helped ruin baseball like it or not.

I personally think that both sides are to blame for this mess and because of this COMPLEX mess there is no easy answer. I for one would be surprised if they settle this dispute and do not strike.

Mike :angry:

LongDistanceFan
08-26-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by daver


If these guys are losing money I can tell them to do one of two things,Sell,and take the profit you gain from the value of the franchise,or file for bankruptcy protection and let the courts have access to your books.



the players don't want the owners to close down a team and disban the team.

Daver
08-26-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


the players don't want the owners to close down a team and disban the team.

The MLBPA has limited access to the MLB books,under a promise of secrecy,they know a team could not file for bankruptcy with any ease at all.They aslo know that the owners are not in as bad a shape as Bud says they are,or they would not be pushing this fight this hard.They have no interest in letting the owners use their salry structure to line their pockets either.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by daver


Hate to tell you this but the salary floor was rejected in the last CBA which was negotiated in 1997,it has not been an issue in this round of talks,because the owners never pushed it,and I know why.David Glass,Carl Pohlad,Leff Loria,as well as a few other owners,including MLB themselves(as the "owner"of the Montreal Expos in clear cut case of conflict of interest BTW) do not want a salary minimum,if that existed these guys couldn't continue to cut payroll while continuing to cash the revenue sharing checks at the end of the season.

I am not blindly siding with the MLBPA,I have no use for a group of owners that cry poor yet refuse to open their books,and I have no use in listening to Bud Selig continue to lie about teams losing money.

If these guys are losing money I can tell them to do one of two things,Sell,and take the profit you gain from the value of the franchise,or file for bankruptcy protection and let the courts have access to your books.

Better yet,install an autonomous commisioner and start all over from scratch with a federal mediator and lay all the issues,including the books,on the table.


Hmmm..... Check this SI article on Yahoo http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/cnnsi/20020723/onshakyground.html. The owners proposed a $45MM salary floor and the players (or at least Fehr) rejected it. THAT'S why it's not part of the discussions and may not have been part of any official proposal - because the players completely rejected the idea in preliminary discussions. In fact the the owners couterproposed another floor that would use a 3-yr average to enable teams to go beneath temporarily if they were rebuilding (to accomodate the argument the players used at the time). In any case - bottom line, the owners have proposed that twice, both times players rejected.

So while it makes for good press to say the owners want to take increased revenue sharing and pocket it, the only reason that's allowable under the current proposals is because the PLAYERS rejected the concept of a floor instead of countering with a floor of say $70MM (or whatever should be the minimum salary scale).

Once again - owners are NOT the primary reason the current proposal wouldn't address competitive balance. The MLBPA is.

Daver
08-26-2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar



Once again - owners are NOT the primary reason the current proposal wouldn't address competitive balance. The MLBPA is.

I did read that article,did you? That was an attempt to bring up the subject from the 1997 negtiations,and was rejected again,for the reasons I have already stated.Can you please find a new point to argue,the one you are clinging to has been shot down repeatedly,while you ignore any other points brought up.

Are you Jerry Reinsdorf in disguise?

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 08:08 PM
"While there is no discussion about a salary cap in the current labor negotiations, there is talk about a salary floor "

Note the word "current" prior to "labor negotiations". These are proposals raised during this round of negotiations. If you'd like, I can go find other sources for that same info citing it as part of THIS SUMMER'S DISCUSSIONS.

As for your reasons that they were rejected - they amount to this: The players would make less money regardless of whether they deserve it or not. To me, that's not a rational reason for blaming the shortcomings in the current proposal on the owners.

My point, as it has been and as you have not yet addressed remains - Owners have proposed things that would ensure that money gets back on the field. Combine that with a drag on the top end and you have an overall drag on salaries but you also have more competitive teams.

I think you need to stop drinking the Don Fehr koolaid (unless you're really his kid and that's all you get at home).

Daver
08-26-2002, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
"While there is no discussion about a salary cap in the current labor negotiations, there is talk about a salary floor "

Note the word "current" prior to "labor negotiations". These are proposals raised during this round of negotiations. If you'd like, I can go find other sources for that same info citing it as part of THIS SUMMER'S DISCUSSIONS.

As for your reasons that they were rejected - they amount to this: The players would make less money regardless of whether they deserve it or not. To me, that's not a rational reason for blaming the shortcomings in the current proposal on the owners.

My point, as it has been and as you have not yet addressed remains - Owners have proposed things that would ensure that money gets back on the field. Combine that with a drag on the top end and you have an overall drag on salaries but you also have more competitive teams.

I think you need to stop drinking the Don Fehr koolaid (unless you're really his kid and that's all you get at home).

I repeat,for the THIRD time,there is no language in the current CBA proposal that puts that money back into team's payroll,none whatsoever,yet you fail to address this,instead you choose to go back to the tired argument that the owners are trying to increase competetive balance.If that were the case wouldn't it be stipualted in the CBA that the owners have to commit that revenue to salary?

There is also the distribution of that same revenue,why is it the commisioner,at his sole discretion,gets to decide this,shouldn't there be a more focused and comprehensive plan for this?

This proposal has nothing to do with competetive balance,to anyone that is not sold on the popular view of bashing the players that Bud has managed to sell to the populace through the media.Obviously he has managed to sell it to you.

palehosemike
08-26-2002, 09:15 PM
Whooaaa Daver - you are getting Feisty!!!

:hawk
I love a fiesty Daver!

LongDistanceFan
08-26-2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by palehosemike
Whooaaa Daver - you are getting Feisty!!!

:hawk
I love a fiesty Daver!

remember the rules of the board, treat each other with respect.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by daver


I repeat,for the THIRD time,there is no language in the current CBA proposal that puts that money back into team's payroll,none whatsoever,yet you fail to address this,instead you choose to go back to the tired argument that the owners are trying to increase competetive balance.If that were the case wouldn't it be stipualted in the CBA that the owners have to commit that revenue to salary?

There is also the distribution of that same revenue,why is it the commisioner,at his sole discretion,gets to decide this,shouldn't there be a more focused and comprehensive plan for this?

This proposal has nothing to do with competetive balance,to anyone that is not sold on the popular view of bashing the players that Bud has managed to sell to the populace through the media.Obviously he has managed to sell it to you.


Are you being deliberately obtuse? I have, a number of times, agreed that in the current CBA proposal there is no such stipulation. However, in 2 earlier proposals, such a stipulation was made and rejected by the players. So the fact that the proposal does not address that is because the PLAYERS did not want it, not because the owners did not want it. The discretionary revenue point is a completely different point.

Let me make it simple for you.
1) The owners proposed something that would improve competitive balance, i.e. a salary floor
2) The players rejected portions of that that would have ensured revenue sharing dollars went back into salaries (rather than negotiating the level of such dollars upwards). While you have given the reason why they rejected it (drive down salaries for veteran non-starters), there's no rationale for maintaining/increasing salaries for those players other than the standard Fehr mantra that all salaries must go up.
3) Owners then came back with another proposal including a salary floor but with more flexibility to address the problems the players claimed they had with the original one. Once again - rejected by players.
4) Now, the owners, rather than presenting yet another such proposal that would be rejected, have incorporated the feedback from the players and not re-introduced the salary floor.
5) You blame #4 on the owners??? Does anyone else see the lack of logic here? Are you a player/agent? Because those are the only ones (except for Fehr) who've followed a logic trail like this to the 100% opposite conclusion)

Feel free to re-read the 4 points above and respond to any/all. Please do NOT recite the old mantra that the current proposal doesn't incorporate competitive balance clauses (I agree with that) OR cite the commissioner's discretionary revenue fund as proof the owners are the devil incarnate. Owners are greedy, I agree (however the players are equally greedy). However, in this negotiation, they've made more moves that if accepted would have helped the game a lot more than the ones the players have made.

wsi
08-26-2002, 09:47 PM
Daver is completely right! There are no current plans that guarantee a competiveness balance, nor will there be any. The owners hold a huge advantage over the players, public opinion. As long as the majority of people believe that players are just a group of greedy, snobby, uncompromising celebrities(Some are), then the players will never achieve this balance.

I would imagine that the majority of players would take an outragous pay cut just to win a world series.

No one, unless you are personaly at the bargaining table, can know exactly what is going to happen in the next couple of weeks.

Daver
08-26-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar



Are you being deliberately obtuse? I have, a number of times, agreed that in the current CBA proposal there is no such stipulation. However, in 2 earlier proposals, such a stipulation was made and rejected by the players. So the fact that the proposal does not address that is because the PLAYERS did not want it, not because the owners did not want it. The discretionary revenue point is a completely different point.

Let me make it simple for you.
1) The owners proposed something that would improve competitive balance, i.e. a salary floor
2) The players rejected portions of that that would have ensured revenue sharing dollars went back into salaries (rather than negotiating the level of such dollars upwards). While you have given the reason why they rejected it (drive down salaries for veteran non-starters), there's no rationale for maintaining/increasing salaries for those players other than the standard Fehr mantra that all salaries must go up.
3) Owners then came back with another proposal including a salary floor but with more flexibility to address the problems the players claimed they had with the original one. Once again - rejected by players.
4) Now, the owners, rather than presenting yet another such proposal that would be rejected, have incorporated the feedback from the players and not re-introduced the salary floor.
5) You blame #4 on the owners??? Does anyone else see the lack of logic here? Are you a player/agent? Because those are the only ones (except for Fehr) who've followed a logic trail like this to the 100% opposite conclusion)

Feel free to re-read the 4 points above and respond to any/all. Please do NOT recite the old mantra that the current proposal doesn't incorporate competitive balance clauses (I agree with that) OR cite the commissioner's discretionary revenue fund as proof the owners are the devil incarnate. Owners are greedy, I agree (however the players are equally greedy). However, in this negotiation, they've made more moves that if accepted would have helped the game a lot more than the ones the players have made.

Obviously I am not the only one being obtuse,the minmum salary was rejected in the first steps of this bargaining agreement,and never brought up again,for reasons I have noted and will not repeat again,yet you continue to hammer on this point,which has not been an issue at all in this CBA bargaining session.Like I said,Bud has sold you on the company line.

I can agree that some salary restraint could be beneficial to the game,but that will not happen with the regime that is in place,something I have also stated more than once and was not addressed,because of the simple fact that no one,including the fine people on Capitol Hill beleives a word Bud says.

Do yourself a favor and read this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020826daily.shtml

It offers a look at what the free market brings to the game.

LongDistanceFan
08-26-2002, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar





btw welcome.

same to wsi

Daver
08-26-2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


remember the rules of the board, treat each other with respect.

What the heck are you talking about LDF?

LongDistanceFan
08-26-2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by palehosemike
Whooaaa Daver - you are getting Feisty!!!

:hawk
I love a fiesty Daver!


i and i responded with what i said.

in addition you wrote this on the other side.

Well done Voodoo,thank you.

In regards to 3) I would rather you treat everyone with respect,not just the Admins.I am not saying no brawling,this place would be lost without it,but at least try and see someone elses point before going off on a tangent.I realize this is asking a lot,but all I ask is try.


was trying to live by the new spirit of the board. no further post on my part on this subject.

voodoochile
08-26-2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan



i and i responded with what i said.

in addition you wrote this on the other side.

Well done Voodoo,thank you.

In regards to 3) I would rather you treat everyone with respect,not just the Admins.I am not saying no brawling,this place would be lost without it,but at least try and see someone elses point before going off on a tangent.I realize this is asking a lot,but all I ask is try.


was trying to live by the new spirit of the board. no further post on my part on this subject.

I have no administrative capacity at WSI at all. Never have had it and don't want it.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 11:01 PM
I've actually read that article, and the misnomers in it are quite staggering (and odd as BP is usually a great read).

A couple of the points that he fails to address:

- While teams that manage their systems very well despite having local revenues can succeed, they basically need almost everything to go right. A few mistakes and they have trouble. Meanwhile teams with big revenues can make a ton of mistakes and still easily compete with the small-market teams. Example: Boston Red Sox. Mismanaged for years, yet perennial contenders because none of their big signings prevented them from making the next big signing. Hit paydirt with a couple, and get a couple from your own system (despite having a generally acknowledged terrible minor league system) and there you go. If the Twins/As had made those mistakes, they'd be last in the league. Bottom line: If you're an exceptional GM, you can win in a small market. If your anything but, you lose in a small market but can win in a big one. If you're a good (not great)GM in a big market, you can continuously dominate no matter how good the small market GMs are.

- He assumes that teams that are low revenue-wise are so because they haven't invested. However, check the numbers and I'll bet that the Twins & As are much lower in revenues than the BoSox, Dodgers, Yanks, and a bunch of other larger market teams. Does that mean the Twins have mis-invested? Nope, their well run but can't compete on a revenue basis.

- Salary caps take away incentive to invest in the business. Ummmm.....not necessarily. If his point is that with a cap the owners don't need to make smart decisions then I would disagree with that. The analogy of ARod is incorrect. The incentive to invest may be there, it just will require smart financial management in addition to talent management. Check the NFL (noted but not discussed in the article). Teams that can succeed on an ongoing basis are those that 1)draft and develop talent well, 2)identify the right players to lock up, 3)make judicious FA signings, 4)only occasionally make the big FA signing when the fit is right. The system works well there, teams like Pittsburgh and Green Bay can continuously contend, but there's still room for other teams to improve and no one dominates.

By the way - thanks for not responding to any of my points.

rahulsekhar
08-26-2002, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


btw welcome.

same to wsi


Thanks. Good discussion's what it's all about!

Daver
08-26-2002, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


By the way - thanks for not responding to any of my points.

You do not feel the need to respond to any of mine,so I consider it a return of same.

SI1020
08-27-2002, 09:02 AM
Wow! What a discussion. I don't know if I try to add anything here if it would be considered productive or not but I just can't help it so here goes. I don't at the moment have access to a library of facts and will be flying off the top of my head. From 1980-1986 there was what amounted to here in Pittsburgh an economic depression. In the context of that there was the cocaine trials in which Pittsburgh and the Pirates were the center of the vortex. The Pirates, bankrupt and the worst team in baseball in 1985 seemed on the verge of extinction.The late mayor Richard Caliguiri cobbled together a group of local heavy hitters which bought and saved the team for Pittsburgh. Syd Thrift and Jim Leyland were brought in and things began to improve. Thrift later had a falling out with upper management but the team was run well on the field and in the executive suites culminating in three straight division championships and two heartbraking losses in a row to the Braves in 91 and 92. They even drew over two million, which if you know anything about football crazy Pgh is quite an accomplishment. Then quicker than you can say Roberto Clemente it was all gone. The Pirates will have their 10th straight losing season this year, a club record. They have not been nearly as well run lately as in the Mid 80's to early 90's but the genesis of their problem lies in the fact that they couldn't keep their early 90's unit together because of he economics of baseball. I agree with Daver and others who have pointed out the folly of some of the proposed remedies. At the same time I feel frustration over those who seem to fail to realize that SOMETHING needs to be done to ensure true competition which will further the "meritocracy" that some wonks promote. I don't perceive that the players have anything on their radar screen other than the expansion of the status quo which mainly benefits top tier players IMO. That is the basis of the widespread antipathy towards them, not great love for Bud JR and company.

hold2dibber
08-27-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by daver


All I am trying to do is make people see the real issues,and the real issue here is that the players are asking for nothing,the owners are asking for concessions to the CBA that do nothing but garauntee the owners bottom line,while doing nothing whatsoever to fix the competetive balance of the game.If you were a player would you agree to a plan that does nothing other than rob your salary structure to benefit the owners profit margins?

Well, no, of course not. But the reason I blame both sides is that anyone who is paying attention knows that there is a competitve balance problem in baseball. To suggest otherwise is absurd - why is it that high revenue teams like the Braves and Yankees can keep their successful teams together (and add on to fill needs) whereas teams like the Pirates of the early 90s and the A's from last year have qualify players leaving en masse? The system is horribly flawed, and both the players and the owners don't give a sh#t -- they just care about protecting what they have now (players) or getting more for themselves (owners). If either side had any foresight, they'd both be in favor of a system that shares revenue among all franchises but requires that the shared revenue be spent on baseball operations (e.g., player development and/or player salaries).

And another horrible flaw in the current system -- regardless of who is to blame -- is that the price of being a baseball fan is simply too steep for many. I'm not exactly sure how the CBA could be adjusted to help slow the steady increase in ticket prices, but the fact remains that with the enormous increase in salaries has come enormous increase in ticket prices. When I was a kid, we were dirt poor, but I still could manage to scrap up enough money ($2 or $3 per ticket) to go to ball games on a regular basis during summer vacation with my friends. Those years and those games had a huge effect on me being the huge baseball fan I am today. Today, however, prices are so high that tons and tons of potential baseball fans simply don't have the opportunity to attend games and foster a love for the game. And with less and less fans, baseball's future is not bright.

voodoochile
08-27-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Well, no, of course not. But the reason I blame both sides is that anyone who is paying attention knows that there is a competitve balance problem in baseball. To suggest otherwise is absurd - why is it that high revenue teams like the Braves and Yankees can keep their successful teams together (and add on to fill needs) whereas teams like the Pirates of the early 90s and the A's from last year have qualify players leaving en masse? The system is horribly flawed, and both the players and the owners don't give a sh#t -- they just care about protecting what they have now (players) or getting more for themselves (owners). If either side had any foresight, they'd both be in favor of a system that shares revenue among all franchises but requires that the shared revenue be spent on baseball operations (e.g., player development and/or player salaries).

And another horrible flaw in the current system -- regardless of who is to blame -- is that the price of being a baseball fan is simply too steep for many. I'm not exactly sure how the CBA could be adjusted to help slow the steady increase in ticket prices, but the fact remains that with the enormous increase in salaries has come enormous increase in ticket prices. When I was a kid, we were dirt poor, but I still could manage to scrap up enough money ($2 or $3 per ticket) to go to ball games on a regular basis during summer vacation with my friends. Those years and those games had a huge effect on me being the huge baseball fan I am today. Today, however, prices are so high that tons and tons of potential baseball fans simply don't have the opportunity to attend games and foster a love for the game. And with less and less fans, baseball's future is not bright.

I still don't get the argument that baseball is expensive. You can go to home games for $12 on full price nights and $6 on half price nights (every Monday and Tuesday (with an empty Pepsi can). Were the $2-$3 you spent on tickets as a kid box seats or cheapy seats? People can save money by eating at home before they go. Take public transportation (<$4 round trip). Buy one soda at the game ($3.00 including souveneir cup) and you can easily do the whole night for less than $20 ($15 on half price nights). Sneak in a bottle of soda or drink the free water at the park and it gets even cheaper. People want to complain about high prices, but they don't want to sit in the cheap seats. They want to buy a cap every time. They want to drink lots of beer. It isn't the game that is expensive, it is the side stuff. When we were kids and prices were cheaper, we didn't do any of that stuff. A baseball cap lasted us 5 years and we waited until Dad bought us a new one when we went together or we got one at Christmas. We sat in the cheap seats and were glad to just be there.

A family of 4 can easily do a ballgame for less than $50 if they go on a half price night and don't buy a lot of stuff at the game. In today's market, that is a cheap night out for a family of 4. Heck Movies will run you $30 to walk in the door for a family of 4. No one is complaining about the high price of movies because they are "forced" to buy $20 in concession stand junk.

Beyond all of that, the ticket prices are set by demand, not by player salaries. This has been proven over and over again. I just don't understand the complaints...

Daver
08-27-2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber





And another horrible flaw in the current system -- regardless of who is to blame -- is that the price of being a baseball fan is simply too steep for many. I'm not exactly sure how the CBA could be adjusted to help slow the steady increase in ticket prices, but the fact remains that with the enormous increase in salaries has come enormous increase in ticket prices. When I was a kid, we were dirt poor, but I still could manage to scrap up enough money ($2 or $3 per ticket) to go to ball games on a regular basis during summer vacation with my friends. Those years and those games had a huge effect on me being the huge baseball fan I am today. Today, however, prices are so high that tons and tons of potential baseball fans simply don't have the opportunity to attend games and foster a love for the game. And with less and less fans, baseball's future is not bright.

Are you niave enough to beleive that the owners will reduce ticket costs if they get a luxury tax on player salaries?

The only real function that a salary cap of any type performs is that of a guarantee on owner profits,nothing else.

RedPinStripes
08-27-2002, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by daver


Are you niave enough to beleive that the owners will reduce ticket costs if they get a luxury tax on player salaries?

The only real function that a salary cap of any type performs is that of a guarantee on owner profits,nothing else.

Really? I thought it stops guys like Stienbrennere from buying the world series every year. Or last year, the American League. It helps football balance out.

hold2dibber
08-27-2002, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by daver


Are you niave enough to beleive that the owners will reduce ticket costs if they get a luxury tax on player salaries?

The only real function that a salary cap of any type performs is that of a guarantee on owner profits,nothing else.

HA! No - I am note that naive; and I think "naive" would be a very generous term for someone who thought that! :smile:

I would like to see a system in place that would help control costs such that there would not be as much "upward pressure" on ticket prices. As I stated in my prior post, I have no clue as to how such a system would look/work (in other words, I see a problem, but I don't see the solution). But it seems like a salary cap certainly could mean less pressure to increase ticket prices.

My question to you is, if you don't think a salary cap can have any impact on helping to restore competitive balance, do you have any suggestion for a system that would do so? It seems to me that a salary cap combined with a minimum payroll requirement would help - but such a system is certainly not without its flaws either.

I don't think anyone (other than Pohlad, Glass, et al.) is in favor of a system that simply gives, for example, part of the Yankees' revenue to moron owners to pocket. What I think most everyone is in favor of, is a system in which well-run organizations like the Twins and A's (and early '90s Expos and Pirates) can afford to retain the talent they've developed instead of just acting as developmental teams for the high revenue clubs. How we get there, I guess I'm not exactly sure. But both the owners and the players should realize that the future of this game is, IMO, dependent upon solving this problem and both need to stop thinking about their short term interests and work together to forge a system that solves this problem for the benefit of all.

I shall now step down from my soap box.

Daver
08-27-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Really? I thought it stops guys like Stienbrennere from buying the world series every year. Or last year, the American League. It helps football balance out.

Football,unlike any other pro sport shares 100 % of all revenue.

That being said,the NFL has become more cyclical than competetive since the introduction of the salary cap,you now have key players moving from team to team evry year based on who has cap space for them,as opposed to where they want to play,so there is little chance of seeing another "dynasty" team like the Steelers of the seventies.I would much rather the players get an opprtunity to play for one team for their entire career,the salary cap all but prevents that.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-27-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Really? I thought it stops guys like Stienbrennere from buying the world series every year. Or last year, the American League. It helps football balance out.

You've never been a fan of the Cardinals have you?

The Cardinals have sucked in Chicago, St. Louis, and now Phoenix, too. The NFL shares revenue more generously than any other sport. They have a hard cap that greatly reduces the players' salaries. They even help out the worst teams by giving them cream puff fifth-place schedules. Yet the Bidwells just keep sucking on the field and taking home the money.

The Cardinals have sucked for 80 years. All the revenue sharing and salary caps have served to do is help keep Bidwell rolling in the profits. He's got a guaranteed profit from the moment they put air in the first regulation ball. He'll never sell. Why should he? Cardinals fans are completely screwed--what few of them are left.

THIS is how to make baseball more competitive? What a joke...

There is no substitute for brains or the will to win.

RedPinStripes
08-27-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by daver


Football,unlike any other pro sport shares 100 % of all revenue.

That being said,the NFL has become more cyclical than competetive since the introduction of the salary cap,you now have key players moving from team to team evry year based on who has cap space for them,as opposed to where they want to play,so there is little chance of seeing another "dynasty" team like the Steelers of the seventies.I would much rather the players get an opprtunity to play for one team for their entire career,the salary cap all but prevents that.

An 80 Million dollar cap should be enough to keep a good team together. Half the teams are not even there. It would obviously have to inflate evey 5 years or so with salaries. If players in Baseball are moving around because of cap maney, then it would be from a team like the yankees or the scrubs who spend a **** load of money and still couldn't do it right. HA! Anyway, that's my idea, not like any owner or player would ever take into consideration.

hold2dibber
08-27-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


You've never been a fan of the Cardinals have you?

The Cardinals have sucked in Chicago, St. Louis, and now Phoenix, too. The NFL shares revenue more generously than any other sport. They have a hard cap that greatly reduces the players' salaries. They even help out the worst teams by giving them cream puff fifth-place schedules. Yet the Bidwells just keep sucking on the field and taking home the money.

The Cardinals have sucked for 80 years. All the revenue sharing and salary caps have served to do is help keep Bidwell rolling in the profits. He's got a guaranteed profit from the moment they put air in the first regulation ball. He'll never sell. Why should he? Cardinals fans are completely screwed--what few of them are left.

THIS is how to make baseball more competitive? What a joke...

There is no substitute for brains or the will to win.

Well, actually, a little bit of brains and the will to win plus boat loads of money (i.e., the Yankees) will always win out over tons of brains and the will to win but no money (i.e., early '90s Expos and Pirates, A's of the last few years). That to me is fundamentally unfair, particularly when the Yankees are dependent upon all the other teams to make their money. When teams with brains and the will to win cannot keep their teams together, and instead see their players flock to other teams with oodles of $, there is something wrong with the system.

Daver
08-27-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Well, actually, a little bit of brains and the will to win plus boat loads of money (i.e., the Yankees) will always win out over tons of brains and the will to win but no money (i.e., early '90s Expos and Pirates, A's of the last few years). That to me is fundamentally unfair, particularly when the Yankees are dependent upon all the other teams to make their money. When teams with brains and the will to win cannot keep their teams together, and instead see their players flock to other teams with oodles of $, there is something wrong with the system.

Baseball has had this system for thirty years now,and all of a sudden it is fundamentally wrong?

MarkEdward
08-27-2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by daver


Football,unlike any other pro sport shares 100 % of all revenue.

That being said,the NFL has become more cyclical than competetive since the introduction of the salary cap,you now have key players moving from team to team evry year based on who has cap space for them,as opposed to where they want to play,so there is little chance of seeing another "dynasty" team like the Steelers of the seventies.I would much rather the players get an opprtunity to play for one team for their entire career,the salary cap all but prevents that.


Football also only plays 16 games, resulting in many teams having a season of luck. It's very hard for an MLB team to have a "lucky" season. Football also ensures "competitive balance" by giving 5th place teams 5th place schedules.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-27-2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by daver
Baseball has had this system for thirty years now,and all of a sudden it is fundamentally wrong?

It's always money, daver. Like Billy Beane hasn't robbed our GM two or three time over already. It wasn't the will to win; it was money that made Kenny Williams dumb.

The reason Oakland can compete, but the Sox can't, is because the A's have a new publicly-financed stadium, and 100 diamond suites, and the #3 media market. Oh, wait that's the Sox, not the A's!

And the A's can't compete except for those three pennants they won in 1988-90--or before free agency in 1972-74 when Charlie O. paid them like serfs. Makes perfect sense to the "buy a pennant" crowd. The Sox can't compete, period.

And Toronto can't afford to compete now, even though they won back-to-back championships ten years ago.

And Seattle, the poster child for small market for nearly 20 years, shouldn't have a baseball team right up until Nintendo turns them into world beaters. And so on and so forth...

It boggles the mind the logical fallacies these people buy into. It's all based on mindless faith--faith in what the owners and mental-midget sportswriters tell them to think. Some people will believe anything.

voodoochile
08-27-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by daver


Baseball has had this system for thirty years now,and all of a sudden it is fundamentally wrong?

Well, the advent of cable TV has increased some teams local revenues astronomically while leaving other teams revenues basically untouched, so there has been a swing toward big market teams financially.

I personally would love to see a new system, but I don't trust the owners at all and don't think their current proposal will do anything other than "aid" the "small market" owner's wallets...

hold2dibber
08-27-2002, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


It's always money, daver. Like Billy Beane hasn't robbed our GM two or three time over already. It wasn't the will to win; it was money that made Kenny Williams dumb.

The reason Oakland can compete, but the Sox can't, is because the A's have a new publicly-financed stadium, and 100 diamond suites, and the #3 media market. Oh, wait that's the Sox, not the A's!

And the A's can't compete except for those three pennants they won in 1988-90--or before free agency in 1972-74 when Charlie O. paid them like serfs. Makes perfect sense to the "buy a pennant" crowd. The Sox can't compete, period.

And Toronto can't afford to compete now, even though they won back-to-back championships ten years ago.

And Seattle, the poster child for small market for nearly 20 years, shouldn't have a baseball team right up until Nintendo turns them into world beaters. And so on and so forth...

It boggles the mind the logical fallacies these people buy into. It's all based on mindless faith--faith in what the owners and mental-midget sportswriters tell them to think. Some people will believe anything.

But the revenue disparities between teams have increased enormously over the last decade (it is true that I do not have first hand knowledge of this fact, PHG, and have to rely upon what I hear and read; I doubt that you have first hand knowledge of these issues either, and I also do not believe there is any reason to think that all of the media is biased in favor of ownership to the extent that all info received through the media is just the parroting what the owners tell them). Surely you concede that those increasing revenue disparaties (unless you deny the existence of same) have an affect on the ability of the various organizations to compete, no?

You cannot deny that under the current system, the Yankees, with their enormous revenue streams, can afford to go out and pick up guys like Clemens, Giambi, Mussina, El Duque, Mondesi, Weaver, Rondell White, Robin Ventura, etc., etc., when teams like the A's cannot afford to keep the players they have (e.g., Giambi, Isringhausen, Damon). Are you suggesting that the only difference is that the A's owners elect to hoard their money whereas Steinbrenner elects to spend his? Or do you concede that these organizations have enormously different revenue streams and that that simple fact greatly impacts their ability to compete? Obviously money isn't the only thing that matters when it comes to fielding a competitive team - but you seem to believe that money has no impact upon an organization's ability to field a competitive team and that, IMO, is absurd.

(And, by the way, I agree with your assesment of the Sox - the reason they don't win is not because they lack money. They lack money for the same reason that they do not win - they are poorly managed. If not for a remarkable string of boneheaded decisions over the past 15 years, the Sox would have much, much higher revenue, a much bigger fan base and a much better chance to succeed on the field.)

PaleHoseGeorge
08-27-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
But the revenue disparities between teams have increased enormously over the last decade....

In absolute dollars, yes the disparity has increased. However, the more relevant measurement is the percent disparity as revenues in general have increased. After all, if we are to believe teams can't compete because of revenue disparity, it's the percent disparity, not the dollars, that are causing the trouble.

Today the percent disparity is hardly different than it was before. In fact, I've seen numbers quoted by the MLBPA that suggests the percentage of disparity has decreased in the years since the Yankees were winning everything in the 50's and 60's. That's because today, unlike in the past, low-revenue teams have more options to raise their revenue than they did before the free agency era.

Here's where the marginal value of wins comes into play--based on the truism that a winning ballclub always draws fans, and thus increases revenue. It's a fact that the value of one extra win in NYC will ALWAYS be more valuable than the same marginal win in Kansas City. Thus whoever promotes the game in NYC has built-in incentive to field a winning team--he gets more marginal return than his counterpart in KC or anyplace else.

Back in the 50's and 60's, the Kansas City Athletics had little option but to sell their talent to the Yankees (and they did in a remarkable string of one-sided deals). Building a talented team was impossible because there was no mechanism to raise revenue short of one-sided trades. The Yankees were perennial champions under this inflexible system.

Free agency SOLVES this problem. If you want to win, the answer is as simple as signing top-tier ballplayers and paying them with the added revenue your winning team now generates. This is precisely the model Jerry Colangelo followed to turn a 3 year-old expansion franchise into world champions.

Of course you have to want to win, like Colangelo, to make the model work. We Sox Fans should be so lucky...

And as for Arizona's purported financial trouble, Colangelo has categorically DENIED these charges. There were some extraordinary payments to minority partners in his ownership group--but that comes under the expense column of the balance sheet--another example of bookkeeping trickery to pocket profits while simultaneously reporting losses.

Again, I recommend reading Andrew Zimbalist's book "Baseball and Billions." I can't do the subject justice in such a small space here.

hold2dibber
08-27-2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Free agency SOLVES this problem. If you want to win, the answer is as simple as signing top-tier ballplayers and paying them with the added revenue your winning team now generates. This is precisely the model Jerry Colangelo followed to turn a 3 year-old expansion franchise into world champions.


Okay, this is off the top of my head, so I may be opening myself up to a whomping, but ...

Doesn't the above assume that the added revenue will equal or exceed the amount it will cost to add those players? An example: while the A's might have been able to practically assure themselves a World Series by re-signing Giambi and Damon, it would have cost them approximately $150 million to do it. Even if it worked and they won a World Series, would the extra revenue of doing so recoup that $150 million? I have no idea. At some point, the cost to sign free agents becomes prohibative to all but the richest teams, because for some teams, the cost exceeds the expected revenues to be gained from winning? If, as you say, the Yankees benefit more financially from winning than does K.C., and if the Yankees already have way more money to play with in the first place, the investment in player salaries is a better investment for the Yankees and, since they have more money to burn in the first place, they get to just scoop up the good guys (Giambi) while the little market teams have to tap dance and juggle and be brilliant to compete.

Daver
08-27-2002, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Okay, this is off the top of my head, so I may be opening myself up to a whomping, but ...

Doesn't the above assume that the added revenue will equal or exceed the amount it will cost to add those players? An example: while the A's might have been able to practically assure themselves a World Series by re-signing Giambi and Damon, it would have cost them approximately $150 million to do it. Even if it worked and they won a World Series, would the extra revenue of doing so recoup that $150 million? I have no idea. At some point, the cost to sign free agents becomes prohibative to all but the richest teams, because for some teams, the cost exceeds the expected revenues to be gained from winning? If, as you say, the Yankees benefit more financially from winning than does K.C., and if the Yankees already have way more money to play with in the first place, the investment in player salaries is a better investment for the Yankees and, since they have more money to burn in the first place, they get to just scoop up the good guys (Giambi) while the little market teams have to tap dance and juggle and be brilliant to compete.

Using Giambi and the A's is a bad example,he had already agreed to a long term contract to stay with them for less money,and the A's denied his request for a no trade clause.The Yankees were really the only team that went after him in FA.

cornball
08-27-2002, 06:37 PM
Hal and Daver all i want to say is perception is reality......that said yes the 1997 agreement was extended....thru this year....still a contract agreement broken oral or written it is binding......the perception is the players are walking out or potentially going on strike....making 2.5 annually per player on average......The owners are making money too...no doubt but thats not the issue...they are not stopping the game

As a small business owner, I understand the issues...I also understand the consequences if the go on strike....and the revenues they are haggling about will be much less

If one of my employees wanted a percentage...well you know the rest.....there should be a risk in ownership of a baseball team as there is in the real world

The general perception, real or not is ......the players (right or wrong) may stop the game....the details of this current negotiation, the majority of the fans could careless about and if they do strike.....the backlash will be incredible.....perception is reality......

PaleHoseGeorge
08-27-2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Okay, this is off the top of my head, so I may be opening myself up to a whomping, but ...

Doesn't the above assume that the added revenue will equal or exceed the amount it will cost to add those players? An example: while the A's might have been able to practically assure themselves a World Series by re-signing Giambi and Damon, it would have cost them approximately $150 million to do it. Even if it worked and they won a World Series, would the extra revenue of doing so recoup that $150 million? I have no idea. At some point, the cost to sign free agents becomes prohibative to all but the richest teams, because for some teams, the cost exceeds the expected revenues to be gained from winning? If, as you say, the Yankees benefit more financially from winning than does K.C., and if the Yankees already have way more money to play with in the first place, the investment in player salaries is a better investment for the Yankees and, since they have more money to burn in the first place, they get to just scoop up the good guys (Giambi) while the little market teams have to tap dance and juggle and be brilliant to compete.

I think you're on to a very important point.

Yes, there is a point where the marginal costs of adding ballplayers will no longer equal the marginal revenue their presence adds to your team. However, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE any of the MLB teams have reached this point. To the contrary, franchise values continue to spiral upwards. In fact, the ones that have spiraled upward the fastest are the ones with the highest paid ballplayers, too.

Again, just because you and I can't figure out why the next owner of the Twins would pay four-times what Carl Pohlad paid for the team, doesn't mean it isn't worth precisely what the new owner willingly forks over for it.

I have no doubt that curbing players' salaries will make operating a baseball team far more profitable for the current set of owners. Frankly, it's impossible for a luxury tax to not have this effect.

But that's not the question, is it? The question is how to make all teams more competitive. That's a far different agenda than what the owners are pursuing in their negotiating stance with the MLBPA.

Again, read Zimbalist. For a more lively, readable treatment (and less scholarly), read John Helyar's Lords of the Realm.

Daver
08-27-2002, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Hal and Daver all i want to say is perception is reality......that said yes the 1997 agreement was extended....thru this year....still a contract agreement broken oral or written it is binding......the perception is the players are walking out or potentially going on strike....making 2.5 annually per player on average......The owners are making money too...no doubt but thats not the issue...they are not stopping the game

As a small business owner, I understand the issues...I also understand the consequences if the go on strike....and the revenues they are haggling about will be much less

If one of my employees wanted a percentage...well you know the rest.....there should be a risk in ownership of a baseball team as there is in the real world

The general perception, real or not is ......the players (right or wrong) may stop the game....the details of this current negotiation, the majority of the fans could careless about and if they do strike.....the backlash will be incredible.....perception is reality......

The extension was not an oral contract,it was an agreement to start the season while negotiations continued,those negotiations have not gone well and has led to this.

Obviously your perception,and that of the major media,differs from mine,I base my perception on facts and not media created perceptions that are designed to sell newspapers and sound good on TV.

Paulwny
08-27-2002, 07:00 PM
The cable inequity will get worse. I heard this today on WFAN out of NYC. King George and his yes network will eventually sign a deal with Cablevision (?) to broadcast games in NYC. When this occurs his total revenue is expected to approach $300 mil. He'll then be able to have a payroll of $200mil, if he wishes, and still make a healthy profit.
I don't see many teams who'll be able to out bid King George if he really wants a free agent.

Daver
08-27-2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


HA! No - I am note that naive; and I think "naive" would be a very generous term for someone who thought that! :smile:

I would like to see a system in place that would help control costs such that there would not be as much "upward pressure" on ticket prices. As I stated in my prior post, I have no clue as to how such a system would look/work (in other words, I see a problem, but I don't see the solution). But it seems like a salary cap certainly could mean less pressure to increase ticket prices.

My question to you is, if you don't think a salary cap can have any impact on helping to restore competitive balance, do you have any suggestion for a system that would do so? It seems to me that a salary cap combined with a minimum payroll requirement would help - but such a system is certainly not without its flaws either.



Sorry about the late reply,I missed this post earlier.

Doug Pappas came up with a system that works without a salary cap,and it has real possibilities,therefore no one in baseball will consider it,but you can see it here. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020816pappas.shtml)

Mathew
08-27-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by daver


Football,unlike any other pro sport shares 100 % of all revenue.

That being said,the NFL has become more cyclical than competetive since the introduction of the salary cap,you now have key players moving from team to team evry year based on who has cap space for them,as opposed to where they want to play,so there is little chance of seeing another "dynasty" team like the Steelers of the seventies.I would much rather the players get an opprtunity to play for one team for their entire career,the salary cap all but prevents that.

Steeler D is locked up for 5 years (except Lee Flowers) and the St. Louis O is also locked for 5 years, so I would expect the Ram and Steelers to be pretty solid for another half decade at least.

RedPinStripes
08-28-2002, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by daver


The extension was not an oral contract,it was an agreement to start the season while negotiations continued,those negotiations have not gone well and has led to this.

Obviously your perception,and that of the major media,differs from mine,I base my perception on facts and not media created perceptions that are designed to sell newspapers and sound good on TV.

How are you getting facts unless you're talking direct with the players? As far as I know , just about everyone here gets there "opinions" from the media.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2002, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
How are you getting facts unless you're talking direct with the players? As far as I know , just about everyone here gets there "opinions" from the media.

I completely agree. This is also the reason most sports fans are completely confused over what the issues are about and why nothing ever seems to get solved from these repeated work stoppages. The media does not speak with one voice, and we as fans are bombarded with contradicting viewpoints--many of them the most uninformed scum of all, the guys talking into a microphone or (worse) the narcissistic know-nothings that call in on the phone to sports blab radio.

I started reading on the subject over 15 years ago, mostly out of curiosity why baseball had such a huge strike back in 1981. I honestly didn't understand how baseball could have such a big strike when other sports appeared to get through their troubles relatively painlessly. I also wanted to learn more about the history of the game and the business behind the sport.

I've read not less than six different books related to the subject. Any one of them would constitute the equivalent of reading a year's worth of pointless news stories with no beginning, middle, or end.

If you feel confused over why the players strike and why the owners challenge them--over and over and over again--you won't get the answers reading Phil Rogers or watching Peter Gammons blab on TV. You have to READ BOOKS and start making some independent decisions about what others are telling you.

I happen to believe it makes you a more well-rounded person, too.

RedPinStripes
08-28-2002, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The media does not speak with one voice, and we as fans are bombarded with contradicting viewpoints--many of them the most uninformed scum of all, the guys talking into a microphone or (worse) the narcissistic know-nothings that call in on the phone to sports blab radio.



Hey! I resent that. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2002, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


Hey! I resent that. :D:

Umm... what I meant to say is "except the well-informed Sox Fans from WSI who call in to straighten out the know-nothing clods who called in before."

:)

RedPinStripes
08-28-2002, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Umm... what I meant to say is "except the well-informed Sox Fans from WSI who call in to straighten out the know-nothing clods who called in before."

:)

LOL! Well, I call in to the score about once a year . But i talk into my own microphone with random incohearant thoughts of my own. Nothing like JoeBatters does though. :D:

SI1020
08-28-2002, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I completely agree. This is also the reason most sports fans are completely confused over what the issues are about and why nothing ever seems to get solved from these repeated work stoppages. The media does not speak with one voice, and we as fans are bombarded with contradicting viewpoints--many of them the most uninformed scum of all, the guys talking into a microphone or (worse) the narcissistic know-nothings that call in on the phone to sports blab radio.

I started reading on the subject over 15 years ago, mostly out of curiosity why baseball had such a huge strike back in 1981. I honestly didn't understand how baseball could have such a big strike when other sports appeared to get through their troubles relatively painlessly. I also wanted to learn more about the history of the game and the business behind the sport.

I've read not less than six different books related to the subject. Any one of them would constitute the equivalent of reading a year's worth of pointless news stories with no beginning, middle, or end.

If you feel confused over why the players strike and why the owners challenge them--over and over and over again--you won't get the answers reading Phil Rogers or watching Peter Gammons blab on TV. You have to READ BOOKS and start making some independent decisions about what others are telling you.

I happen to believe it makes you a more well-rounded person, too. I must confess to feeling somewhat browbeaten if indirectly regarding this very hot discussion on WSI. However, after thinking it over I must thank you and Daver. The truth of the matter is that both of you came much more intellectually prepared for this argument than I did. The 1981 strike made me so mad that I more or less shut off baseball for a number of years, except of course for a brief respite to enjoy the 83 Sox. By the late 80's my kids were getting older and they wanted Dad to take them to a game every now and then. So I slowly but surely got back into the swing of things. My anger and frustration as a lowly fan has perhaps colored my views to an extent. It would be hard for me to imagine anyone more cynical about all forms of the American media than I am. To say that the owners are a distasteful bunch would be putting it mildly. Some of us still find problems with the game today other than those created by the venal owners and their media lackeys. Still thanks again to you and Daver for the insights and the info. You have both altered and hightened my perspective on this matter despite some differences that still remain.

Daver
08-28-2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by SI1020
I must confess to feeling somewhat browbeaten if indirectly regarding this very hot discussion on WSI.

I apologize if you feel browbeaten by me,as that was not my intention,my intention was to bring out a few points to all those that are blaming the players for a work stoppage,when it is in fact the owners holding the bag.I don't apologize with siding with the MLBPA though,given the choice between them and the owners it is a pretty easy choice for me,and I do think some remedy to competetive balance needs to be acheived,but I wouldn't trust the owners or their lawyers to come up with a workable plan,nor do I think that it need have a salary cap.

RedPinStripes
08-28-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by daver


I apologize if you feel browbeaten by me,as that was not my intention,my intention was to bring out a few points to all those that are blaming the players for a work stoppage,when it is in fact the owners holding the bag.I don't apologize with siding with the MLBPA though,given the choice between them and the owners it is a pretty easy choice for me,and I do think some remedy to competetive balance needs to be acheived,but I wouldn't trust the owners or their lawyers to come up with a workable plan,nor do I think that it need have a salary cap.

That's what they taught you when you were an apprentice plumber. Screw the owners! We're the product! O oy. Here we go . :D:

Daver
08-28-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes


That's what they taught you when you were an apprentice plumber. Screw the owners! We're the product! O oy. Here we go . :D:

Trade unions don't work that way,and the MLBPA is a "union" in name only,the same as the NFLPA.

Trade unions teach you to spread a coffee break into lunch,and lunch into a half day off,get your facts straight......

:redneck

RedPinStripes
08-28-2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by daver


Trade unions don't work that way,and the MLBPA is a "union" in name only,the same as the NFLPA.

Trade unions teach you to spread a coffee break into lunch,and lunch into a half day off,get your facts straight......

:redneck

HA! :gulp:

doublem23
08-29-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by daver

Trade unions teach you to spread a coffee break into lunch,and lunch into a half day off,get your facts straight......

:redneck

Is anyone else confused that this is in teal, too? :?:

LOL

:)

Mathew
08-29-2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes

Screw the owners! We're the product! O oy. Here we go . :D:

What's funny to me is that this is a direct quote from a pro hockey player I know, to which I answered, why is it not called *** ********* night in Canada instead of, hockey night in Canada?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-29-2002, 08:02 AM
I'm no friend to unions. I grew up in a house that drew its income from owning a union shop. We were beaten out of countless jobs simply because our labor costs were at least double what a non-union shop could offer. You have to trade on more than simply price when your business is put into that position. However, you lose a lot of potential business that is price sensitive. That's the way it is...

The Wall Street Journal is no friend to unions either, but so far their position has been amusement at the owners stated financial difficulties and negotiating posture.

We as a society need to be more careful about how we try to label everyone as either "pro" this or "anti" that. There is nothing ever gained by this nonsense. Those who can articulate the best argument on behalf of their position will ultimately win the day--whoever the final arbiter might be.

Come here with facts and you've got an audience ready to listen. Come here with b.s., and expect to get challenged. This isn't sports blab radio.