PDA

View Full Version : and so it begins


bestkosher
11-13-2003, 10:05 AM
reading the posts on here, i am getting the feeling the sox and many other teams are not going to resign any big names in the near future, why....the new "we are taking control plan" is taking effect from the owners....the owners after years and years of having to pay out big bucks have finally wisened up. All these big names who want to shop, will be forced to look into onlya few designer stores, that have little openings.i.e Yankees, Los Angleles, and CUBS. Is this where the players will be truly forced to choose between loyalty and money. Many may jump out there but be forced t ocome back home, or sign for jsut a little more than average, if that happens then you just may see a ressuregence of players staying around longer times with teams, or at least less powerful agents, see Scott Boras. So maybe it is not jsut the whtiesox being cheap, but owners standing up and saying, You had your big contract now its our turn.

duke of dorwood
11-13-2003, 10:11 AM
There's always one owner that caves in, then the money flood begins.

Jerko
11-13-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by bestkosher
reading the posts on here, i am getting the feeling the sox and many other teams are not going to resign any big names in the near future, why....the new "we are taking control plan" is taking effect from the owners....the owners after years and years of having to pay out big bucks have finally wisened up. All these big names who want to shop, will be forced to look into onlya few designer stores, that have little openings.i.e Yankees, Los Angleles, and CUBS. Is this where the players will be truly forced to choose between loyalty and money. Many may jump out there but be forced t ocome back home, or sign for jsut a little more than average, if that happens then you just may see a ressuregence of players staying around longer times with teams, or at least less powerful agents, see Scott Boras. So maybe it is not jsut the whtiesox being cheap, but owners standing up and saying, You had your big contract now its our turn.


Sooner or later though the players will cry "collusion" and then this whole big mess will start all over again.

CubKilla
11-13-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
There's always one owner that caves in, then the money flood begins.

Exactly. Wait'll Steinbrenner gets off his butt and starts overpaying for the players he wants. Steinbrenner is definitely one of this offseason's wild cards for the owners onboard to NOT overpay for players.

bestkosher
11-13-2003, 11:21 AM
even if one team caves in with all the other teams sayng no, it is liek the stock market, if you only have a few goods tocks everyone gets worried about buying. everyone just holds on to what they are sure of and cuts their losses, many teams are slashing payroll like the brewers, and becasue of this many teams will be sitting back on what they invested in and letting big names go and have their money and look for their gold rush, and finding only a few mines to dig from. Even the agents will be fighting over each other. so the bargain players may make a little more, but the big names will have to settle

Lip Man 1
11-13-2003, 01:34 PM
In my opinion it's no coincedence that Proud To Be Your Bud Selig is stepping down as soon as the current labor agreement ends.

I think you are going to see a repeat of 1994 what with cries of collusion, no MLBPA rights as far as contraction is concerned and owners like Uncle Jerry still with their made desire to break the players union.

It's going to get ugly.

Lip

soxtalker
11-13-2003, 02:05 PM
How does it change the union's case for collusion if there are indeed three or four teams who are still paying a lot more for players?

cornball
11-13-2003, 03:16 PM
It is a shame they can't impose a salary cap, like every other sport.

And a floor for our owner.

Daver
11-13-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
How does it change the union's case for collusion if there are indeed three or four teams who are still paying a lot more for players?

Because in order to prove collusion they have to be able to prove that it is league-wide,something that is impossible for them to do right now,because of the signings of high contracts from the last two seasons in a down FA market.The MLBPA can't have it both ways.

Daver
11-13-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
In my opinion it's no coincedence that Proud To Be Your Bud Selig is stepping down as soon as the current labor agreement ends.

I think you are going to see a repeat of 1994 what with cries of collusion, no MLBPA rights as far as contraction is concerned and owners like Uncle Jerry still with their made desire to break the players union.

It's going to get ugly.

Lip

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that Bud does not step down until a new CBA is acheived,by whatever means it takes to achieve it.

And it will be ugly.

MarkEdward
11-13-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by cornball
It is a shame they can't impose a salary cap, like every other sport.


Because low payroll teams just can't compete!

Sorry, guys, I'll stop...

Daver
11-13-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by cornball
It is a shame they can't impose a salary cap, like every other sport.

And a floor for our owner.

Unless they are going to follow the NFL and impose 100 % shared revenue the only thing a salary cap will accomplish is guaranteeing the owners profit margin,nothing more,nothing less.

How is a salary cap going to help the Expos? Will it sell any seats for them? Will it make the product they put on the field any better?

If they aren't paying the payroll to begin with they gain nothing.

SpringfldFan
11-14-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Daver


How is a salary cap going to help the Expos? Will it sell any seats for them? Will it make the product they put on the field any better?


It would make the product on the field better, wouldn't it? Assume a salary cap were implemented and it was the same as what the Expos' payroll is now. The expos can then afford to have the players any other team could afford. Granted, the cap would not be that low but the logic is the same and it would help the "poor" teams at least begin to close the gap.

To be specific: With a cap, The Yankees would not be able to afford Ordonez at 14 mil. Heck, without unloading some players themselves, they wouldn't be able to afford him for a nickel.......but Montreal could!

The example is exaggerated, but it illustrates my point.

cwsox
11-14-2003, 02:36 PM
I'd just as soon not have a salary cap. The current luxury tax is ok, but among other things with salary caps pointed out, look at the sports that have it. All kinds of roster moves are dictated by the caps and it gets even more complex to follow. The last 2 world series have been won by teams with lower payrolls and the Evil Empire hasn't won the last 3 and I didn't see the Braves get past the 1st round either so it can be done without a salary cap by a lower payroll team.