PDA

View Full Version : Interesting


Daver
01-13-2002, 11:28 PM
Do the owners really think this will solve the problem?

http://www.sportingnews.com/baseball/articles/20020113/374595.html

nut_stock
01-14-2002, 12:09 AM
thanks for the link Daver. If you look at this offseason (so far), a major increase in Revenue sharing may actually benefit the players. The article mentions how Bonds only got 1 offer (arbitration by the Giants), and that most of the teams are out of the bidding race for free agents before the race begins. When's the last time KC shelled out some money on a top tier free agent? (Knoblach doesn't count)

Nellie_Fox
01-14-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock
The article mentions how Bonds only got 1 offer (arbitration by the Giants), and that most of the teams are out of the bidding race for free agents before the race begins
Maybe because he was looking for a five year contract at an insane amount of money at an age when most players are starting to polish up their golf clubs? How many believe that he'll still be productive five years from now? Skills go away fast at that age.

voodoochile
01-14-2002, 01:08 AM
This is a huge start toward eliminating the inequities in MLB, IMO. The article I read in the Tribune pointed out that the luxury tax that most "experts" thought would work would be $80 million. The owners are in effect saying that they are willing to go well above that figure. If they honestly do split up all the local revenue 50/50 then at least the playing field will be leveled. Then the next step it to force teams to spend a minimum amount of money (say $50 million). That means less FA's go to the Yankees and more to the likes of the Royals and Twins.

Now it is up to the players to realize they will look like idiots and greedy asses if they don't accept the proposal.

Owners finally get serious about revenue sharing... How can that be a bad thing?

Nellie_Fox
01-14-2002, 01:31 AM
A salary floor will stop the Carl Pohlads of the world from taking the "luxury tax" cash and stuffing it in their pockets.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-14-2002, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
A salary floor will stop the Carl Pohlads of the world from taking the "luxury tax" cash and stuffing it in their pockets.

Yup. It's too bad the owners felt the need to threaten the fans before they made a serious proposal to correct the problems they created themselves with inequitable sharing the wealth amongst the teams. It's great they've finally gotten serious.

The devil is always in the details, so I'll wait to hear what response the union has to the owners' proposal. If the owners' proposal is all it appears to be, the players would have to chip in by accepting additional drags on the their top salaries. As someone else pointed out, the union would look like greedy bastards if they didn't make a serious counterproposal.

I would recommend the union accept payroll taxes, but not without the owners accepting a partnership agreement for managing and promoting the sport. Perhaps these two sides finally understand they need each other to thrive and survive, not unlike the motion picture studios and the actors' union need each other, too. Perhaps finally owners and players will see fit to cooperate in new ways to build their income rather than focusing on grabbing more money from one another.

What brought the owners around? I'm wondering if Selig's little perjury charade on Capitol Hill finally worried baseball's lawyers enough to grow a spine and blow the whistle on the course their knucklehead bosses were about to take?

nut_stock
01-14-2002, 09:38 PM
My guess is that the Union may give in to the increased revenue sharing but they're gonna fight to the bitter end to stop the luxury tax. It's basically a clever little salary cap.

RichH55
01-14-2002, 11:10 PM
Well this is just a starting point.....if you get a luxury tax you will have to give the players something IMO(its not like the owners are the only party to get blame here)...though wouldnt this "poor mans salary cap" be more workable with a salary floor? Just looking at posible scenarios for the talks to take

CLR01
01-15-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by nut_stock
My guess is that the Union may give in to the increased revenue sharing but they're gonna fight to the bitter end to stop the luxury tax. It's basically a clever little salary cap.


Why does the union have any say over revenue sharing?