MLB Heading To A Lockout

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by rats60

Lol. Miami is the 8th largest Metro area in the US. St Louis is a medium market. KC is the only small market team to win since Minnesota in 1991. The bottom third has almost no chance to win and winning a championship is all that matters. Do you think the Yankees are happy just making the playoffs? Dodgers? Cardinals just fired their manager.

This article says Miami is the 18th largest tv market size of the big four sports:
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba...elsen-ratings/

Anyway, when discussing a team's market size, we are in large part discussing the historic size of its costumer base -- a team can be in a large metro area but only attract a relatively small percentage of potential costumers relative to other teams.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Raleigh504

To me, the big signings (Harper, Trout, Lindor, etc) are not always about winning, but selling tickets/marketing. When you get one of the players that is the face of MLB, it helps sell tickets or at least raise the ticket costs.

Yes analytics are saying younger cheap players since they don't win games, but I am sure at one point with these star players, the team used them for marketing, increase ticket prices, sold merchandise, etc.

Yes, that's true. But for every Trout, Harper and Lindor, you have Acuna, Tatis and Robert signed pre arbitration and marketed as the face of the franchise.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

The white Sox have tried to beat this by signing key players to long term deals that buy out the arbitration years. Luis Robert made 2 million dollars this year, but in five years is already slated for 20 million.

But the point of signing Robert to a long-term deal at a young age is to lock up his prime free-agent years without having to pay for his decline years -- his 30s.

So paying $20 million for Robert's late 20s is a bargain if he stays healthy and productive. And according to baseball reference, Robert's age 28 and 29 seasons are both team option years at $20 million with a $2 million buyout for each.

[fabiani12333]

With regards to market size: team revenue is often used as a proxy for market size of a team.

The problem with this is, teams like the Pirates and Marlins seemingly don't try to boost the revenue of their teams by trying hard to win and be more popular with fans and attract more potential costumers. They'd rather collect a steady profit and let the big payroll and market teams carry the load for the league.

So when people say small market teams don't win championships, that's partially because a number of them don't try.

The A's and Rays have been successful with the use of analytics, but they've both been campaigning for a new stadium and winning helps keep them relevant.

[jmsc]

1 month later and so are we closer to an MLB DEC 1 lockout?

Big time signings continue. I stopped all BB purchases 1-2 months ago. There is some time left till 2022 Spring Training to negotiate a deal between MLB and MLBPA. Can or will it happen?? Any thoughts, ramifications, scenarios???

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by jmsc

1 month later and so are we closer to an MLB DEC 1 lockout?

Big time signings continue. I stopped all BB purchases 1-2 months ago. There is some time left till 2022 Spring Training to negotiate a deal between MLB and MLBPA. Can or will it happen?? Any thoughts, ramifications, scenarios???

Owners will lockout the players. Players will strike on the owners. The DOW will crash, and Dogecoin will go to tha moon. Baseball will not resume until the year 2024 and Julio Franco will come out of retirement to win the MVP.

And just to be clear, this prediction is about as likely to happen as most of the other doomsday replies you will receive. Mine is more interesting though.

Baseball resumes as normal in 2022. Carry on.

[bankdawg]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Owners will lockout the players. Players will strike on the owners. The DOW will crash, and Dogecoin will go to tha moon. Baseball will not resume until the year 2024 and Julio Franco will come out of retirement to win the MVP.

And just to be clear, this prediction is about as likely to happen as most of the other doomsday replies you will receive. Mine is more interesting though.

Baseball resumes as normal in 2022. Carry on.

And Braves back to back WS Champs

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by bankdawg

And Braves back to back WS Champs

Nope, 2022 season (IF PLAYED AT ALL) will only be 3 games long. Orioles sweep their series and are crowned kings of 2022. The Montreal Expos come in a close second.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Owners will lockout the players. Players will strike on the owners. The DOW will crash, and Dogecoin will go to tha moon. Baseball will not resume until the year 2024 and Julio Franco will come out of retirement to win the MVP.

And just to be clear, this prediction is about as likely to happen as most of the other doomsday replies you will receive. Mine is more interesting though.

Baseball resumes as normal in 2022. Carry on.

Interesting.

[PLAYED4NOTHING]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Owners will lockout the players. Players will strike on the owners. The DOW will crash, and Dogecoin will go to tha moon. Baseball will not resume until the year 2024 and Julio Franco will come out of retirement to win the MVP.

And just to be clear, this prediction is about as likely to happen as most of the other doomsday replies you will receive. Mine is more interesting though.

Baseball resumes as normal in 2022. Carry on.

Thank the lord you were just yanking our chains about the Julio Franco MVP. If you were serious I was about to start loading up on his RC slabs & some Dogecoin, whatever that is……….

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Nope, 2022 season (IF PLAYED AT ALL) will only be 3 games long. Orioles sweep their series and are crowned kings of 2022. The Montreal Expos come in a close second.

O's probably swept the Halos !

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

But the point of signing Robert to a long-term deal at a young age is to lock up his prime free-agent years without having to pay for his decline years -- his 30s.

So paying $20 million for Robert's late 20s is a bargain if he stays healthy and productive. And according to baseball reference, Robert's age 28 and 29 seasons are both team option years at $20 million with a $2 million buyout for each.

The white Sox don’t like arbitration as it currently is. And the Sox brain trust is always trying to win the contract, or beat the cba if they can. And with the possibility that the next cba may include a quicker road to free agency, they locked down as much talent as they could.

Sure they could have manipulated both Jimenez and Robert’s service time, but they didn’t want the arbitration fight or worse, seeing a player pissed offmlime Bryant and the cubs.

[boxbuster7]

I said this before the covid season, but there is just too much money at stake to have a lockout. No chance it happens.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

I said this before the covid season, but there is just too much money at stake to have a lockout. No chance it happens.

Oh I disagree. There will be a lockout, but the real question is if we’ll lose regular season games over it.

We’ve never had this much activity before 12/1 on the FA market. Everyone knows there will be some sort of impasse as the contract expires.

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by boxbuster7

I said this before the covid season, but there is just too much money at stake to have a lockout. No chance it happens.

There will be a lockout, it just won't affect anything in our worlds. It will be an offseason jockeying for position for each side to get as much as they can before agreeing to a deal.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

Oh I disagree. There will be a lockout, but the real question is if we’ll lose regular season games over it.

We’ve never had this much activity before 12/1 on the FA market. Everyone knows there will be some sort of impasse as the contract expires.

Owners throwing around stupid money to say "see, we are giving players more". Players approve a new contract (at some point) for less than they could have gotten, owners laugh all the way to the bank as usual.

[JRX]

Is Manfred just watching Seinfeld for inspiration of the playoffs. Reminds me of Kramer and movie phone "why don't you just tell me who you want to play"

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by Boo

Owners throwing around stupid money to say "see, we are giving players more". Players approve a new contract (at some point) for less than they could have gotten, owners laugh all the way to the bank as usual.

Aint that the truth. The players are lucky to be able to put food on the table for their families. Max Scherzer is definitely not laughing all the way to the bank. Neither is Corey Seager. Nor Kevin Gausman. Nor etc, etc, etc. Only the owners are rich.

Maybe when AOC becomes president she will force all capitalist business owners to give away their money to their workers because life isn't fair. Oh wait, then there would be no incentive to be a business owner and our society would collapse upon itself. Maybe that isn't the best idea, and maybe the owners and players are both rich. Seems like the system is working. Some just like to point fingers because others are more successful than they are.

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Aint that the truth. The players are lucky to be able to put food on the table for their families. Max Scherzer is definitely not laughing all the way to the bank. Neither is Corey Seager. Nor Kevin Gausman. Nor etc, etc, etc. Only the owners are rich.

Maybe when AOC becomes president she will force all capitalist business owners to give away their money to their workers because life isn't fair. Oh wait, then there would be no incentive to be a business owner and our society would collapse upon itself. Maybe that isn't the best idea, and maybe the owners and players are both rich. Seems like the system is working. Some just like to point fingers because others are more successful than they are.

sir this is a sports card forum not a forum for inane right wing rambling

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Aint that the truth. The players are lucky to be able to put food on the table for their families. Max Scherzer is definitely not laughing all the way to the bank. Neither is Corey Seager. Nor Kevin Gausman. Nor etc, etc, etc. Only the owners are rich.

Maybe when AOC becomes president she will force all capitalist business owners to give away their money to their workers because life isn't fair. Oh wait, then there would be no incentive to be a business owner and our society would collapse upon itself. Maybe that isn't the best idea, and maybe the owners and players are both rich. Seems like the system is working. Some just like to point fingers because others are more successful than they are.

Seriously, As much as I love capitalism, if you want to invoke some sort of pro-owners capitalist stance on MLB, you can't do it while they have an interstate commerce exemption. It is decidedly anti-capitalism, and the owners are naturally fervently for keeping it. And they are all for it BECAUSE it greatly assists in expanding their pockets.

There are some negotiations, like say jersey sales - where there's a % that goes to the players, and a percent that goes to the owners. And in those cases you can argue for the players (it's THEIR names on the back) or the owners (THEY are paying to make the things)

Fine.

Everything else are the players wanting the opportunity to work for as much as a team is willing to offer them. And everything the owners want are creating as many barriers for teams to want to offer teams money. the arbitration years are about not paying players what they are worth in their prime. The qualifying offer tied to a draft pick makes players with a QO worth less to any FA suitors. The salary cap/luxury tax is to incentivize teams to not spend as much, and structured in such a way that it becomes necessary to make sure teams get below that mark every few years.

And players want to say "hey, I'd like to play for however much money an owner is willing to give me" with the SOLE exception of the minimum wage.

So owners, with their antitrust exemptions, push and push and push and push for structural ways in which they can suppress salaries of their employers.

And the employers say "hey, I'm not demanding money from you. I'm asking for you and I to reach an agreement without false incentives for you to offer me less."

So the players and the owners STILL have to openly agree to it. They aren't taking any money from the owners that the owners aren't openly willing to give up in order to sign them.

And yet, we still have fans like this...siding with the owners? in the name of capitalism? which the owners fight against?

It's amazing to me how many capitalists are for suppressed wages and wage ceilings, and up to a decade of employee control, between minors and majors, arbitration hearings based on previous arbitration hearings and not the free market.

Those poor owners! They can't live because those greedy players are stealing all of their money they agree to pay! Viva la free* market! Go capitalism!*

*free market and capitalism need not apply.

[base set]

One thing about “Owners” is there are many types of them. As a fan, you should hope for a Cohen / Cuban / Mike Ilitch type who can choose to just spend it like they just don’t care if they wish and have fun with it. Next most interesting to me are the “groups” - what Atlanta & Toronto do over the next year will be intriguing. One noticeably quiet over the hectic last few weeks. But I think Texas has some sort of group at the top, as does Miami now, both of whom have been in the headlines.

Then there are the 3rd type of Owners. For fans of their teams, well, sorry.

I wish all 30 teams had owners who truly compete via the trash talking while their yachts are all simultaneously anchored off Aruba come springtime. Let those guys subsidize our entertainment for a while, so I can support my team by just buying a pizza.

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by MIRRABB

sir this is a sports card forum not a forum for inane right wing rambling

You have absolutely no idea how idiotic your comment actually is. I actually think for myself and do not associate with the idiots on the right nor the idiots on the left. You are exhibit A in what is wrong with our country. You label someone based off a single opinion that person has. Not responding to your "inane left wing rambling" any further.

Originally Posted by Silent George

Seriously, As much as I love capitalism, if you want to invoke some sort of pro-owners capitalist stance on MLB, you can't do it while they have an interstate commerce exemption. It is decidedly anti-capitalism, and the owners are naturally fervently for keeping it. And they are all for it BECAUSE it greatly assists in expanding their pockets.

There are some negotiations, like say jersey sales - where there's a % that goes to the players, and a percent that goes to the owners. And in those cases you can argue for the players (it's THEIR names on the back) or the owners (THEY are paying to make the things)

Fine.

Everything else are the players wanting the opportunity to work for as much as a team is willing to offer them. And everything the owners want are creating as many barriers for teams to want to offer teams money. the arbitration years are about not paying players what they are worth in their prime. The qualifying offer tied to a draft pick makes players with a QO worth less to any FA suitors. The salary cap/luxury tax is to incentivize teams to not spend as much, and structured in such a way that it becomes necessary to make sure teams get below that mark every few years.

And players want to say "hey, I'd like to play for however much money an owner is willing to give me" with the SOLE exception of the minimum wage.

So owners, with their antitrust exemptions, push and push and push and push for structural ways in which they can suppress salaries of their employers.

And the employers say "hey, I'm not demanding money from you. I'm asking for you and I to reach an agreement without false incentives for you to offer me less."

So the players and the owners STILL have to openly agree to it. They aren't taking any money from the owners that the owners aren't openly willing to give up in order to sign them.

And yet, we still have fans like this...siding with the owners? in the name of capitalism? which the owners fight against?

It's amazing to me how many capitalists are for suppressed wages and wage ceilings, and up to a decade of employee control, between minors and majors, arbitration hearings based on previous arbitration hearings and not the free market.

Those poor owners! They can't live because those greedy players are stealing all of their money they agree to pay! Viva la free* market! Go capitalism!*

*free market and capitalism need not apply.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but just because the league is structured a certain way does not make it any less of a capitalist business. What is the goal of any/all for profit businesses? To make money. If there are loop holes in flaws in the system that they take advantage of it is as much the fault of the players as it is the owners. The current deal as agreed to by both sides. So why is one side at fault for using it to their advantage? It has nothing to do with me taking sides with ownership in MLB. It has to do with me liking the foundation our country was founded on. Answer me a couple of questions and you can see why I have my stance:

Take Max Scherzer as our newest example. If he plays for 1 single year under his contract can he live comfortably for the rest of his life if he never makes another penny? Absolutely. He can live like 99.99% of the world will never get a chance to live.

Now, lets look at the other side of the equation. If the Mets were never able to make another dollar, how long would that business last? I think all would agree that it would go under in a very fast and dramatic fashion. Don't confuse owners personal money with the business.

And here is a final point. I can keep going for days, but I know it gets nowhere. Let's say that the players "win" these negotiations and are able to stifle the profits of the owners. Some here don't want the owners to make anything. So what if they didn't make anything? Or less. Or even the same amount of profits in an inflation 2021 world we live in. What happens then? Do you think they just say "oh well"? Absolutely not.

That is the biggest mistake people make when talking about economics. They can see A. But they fail to see what A causes. There is a B, C, D, E, F, etc that follows. That is where MLB suffers. If you take money away from the owners and lessen their incentive to be owners you are going to see a lot of casualties follow. You think the owners collude now on salaries? Just wait. You think ticket prices are high now? Just wait. You think players salaries and time service are manipulated now? Just wait.

NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING good will come to the game of baseball if the owners feel like they lose these negotiations. It has to be a win-win. Which is what we have had more many years now. Are there flaws? Absolutely there are. But both sides are killing it. Both sides are making more than ever. Hence the reason why the season will progress as normal. The bickering and threats are part of the game. But the system has been working. Wander being held in the minors for a couple of extra months will not prevent a deal from happening. Playoff format will not prevent a deal from happening. DH will not prevent a deal from happening. Draft slot money will not prevent a deal from happening. All of this stuff that people say is unfixable will be agreed upon.

[Triple B]

Originally Posted by bankdawg

And Braves back to back WS Champs

Even without Freeman?

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by premium1981

I understand the point you are trying to make, but just because the league is structured a certain way does not make it any less of a capitalist business.

But it is, because it's anti-trust.

Yes, the ultimate driver of capitalism is profit, and it's what makes a business strive, but it doesn't mean that you can open a business where you pickpocket people and explain you're just engaging in capitalism. Capitalism ALSO, by literal definition, has long term positive societal impacts.

So you can't shoot every elephant today and sell it's ivory and make a profit and call it capitalism because then there aren't any elephants left. The business ends. Society is worse off. You've killed them off, and they are gone forever.

But you could, in theory, set limits, or breed elephants, or have other standards that allow elephants to continue to thrive, and also make money off the ivory.

And I realize that's not the most fun example to use, but you can use it for every single industry at some point or another.

This also goes to why we don't allow monopolies. A monopoly isn't capitalism. because the law has determined that monopolies are ultimately a bad thing for society and business.

Basically we do set up rules and structures to ensure a competitive marketplace - and that includes labor. And if you break those laws, you can be sued.

Except MLB cannot be sued. So MLB can continue to pay minor leaguers nothing, for example. They are exempt. Capitalism requires an even playing ground, and MLB is specifically outside those playing grounds. The same ones that every other major sport is on. The same grounds the supreme court ruled they should be on - but that they weren't going to enforce at that congress should do something about. It's ridiculous, but it's not capitalism. Even if they have profit as a motive - like a lot of things that have profit as a motive - it's not capitalism.

What is the goal of any/all for profit businesses? To make money. If there are loop holes in flaws in the system that they take advantage of it is as much the fault of the players as it is the owners. The current deal as agreed to by both sides. So why is one side at fault for using it to their advantage?

Years ago the players were threatening to strike mid-season, and had that happened I'd have been mad at the players. They signed up for this ride. This is totally different, these are negotiations for a new deal. The ride is over. And just like if your company decided to institute artificial ways to keep down your pay, I'd be rooting against it.

It has nothing to do with me taking sides with ownership in MLB. It has to do with me liking the foundation our country was founded on. Answer me a couple of questions and you can see why I have my stance:

Take Max Scherzer as our newest example. If he plays for 1 single year under his contract can he live comfortably for the rest of his life if he never makes another penny? Absolutely. He can live like 99.99% of the world will never get a chance to live.

This would be very close to the Obama line of believing that "at some point, you've made enough"

I do not believe that. Max earns what he should earn, as much as he wants to. He isn't stealing from anyone. He might have great, generous plans with that money. He's living his life on Earth, and as long as he doesn't infringe on anyone else's life, I have no moral authority to declare he has enough, or too much.

Now, lets look at the other side of the equation. If the Mets were never able to make another dollar, how long would that business last? I think all would agree that it would go under in a very fast and dramatic fashion. Don't confuse owners personal money with the business.

I'm not. At all. Because there is no scenario here where the Mets are never able to make another dollar. The Mets don't have to sign any free agents. They don't have to do anything but pay players the minimum agreed upon amount year after year that they signed up for. As salaries increase they CAN only increase for one reason: Because teams can afford them. If salaries were really too expensive, teams simply wouldn't be signing those contracts. No one is forcing anyone to pay Scherzer 9 billion a year, and then going under. He was offered contracts that fit within the parameters of the self imposed budgets set by those teams. That's it.

And here is a final point. I can keep going for days, but I know it gets nowhere. Let's say that the players "win" these negotiations and are able to stifle the profits of the owners. Some here don't want the owners to make anything. So what if they didn't make anything? Or less. Or even the same amount of profits in an inflation 2021 world we live in. What happens then? Do you think they just say "oh well"? Absolutely not.

First of all, if anyone was to say they want the owners to make nothing, I'd call them a moron. That's a strawman, the percent of people saying that has to be close to zero. People want more investment in their own team's, sure. We all want more investment in everything we want, but no one is stupid enough to think that zero or negative profit is a map for success.

But this isn't even close to an option here.

The Chicago Cubs would not have gone broke if not for being able to manipulate Kris Bryant's service time. The Cubs saved a little money, and Bryant lost a lot of money. That was the impact.

The set up that made Tommy Pham not get into pro-baseball until he was 18, not make a decent living until he was 27, and not actually get a say until now - when he's 34 and way too old to get a long term or lucrative deal with a team - is not done because without riding the backs of those journeymen, owners couldn't find a profit. And Tommy Pham is a SUCCESS story in this.

You could make every single player a free agent and it doesn't mean the Marlins are going out of business, or that their ownership group is going to lose money. It means they set the budget for their team. They set projections for revenue, and they operate as under their terms. Like any other business. Like capitalism works. The Marling payroll doesn't suddenly become $500 million and they get foreclosed upon. The Marlins aren't forced to pay more for labor. They choose the contracts they give out.

These limitations, like the luxury tax as it's currently laid out, is simply a way to keep a team that wants to spend more - like the Dodger's - from being able to freely give everyone $40 million a year, thus raising the going rate of other players. Then other owners grumble because they want a guy, but he costs just too darn much, so they need to implement ways they artificially don't have to spend that money. And all owners are happy. The Dodger's have great excuses to not balloon the payroll too much, the other teams don't see free agents go up in value. Everyone wins. Except the players.

But this idea of going broke is ridiculous. If you can't afford the 3 million dollar home next door, don't buy it. that was always your choice even when the housing market booms. You do not have to spend to the point of going broke. and no one is asking owners to do that. They just want incentives for not spending lifted or eased.

That is the biggest mistake people make when talking about economics. They can see A. But they fail to see what A causes. There is a B, C, D, E, F, etc that follows. That is where MLB suffers. If you take money away from the owners and lessen their incentive to be owners you are going to see a lot of casualties follow. You think the owners collude now on salaries? Just wait.

Just wait? Like the massive collusion scandal that happened in the 80s? before service time manipulation? Before luxury caps? "Hey, you better give these guys what they want or they are going to break laws again" is not valid. and we shouldn't subjected to the fear of any person getting what they want or else they punish from on high.

You think ticket prices are high now? Just wait.

Ticket prices are supply and demand. You think I'm scared of $10,000 tickets? I....won't go to the game. And the owners would be shooting themselves in the foot. This isn't happening.

You think players salaries and time service are manipulated now? Just wait.

Again, oh no! give them what they want or they are going to break rules and get sued and have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars again! Sure. Bring it on.

NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING good will come to the game of baseball if the owners feel like they lose these negotiations. It has to be a win-win. Which is what we have had more many years now.

This was the EXACT same argument used against the idea of free agency existing in the first place! The owners have felt like they've lost plenty of negotiations in the past. They've thrown out commissioners. and they've sometimes responded by cheating, and they've been punished for it.

But the idea that it's win-win is ridiculous. The players have clearly been losing the last 20 years - that's why the anger as at a fever pitch right now.

----Let me give a summary----

Besides what has been described as a small raise in the minimum wage, and unless there is a salary floor - both of which the owners offered - there is nothing in any of these negotiations that would require a team hand over a single penny more to the players.

The only reason salaries go up is because team's feel they have the money to offer a contract. It raises other's comp rates - but only if another team will PAY that comp rate. If not, it's meaningless. The teams HAVE to have money to spend money.

SALARIES CAN ONLY GO UP TO THE POINT WHERE OWNERS ARE WILLING TO PAY IT. If salaries are going to "cut into" profits, than it can ONLY happen by an owner signing off on it.

The central point to most of these things, service time, qualifying offers, luxury tax thresholds and yearly penalty jumps - is to give an excuse to a team to not spend more money on a player. It's contracted collusion. And pointing to Max Scherzer's contract as proof of the players getting enough, does a disservice to the thousands of players that would be subjected to this deal. But at it's heart it doesn't really matter if all of the players are getting Max deals. People were mad at Curt Flood too. He was getting far more than the average household income back then. He was called selfish. Out of touch. Etc. In the 70s we got warning of how free agency would ruin baseball. salaries amok. Etc. None of this ended up being true.

What remains to be true is that we each have our own talents, and we each have our prime off life to display those, and to pursue whatever opportunities we can while we can. And if your boss declines to promote you for another month, because then your pay raise and benefits would be greater in the years ahead, there's an anti-freedom immorality about it, whatever your pay rate happens to be. It's wrong. We wouldn't stand it in our own lives, whatever our situation, and so we shouldn't fault others for standing up for their own economic freedoms in theirs. Go players. Get every cent you can negotiate out of someone without having them tell you that the qualifying offer you've been ensnared in for being too good, somehow makes you worth less.

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by Silent George

words, words, words, and more words.

I was going to go point for point in response, but there is no reason for me to do that. You aren't going to change my mind, and I am not going to change your mind. I will just respond to one thing before moving on. It isn't about "giving in" to the owners as you phrased it. I realize that everyone who believes in punishing big business or the ultra rich like to twist things, but it is about what is best for everyone involved. I am not ultra rich, but I understand business and economics enough to know that as they go, so does others. It isn't about giving in to the owners demands, its about making sure they have a winning solution because its best for baseball. You can argue all you want, but that is a fact. Baseball will suffer if the owners are forced to "suffer" (and I am referencing these negotiations, not actual suffering, so please don't go off on a tangent that is irrelevant).

I love the game of baseball. I have been around enough and been through enough economic cycles to understand what works and what doesn't work. The current system works. Again, there are flaws in any system, but the current one works. After one of my posts above stating that, about 10 minutes later I turned on MLB Network and Harold Reynolds literally stated THE EXACT SAME THING. So that is coming from a player who was in the business. He said the current CBA worked, and is working.

Again, I could go on and on and counter every point you made, but that would be a waste of computer ink. I'm just glad there are people who understand business negotiating these deals instead of the majority of posters in this thread who have never run a business, nor even been in middle management and have no clue what actually works and what doesn't.

Once more, to quote Harold Reynolds now, "The current CBA works". The end, I'm moving on. I will see everyone on Opening Day. If I feel like saying I told you so on that day, then maybe I will bump the thread just for fun.