I'm Siding With The MLB Players This Time

[White 6]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Sounds like they are taking a hit if not being paid for games not played. I was pretty much salary for all but 2 or 3 years near the beginning of my working career, been sent across the country for corporate to fill in when a plant that was union was striking, walking right through picket lines to do their work. Been supervisory/Mgt, seeing both sides and mostly able to do what I thought best. Have also called my branch manager to get sent back home and made it stick, when somebody at corporate or the troubled branch was actually trying to screw their workers and using people like me to enable. You really never know (what's the skinny) in some situations until you are on the inside.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

 

[rightwinger]

Say I am a salaried employee at $50,000 a year
Because of a shutdown, I only work half the hours and agree to $25,000 a year.
But then, the owner comes back and says....I didn’t make the profit I expected, so I want you to accept $18,000 a year

 

[martybegan]

Agreed, however the owners could just ask for this year's salaries to be prorated by an additional offset, flat out.

By asking to try a revenue split they are attempting to get some form of the basis for a cap into an actual agreement, even if it isn't a real cap yet.

I don't blame the owners for trying, and I don't blame the players for balking at it.

There's been collusion among the owners for the last two seasons to "rebuild" instead of paying the escalating salaries but the union can't prove it. I don't blame the owners for that....guaranteed money in the tens of million$...where is the incentive to perform? Small market teams can't compete against the Yanks and Red Sox...their TV contracts pay every cent of their costs.....tickets, caps, parking, are gravy. How is Pittsburgh or Kansas City or even Detroit supposed to compete for free agents with them? A salary-cap and DH in the NL is inevitable. But not NOW....we need sports...it's summer, baseball season.....if either side is found guilty of calling off the rest of the season, we won't forget.

It took us only 5 years or so to "forget" the last time we lost a season, and that was just purely because of $$, not with the added health concerns.

To me collusion is a useless term and concept, because short of finding a tape of a meeting with people actually conspiring to not pay past a certain point, you can't tell between people agreeing to lower their offers, or just people adjusting to the market and lowering their offers in non colluding unison.

What used to make the contracts so big was the "one dumb owner" who just threw money away at a given free agent. Now you don't see that as much.

 

[martybegan]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

 

[martybegan]

Say I am a salaried employee at $50,000 a year
Because of a shutdown, I only work half the hours and agree to $25,000 a year.
But then, the owner comes back and says....I didn’t make the profit I expected, so I want you to accept $18,000 a year

Or he could just lay you off because he can't afford to keep you onboard.

 

[jwoodie]

In baseball, owners' losses are real: Fixed expenses exceed revenue.

Player losses are only expectations: Getting $2 million instead of $4 million isn't draining their bank accounts.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

I wouldn’t either
Are the owners agreeing to a profit cap?

 

[WillPower]

It took us only 5 years or so to "forget" the last time we lost a season, and that was just purely because of $$, not with the added health concerns.

To me collusion is a useless term and concept, because short of finding a tape of a meeting with people actually conspiring to not pay past a certain point, you can't tell between people agreeing to lower their offers, or just people adjusting to the market and lowering their offers in non colluding unison.

What used to make the contracts so big was the "one dumb owner" who just threw money away at a given free agent. Now you don't see that as much.

Yep, it took the McGuire/Sosa steroids HR battle to save the game after that last strike.....baseball fans don't take kindly to being fucked with.....we are usually very traditional at least when it comes to baseball. Funny, the big spending teams usually don't win by filling their dugouts with expensive superstars and they're starting to realize that. As long as we're changing the game, I suggest we require the infielders to get their feet back on the infield dirt instead of playing "rover" in the shallow OF, so a well-struck ground ball can still result in a single. The tech-weenies are ruining the game IMO. MLB has enough statistics without burying us in the crap they're selling. I trust my eyes and savvy old scouts to find and evaluate young talent. Oh, and put the managers back in uniform instead of wearing sweatshirts and jackets. I am however in favor of computerizing balls and strikes......bad calls have been going on WAY too long with plate umpires that don't care for certain hitters or pitchers.

 

[martybegan]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

I wouldn’t either
Are the owners agreeing to a profit cap?

Why would they? The profit limitations come from the agreed upon revenue split.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

I wouldn’t either
Are the owners agreeing to a profit cap?

Why would they? The profit limitations come from the agreed upon revenue split.

Exactly why the players won’t agree.

We will share profits with you .....up to a salary cap
Then you are screwed

 

[WillPower]

In baseball, owners' losses are real: Fixed expenses exceed revenue.

Player losses are only expectations: Getting $2 million instead of $4 million isn't draining their bank accounts.

True, but players have only a few years to make their bones and deserve to since to get to The Show you have to be a very good player just to be mediocre. Every one of them was the best player on their team from little league to the Majors. The owners can afford better than the players to take a one year hit since their franchises are doubling in value every ten years on average.

 

[jwoodie]

The owners can afford better than the players to take a one year hit

From each according to his ability (to pay), to each according to his needs?

 

[WillPower]

From each according to his ability (to pay), to each according to his needs?

So you're calling me a communist for wanting some to see some baseball?

 

[WillPower]

We have a chance to break the outrageous salaries and costs to experience sports. With cable TV reforms this will go a long way to making things more affordable to people as they once were.

So true. The average working-stiff is looking at $100 to take his wife and a couple squirts to an MLB game. When I was a kid you could get a bleacher seat for a dollar and a couple more dollars for dogs and a Coke. Reserved seats were $6 but worth it because you could hassle enemy players up close and personal and hear them swear at the umps. These days a regular Joe can maybe afford two games a year...that's crazy. Nothing like thousands of screaming fans doing the "wave" and having a ball at the ballpark. Who in their right mind pays $8 for a bottle of beer????

 

[martybegan]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

I wouldn’t either
Are the owners agreeing to a profit cap?

Why would they? The profit limitations come from the agreed upon revenue split.

Exactly why the players won’t agree.

We will share profits with you .....up to a salary cap
Then you are screwed

They are sharing the revenue with them, it's then up to the owners to make a profit from their share of the revenue or not.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Players are taking a financial hit. They agreed to a prorated salary which the owners signed up to.
Now, the owners want a better deal where players take more of the financial loss.

If they want the players to have a stake in the team, they should offer it.

The owners should just offer them money based on the prorated schedule WITH a deductor for the loss of gate revenue. More importantly it should just be for this year.

If they are willing to deduct for loss of gate revenue, they should offer bonuses for when gate revenue exceeds expectations

Why? This is a unique situation not caused by how bad the team is playing, or how good the team is playing.

Players don't get paid more or less normally based on gate revenue.

The owners have a valid assertion that they based the original deal on a full re-opening, not a re-opening with no fans and no gate money, or concession money, or the big profit maker, parking money.

They OWN the team and that means they are taking the risk.
When that risk pays off, they have no intention of sharing with the players.
When the risk bombs, they should not expect the players to cover their losses

They WANT to share the risk with the players via revenue sharing and a salary cap, The MLB players are the ones who don't want that.

I wouldn’t either
Are the owners agreeing to a profit cap?

Why would they? The profit limitations come from the agreed upon revenue split.

Exactly why the players won’t agree.

We will share profits with you .....up to a salary cap
Then you are screwed

They are sharing the revenue with them, it's then up to the owners to make a profit from their share of the revenue or not.

It is not profit sharing if the share is capped

 

[jwoodie]

"Exactly why the players won’t agree.

We will share profits with you .....up to a salary cap
Then you are screwed"

Then the FANS are screwed.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its not wise to break the guy that pays you your outrageous salary....

Not necessarily the best way to look at it. Players only get to play to make their money for so long. Teams can always be kept or sold clean into an owner's dying days and there is always a market. The agreement is the agreement. Who knew the owners were stupid enough to make a bad deal that paid the players for games played, when they could have forced them to take a less equitable arrangement, to where the owners could get a better more one sided, forced deal by welshing on agreements, using inherent monopoly power and basically forcing a lockout. Sounds like a good way to end up with a union to protect the players interests against monopoly power of the owners in what might be considered an unfair bargaining position, even when both sides actually need the other to make any money at all. Oh, I guess that is what has happened. Guess they will work it out, hopefully without too much further whining by the owners. Sounds like the players were willing to play for the agreement, agreed to.

Then the players should try and purchase teams.....or set themselves up in a business for when they retire...not everything has to be equal....if the players want to keep getting the ridiculous pay they are getting they should be careful not to break the owners bank....its just common sense......we all are taking financial hits right now why should the players be exempt?....

Sounds like they are taking a hit if not being paid for games not played. I was pretty much salary for all but 2 or 3 years near the beginning of my working career, been sent across the country for corporate to fill in when a plant that was union was striking, walking right through picket lines to do their work. Been supervisory/Mgt, seeing both sides and mostly able to do what I thought best. Have also called my branch manager to get sent back home and made it stick, when somebody at corporate or the troubled branch was actually trying to screw their workers and using people like me to enable. You really never know (what's the skinny) in some situations until you are on the inside.

Sorry if I fail to pity them.....

 

[22lcidw]

We have a chance to break the outrageous salaries and costs to experience sports. With cable TV reforms this will go a long way to making things more affordable to people as they once were.

So true. The average working-stiff is looking at $100 to take his wife and a couple squirts to an MLB game. When I was a kid you could get a bleacher seat for a dollar and a couple more dollars for dogs and a Coke. Reserved seats were $6 but worth it because you could hassle enemy players up close and personal and hear them swear at the umps. These days a regular Joe can maybe afford two games a year...that's crazy. Nothing like thousands of screaming fans doing the "wave" and having a ball at the ballpark. Who in their right mind pays $8 for a bottle of beer????

The first thing is.. the economy needs to restart. If people can not afford sports at any level, that is going to affect it. If people can not afford cable TV that also will affect it. I harp on cable TV because it is a pure cash cow. I understand the added channels to prime basic channels. But the nickel and diming adds up. The over 20 minutes of commercials per hour of programming is no bargain either.