I don't totally disagree. And the trite thing we hear is "billionaires vs. millionaires."
The owners are, largely a faceless entity. I mean, we know who the Angelos family is but I don't know who owns the Kansas City Royals. I can't name the Padres owner. Or the Blue Jays owner. I can tell you the Lerner family owns the Nats but that's because they're in close proximity.
What I am trying to say is that the owners, from the perspective of the court of public opinion, seem to get by from facing criticism here because they're not seen every day. They're not easily identifiable to everyone and for the most part they're not on Twitter and not making statements in the media that...well, rub fans the wrong way. Meanwhile, everyone who follows baseball knows who Blake Snell, Bryce Harper and Max Scherzer are.
The other thing that the owners have going for them, I believe, is that they're probably not relying on their MLB teams as their only income stream. Many of these people have made money elsewhere which have afforded them the ability to own a sports team. Meanwhile, MLB players...this is really if for them. Some of them will find success in other avenues of life after retirement, some won't. And therefore, they are looking for their best interests and have no shame in saying so. MLB owners don't NEED to own teams to be financially successful, they already were before purchasing their teams. A lot of players need to play the game in order to lead a lifestyle they've become accustomed to.
It's unfortunate that the players don't really seem to care about the court of public opinion, that they're whining about things not being fair when there's record unemployment numbers. It's a simple concept, one that they don't seem to grasp. I don't have an issue with players salaries being what they are...I liken it to movie stars and what they make. Baseball is entertainment, other entertainers make a lot of money and baseball players should be no different.
But when it comes to the billionaires vs. millionaires...in this case, give me the billionaires. At least they're trying to move the season forward. Had they not made this proposal I get the feeling that the players would have been perfectly happy to kick up their heels and stay home all summer without saying a word. And now that the owners want to have some semblance of a season in a manner that restricts their revenue due to not being able to have fans, concessions, etc, the players are acting like taking less money for less games is a slap in the face and an insult.
Which, to people who are out of a job and are struggling to make rent and pay bills...is insulting.
I'm sure it is just this particular class of pitchers at #2. I don't think it is an organizational philosophy not to take a pitcher with a top pick, just with this class. I imagine if there was a Strasburg available, they would take him.
I agree, but option 3 is only an option IF the owners are on solid legal ground in threatening option 2. And they haven't yet proven that they are.
If the owners do so, and the players come back and make option 3 a reality, then it should be recognized by both the league and the media, that the players saved the season.
What instead will happen, is that the players will, as always, be portrayed as greedy for looking out for their financial interests when it is accepted as a given that the owner's financial interests are paramount. And every effort is being made to force the players to "compromise" before the owners have overcome their burden of proof.
I do not believe that the owners will lose more money not playing a season than playing in front of no fans while paying the players their pro-rated salaries. And even if I am wrong in that belief, I further believe that the long term prospects (and financial value) of MLB teams will be more damaged by a canceled season than by any additional amount of money the owners will lose by playing in front of no fans vs. canceling the season.
For that reason, I think the owners need to move forward with the season even if, for the first time in 25 years, they take some financial lumps.
And hey, if the players and owners have time to hammer out a whole new CBA starting with the 2022 season to avoid a strike/lockout after 2021 as part of the exchange for renegotiating the March agreement, that is fine too, but they shouldn't renegotiate financial terms for nothing if, as I believe, nothing underlying the March agreement has changed.
I am going to log out now, so no hard feelings if I don't respond to any further posts for a while. I enjoyed reading other peoples thoughts and getting my thoughts down, based on my understanding of the facts, but today is my birthday and I am going to take the rest of the day off from thinking about labor strife!
Will check back in tomorrow!