MLB Lockout Thread

[Tony-OH]

19 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There is nothing forcing owners to make every contract a long-term guaranteed deal.  Well, besides the willingness of other owners to do that.  Every owner could refuse to offer anything but a series of team options.  Few players would sign that because they know other teams would give them more security.  But there's nothing stopping owners from only offering up terms they like.

The Orioles are still paying Chris Davis because Peter Angelos and/or his sons offered him a guaranteed contract.  They could have offered him nothing and let him walk, but they didn't. 

100% true, and we know that there are owners out there like Angelos who will be played by Boros and other mega agents to go farther than they needed. However, part of this is that big market teams can offer those extra years and money because they know if the player fails, they can just write it off and get another player.

Mid and small market teams can't compete with that unless they take on significant risk.

[Aristotelian]

47 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Here’s what I think will happen:

Competitive balance tax - compromise will tilt towards owners

Miminum salary - split the baby

Bonus pool - compromise will tilt towards players

Arbitration eligibility - token increase in percentage eligible

Draft lottery - ends up at 6 teams.

Now go do it!

Frobby for mediator. Just get it done.

[bleed orange and Black]

Why can't MLB and the players agree to a " hard salary cap " like other professional sports and also implement a " hard minimum salary cap " ? As it stands now this system is without a doubt geared for your big marketing teams that have no realistic deterrent from spending far more than your smaller market teams.  Let's get some competitive balance back in baseball and not have it determined by how big your pockets are. 

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, bleed orange and Black said:

Why can't MLB and the players agree to a " hard salary cap " like other professional sports and also implement a " hard minimum salary cap " ? As it stands now this system is without a doubt geared for your big marketing teams that have no realistic deterrent from spending far more than your smaller market teams.  Let's get some competitive balance back in baseball and not have it determined by how big your pockets are. 

You're asking for the most powerful union in all of professional sports in a sport where contracts are guaranteed to accept a hard salary cap?  

For the millionth time for the people in the back, spending  a  lot  doesn't  guarantee   success

 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, bleed orange and Black said:

Why can't MLB and the players agree to a " hard salary cap " like other professional sports and also implement a " hard minimum salary cap " ? As it stands now this system is without a doubt geared for your big marketing teams that have no realistic deterrent from spending far more than your smaller market teams.  Let's get some competitive balance back in baseball and not have it determined by how big your pockets are. 

When exactly did we have more competitive balance?

When was it not an advantage to have more money?

 

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, bleed orange and Black said:

Why can't MLB and the players agree to a " hard salary cap " like other professional sports and also implement a " hard minimum salary cap " ? As it stands now this system is without a doubt geared for your big marketing teams that have no realistic deterrent from spending far more than your smaller market teams.  Let's get some competitive balance back in baseball and not have it determined by how big your pockets are. 

How do you think the Yanks were able to buy Babe Ruth?

[bleed orange and Black]

If that is the case then why are we even talking about a minimum salary cap to prevent teams from "tanking"?? As much as you say " spending doesn't guarantee success" it does help with being competitive and in turn generating $$$ for the organization. And isn't that what this entire mess is all about???

[Big Al]

22 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

When exactly did we have more competitive balance?

When was it not an advantage to have more money?

 

Who were some of the consistently competitive teams in the 70's?  Orioles, A's, Reds, Pirates and Royals.  What do they have in common.  

 

[Big Al]

51 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Frobby for mediator. Just get it done.

Frobby for commissioner.  When the commissioner job was created, the job description was to act in "the best interests of baseball".  Somewhere along the line, that has morphed into "make as much money as possible for the owners".  Those are not necessarily the same thing.  Since Selig, the commissioner has simply been a shill for the owners.  No one in power cares about the quality of the game.  Frobby would.  

[Can_of_corn]

35 minutes ago, Big Al said:

Frobby for commissioner.  When the commissioner job was created, the job description was to act in "the best interests of baseball".  Somewhere along the line, that has morphed into "make as much money as possible for the owners".  Those are not necessarily the same thing.  Since Selig, the commissioner has simply been a shill for the owners.  No one in power cares about the quality of the game.  Frobby would.  

But that was a lie.

It was a PR move.

[SteveA]

21 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But that was a lie.

It was a PR move.

I think Bart Giamatti truly cared about the best interests of baseball.

<tinfoil hat>That's probably why they had him killed</tinfoil hat>

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, SteveA said:

I think Bart Giamatti truly cared about the best interests of baseball.

 

Yea, I think they screwed up with that one. 

[Frobby]

58 minutes ago, Big Al said:

Frobby for commissioner.  When the commissioner job was created, the job description was to act in "the best interests of baseball".  Somewhere along the line, that has morphed into "make as much money as possible for the owners".  Those are not necessarily the same thing.  Since Selig, the commissioner has simply been a shill for the owners.  No one in power cares about the quality of the game.  Frobby would.  

I would gladly accept the job, even though there are millions of people more qualified.    

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Big Al said:

Who were some of the consistently competitive teams in the 70's?  Orioles, A's, Reds, Pirates and Royals.  What do they have in common.  

 

Don't forget the Yankees won two WS in the 70's.

Yes, there was a brief window in which smaller markets team did competitively better than in other times.  I don't think that was due to anything more than happenstance to be honest with you.  Overall you have the Cardinals and a bunch of major metropolitan cities that win a disproportionate amount of the time in baseball, it's always been that way.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I would gladly accept the job, even though there are millions of people more qualified.    

11 Mil a year, you won't even have to take much of a paycut.