The strike...whos right

[Guest Shaved Bear]

I personally feel the owners are the ones that are right, and I'm expecting many of you believe this to, and here is why. First thing to take a look at is the NFL, they have the strictest salary cap, and what happens every year...different teams are always in the playoff hunt, and because players switch teams so often, people stop carnig about individual players, with several exceptions, people care more about the actual team themselves, and it is such that tickets are impossible to get for alot of your teams, because the fans are most diehard, and as a result the NFL is thought of as the best run league

Baseball, on the other hand, has the same teams every year, and while I am a Yankee fan, it is not as harsh, but it's at a point where I expect them in the World Series every year, which is not the way a sport should be run...why...the salary caps, and these people are crying rivers over luxury taxes, yet they have enough fuckin money to pay for it, baseball players that complain of this are pieces of shit that stand out as egotistical shit, the owners want things more for the fans than the players...

 

any opinions on this situation on who you favor

[Guest DrEvil]

There isn't a right and wrong side in this issue.

 

On the one side, you have billionare owners who use creative bookkeeping to garner sympathy, and can't hold their wad when one season all-star wonder hits free agency.

 

On the other side, you have millionare players who take a hardline for a salary 100 times higher than any fan could dream of making.

 

If I would pick a side in this dispute, I'd go with the owners, only because they seem genuinely interested in bringing in some fiscal sanity and parity to the league. Whereas the players only interest seems to be maintaining the status quo which is slowly killing the game off.

 

Having said that, the owners are a bunch of assholes who dug this hole and didn't bother to check how deep they were digging until the water started pouring in and they finally see the risk of drowning. I side with the owners because the players were watching all this happen and are now pissing on the owners heads to help the hole fill up sooner.

[Guest alkeiper]

Anyone who believes the owners want to change things for the fans and not their own pockets are truely naive.

 

As for the Yankees, the last two years they've been one game away from elimination before making the World Series. They've hardly been unbeatable.

 

As for the NFL comparison....tickets are in more demand because there's LESS TICKETS AVAILABLE. It's all about supply and demand. If baseball had a 16 game season, they'd sell out just as many games as the NFL does, and probably more.

 

The only reason football has different teams in the playoffs is the shortened season. Look at baseball. After 16 games, the Indians were 11-5. And I don't want to see players move every year. It's funny how people lament free agency and player movement, and then declare the NFL the optimum system.

 

As for the strike itself, neither are "right." It's simply a process of negotiation. The players have to give the owners an incentive to offer a deal, or else they'd lose all their negotiating power, and they'd be back to the reserve clause and legalized slavery.

[Guest DrTom]

There is no "right" side here. The owners are the lesser of two evils, since they actually seem to want to curtail baseball's runaway economic situation. Why they want to do it really isn't important, as long as it happens.

 

Honestly, I wish they'd hold out for a soft salary cap (more like the NBA's than the NFL's) and real revenue sharing. If there's a work stoppage, there's a work stoppage. The best thing that could happen to baseball is for it to go away for about a year. Let's kill the rest of this season and all of next season. Then everyone -- owners, players, and especially fans -- will have a much better and more honest perspective on the GAME.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

What right does the union have in saying how much money the owners give to other teams?

 

I side with the owners. Rather it's directly or not, there proposal might help baseball.

 

The argument that the Yankees are being punished is ridiculous. They can still go over. Chances are they will. But it might stop Steinbrenner from overpaying for players like White and Karsay when only about 6 teams in the entire league can afford to give Rondell White 6 million or whatever he makes.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'm only now starting to really understand what all this economic mumbo jumbo means, and the more I understand about it... actually I'm still baffled.

 

Since it isn't an owner strike, I'm siding with them. You hear every owner wishing there isn't a stoppage, but the players with the exception of only a few notable names, remain mum on the issue, as if it doesn't bother them.

 

To think, we were worried about steroids!

 

Fo sheez,

Kotzenjunge

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Anyone who believes the owners want to change things for the fans and not their own pockets are truely naive.

 

Absolutely, but it doesn't matter too much. What the owners want will benefit the fans, whether that is the intention or not.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I used to be a pro-owner guy years ago in school, but then I got into the real world and had to work for a living. Nowadays, I really don't care. If these two groups can't split up this billion-dollar pie then let them get what's coming to them in terms of fan backlash...

[Guest alkeiper]

Absolutely, but it doesn't matter too much. What the owners want will benefit the fans, whether that is the intention or not.

 

How so? Will they lower ticket prices? Concession prices? Will they fire the front office staff of the Royals? Will they oust Selig as commissioner?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Absolutely, but it doesn't matter too much. What the owners want will benefit the fans, whether that is the intention or not.

 

How so? Will they lower ticket prices? Concession prices? Will they fire the front office staff of the Royals? Will they oust Selig as commissioner?

Explain to me how the owner's plan isn't better for the game?

[Guest alkeiper]

The owner's plan is different from what they want, so its hard to pinpoint exactly what their plan is. Right now, their plan is the same as the players, with debates on the amount of money involved. I still question the owners motives. Look at the Twins. They said the Twins couldn't be competitive within the system. Then they started winning. So Selig came out and said it didn't matter if they won or not, since they couldn't make money.

 

If the owners REALLY care so much for the game, why do they set ticket prices so high? Why do they regularly schedule playoff games that start after 9 in the evening? Why don't they properly market the game? All these things would improve baseball immensly, and would require *gasp* NO approval from the players' union.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

If the owners REALLY care so much for the game, why do they set ticket prices so high?

 

Fun fact #1: Most ballparks have tickets in the nosebleed section that cost you less than $10. I think bleacher seats at Yankee Stadium cost eight bucks, andf I bet that's higher than most other parks' cheap seats. So, if you really don't mind where you sit, you're fine.

 

Fun fact #2: Major league owners don't need to make sure that everyone can afford to go to a ballgame - they only need enough people to maximize their revenue. I'd much rather sell 30,000 tickets at $30 each than sell out my 50,000 seat stadium at $10 each.

 

Why do they regularly schedule playoff games that start after 9 in the evening?

 

Because major league baseball wants to make sure that the West Coast is home from work before they start their games. Sure it's late here on the East Coast, but if the games started at 7:30, anyone with a 9-to-5 job in Phoenix or Seattle or LA is going to miss 3 or 4 innings. You'd rather start later, and make sure everybody watches the game from the beginning, because you'd think the games are going to be exciting enough to make the East Coasters stay up past their usual bedtime.

 

Why don't they properly market the game?

 

Because the owners aren't centralized. Major league baseball is not a giant, singular entity like the NFL is right now. Each team's profits are based on how well they can sell tickets and merchandise right now. If the Yankees make $300 million a year in revenue, that's basically theirs to play with (tiny amount of revenue sharing aside). Therefore, if the Mets get no cut of the Yankees' revenue, why should they advertise the Yankees' stars? And to me, it's that kind of sweeping, singular marketing strategy that would work for MLB. But it can't happen, simply because of the way baseball is set up.

 

Anyway ...

 

We all know the owners are dirtbags. We know their books are crooked. We know that they don't give a shit about the fans. We know that the owners are begging to completely restructure the system so they can control the game with an iron fist. But the owners know that can;t happen. What the owners have on the table now is a ridiculously soft proposal, in my opinion at least. C'mon, setting a luxury tax of $100 million or whatever? The NFL's salary cap is at around $80 million, and they've gotta pay twice as many players. The average MLB salary is over two million dollars. AVERAGE. Is there something unfair about wanting to keep that number there? I don't think so.

 

I bet, though, they could get a deal done if the owners added Bud Selig's resignation to the negotiations.

 

LUNATIC

-Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think the wrong side is BUD SELIG.....he needs to grow a pair of testicles and step in and do SOMETHING.....he is horrid

[Guest DrTom]

The NFL's salary cap is at around $80 million, and they've gotta pay twice as many players. The average MLB salary is over two million dollars. AVERAGE. Is there something unfair about wanting to keep that number there? I don't think so.

I don't think so, either. (BTW, I think the average salary is closer to $3 million than $2 million, but that figure really isn't the issue.) The problem is, anything the owners do that doesn't guarantee that player salaries will continue to spiral out of control will be vetoed by the players' union. All they want to do is keep getting absurd contracts. Never mind that it's harmful to the game's economic health; damnit, they want to get PAID. I have no sympathy for people who make more in two weeks than I do in a year wanting more and more and more.

 

I don't think a hard salary cap like the NFL's is the ideal solution, though. That forces parity, but absolute parity is pretty boring. You know a team's going to be good for 3-5 years, then dismantle because of salar concerns, spend a few years building again, be good for another 3-5 years, lather, rinse, repeat. It's not a very interesting cycle. A level playing field rewards mediocrity and tells perennially shitty and mismanaged franchises like Tampa Bay and Kansas City that it's OK to be clueless and to continue to put sucky teams on the field.

 

A "soft" salary cap like the NBA's is probably the way to go. Set it at a reasonable number, because, like you said, north of $100 million is ridiculoudly high. It's probably best to tie the salary cap to overall revenues, but let's say it works out to about $85 million. There also needs to be a better revenue sharing system in place. MLB should implement something similar to the "Larry Bird exemption" and allow teams to re-sign their own free agents for half the cap hit it would normally cost.

 

And ticket prices really aren't the issue. An $8 cheap seat is all well and good. The problem comes when you spend $10 to park, $5 for a hot dog, $4.50 for a soda, $6 for a beer, etc. The ticket might be cheap, but add in parking and a couple of snacks/beverages and you're still dropping $40 on the ballgame. Ticket prices are only part of the equation. Besides, it's not like the prices will come down if financial restrictions are imposed. Once the owners get our money, they won't be too eager to give it back.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The owner's plan is different from what they want, so its hard to pinpoint exactly what their plan is. Right now, their plan is the same as the players, with debates on the amount of money involved. I still question the owners motives. Look at the Twins. They said the Twins couldn't be competitive within the system. Then they started winning. So Selig came out and said it didn't matter if they won or not, since they couldn't make money.

 

If the owners REALLY care so much for the game, why do they set ticket prices so high? Why do they regularly schedule playoff games that start after 9 in the evening? Why don't they properly market the game? All these things would improve baseball immensly, and would require *gasp* NO approval from the players' union.

The players union allowing MLB to do anything without their approval. Well there's a first for everything.

 

The Twins and A's are competive but in the postseason the big market teams end up winning in the end.

 

I say get Selig out. He had underhanded dealings with Pohlad, the Expos, Marlins, and Red Sox.

 

Be honest about how much money you lost. I only know that Mr.Burns claims the Twins will lose 20 million even if they make it all the way to game 7 of the World Series.

 

The union and mlb may have both set plans for revenue sharing and a luxury tax, the problem is the players proposal doesn't really change anything. Know it looks like the owners have lowered there revenue sharing plan, so maybe they will reach a comprise this week.

 

The bottom line both sides will need to compromise to get something done.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

To be fair there is a lot more than the salary cap that causes all the player movement in the NFL. You have to remember that careers are simply much shorter in football than in baseball. Marshall Faulk is the best player in football right now, yet he only has about 2 or 3 years left in the game. Besides, the same thing is happening now in MLB anyways. The problem with teams like A's & Twins are not that they can't be good. Its that they can't keep them that way, for all their players will jump to the Yankees when their contracts are up.

[Guest alkeiper]

Its that they can't keep them that way, for all their players will jump to the Yankees when their contracts are up.

 

So the Yankees get high priced players on the wrong side of 30 and the small market teams get a mess of draft picks. What's the problem? That's how the A's and Twins got good in the first place.

[Guest Chuck Woolery]

But the problem there, Alkeiper, is that the A's and Twins will get good, but they can't stay good because the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. will simply take all of the former draft picks that made the Twins and A's good in the first place. Giambi is only the first, but when Hunter, Mulder, etc.'s contracts come up, do you really think they won't fly for more money? I do.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

(BTW, I think the average salary is closer to $3 million than $2 million, but that figure really isn't the issue.)

 

Well, then we'll call it $2.5 million. That should make everyone happy. Hey, how about that? A compromise in a thread about the baseball strike! Ironic.

 

Never mind that it's harmful to the game's economic health; damnit, they want to get PAID. I have no sympathy for people who make more in two weeks than I do in a year wanting more and more and more.

 

It's a power thing, too. I mean, the players can't be THAT naive about their situation. But I think that the players know they haven't given the owners jack shit in the past thirty years, and I think they're kinda scared to give concessions now. They'd hate to have the union lose power under their watch, and that's why they're playing hardball about the figures. They're just trying to show everyone - including themselves - that they're still in charge.

 

I don't think a hard salary cap like the NFL's is the ideal solution, though. That forces parity, but absolute parity is pretty boring. You know a team's going to be good for 3-5 years, then dismantle because of salar concerns, spend a few years building again, be good for another 3-5 years, lather, rinse, repeat. It's not a very interesting cycle. A level playing field rewards mediocrity and tells perennially shitty and mismanaged franchises like Tampa Bay and Kansas City that it's OK to be clueless and to continue to put sucky teams on the field.

 

Well, parity is great when your team isn't doing so well, but it sucks when your team is. And I don't think the salary cap's been in place long enough for us to know for sure that teams can't be contenders every year. I mean, the cap dismantled teams like the 49ers and the Ravens, but there are teams out there like the Rams, who don't really look to be in any long-term cap trouble, or the Bears and Eagles, who seem to have developed a younger core of stars to build on and around. I'm not ready to give up on a team being good for a long time just yet. NFL clubs have only had, what, 8 years to figure the salary cap out? That's not a whole lot of time, especially for a team that inherited salary cap problems from the get-go.

 

There also needs to be a better revenue sharing system in place. MLB should implement something similar to the "Larry Bird exemption" and allow teams to re-sign their own free agents for half the cap hit it would normally cost.

 

I wish the NFL would pick up something similar. Being able to keep your stars is the only problem the NFL really faces right now.

 

The ticket might be cheap, but add in parking and a couple of snacks/beverages and you're still dropping $40 on the ballgame.

 

Well, it's not like Major League Baseball thought of ludicrous concession prices. I like to call it the "Disneyland Theory of Price Gouging." And there are tons of events all over the place that do that, including the NFL, NBA, most concerts, amusement parks, and generally anywhere else you have to buy a ticket. Besides, you don't NEED to buy concessions to watch a baseball game. I know you might WANT to, but you don't really NEED to.

 

Marshall Faulk is the best player in football right now, yet he only has about 2 or 3 years left in the game.

 

Faulk's only 29. I could certainly see him playing another five years, given his conditioning program and the fact that he's only missed seven games in his eight-year career. As long as his knees hold up on that turf.

 

So the Yankees get high priced players on the wrong side of 30 and the small market teams get a mess of draft picks. What's the problem?

 

Well, the problem is it takes 3-5 years for a major league baseball prospect to fully develop into the player he could/should be, barring a few glaring exceptions. Also, most players nowadays can play a low-impact game like baseball until they're forty without a significant dropoff. For example, Barry Bonds is the best hitter in the game right now, and he turned 38 years old this year. Bonds broke into the league at age 21, but it took him until he was 25 to really hit his stride and become the marquee player he is right now. For the four years previous to 1990, he hit .255 with 84 homeruns and only 233 RBIs, or about 56 ribbies a year. Since then, the only time he's hit below .290 is 1999 (when he was hurt) and he has had ten 100+ RBI seasons.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.

[Guest DrTom]

But I think that the players know they haven't given the owners jack shit in the past thirty years, and I think they're kinda scared to give concessions now. They'd hate to have the union lose power under their watch, and that's why they're playing hardball about the figures. They're just trying to show everyone - including themselves - that they're still in charge.

Not that they should be in charge, but that's basically how it's turned out. Of course the players don't want to give in -- Don Fehr and the media have done a god job of painting this a "labor war," and the players don't want to be the losing troops. I'm sure they're also expecting the owners to cave at some point, since history shows that they will. Personally, I don't think they're taking nearly a hard enough line. Selig might be a consensus builder, but he would have been better off listening to the hardline owners and practicing gunboat diplomacy from the beginning.

 

Well, parity is great when your team isn't doing so well, but it sucks when your team is.

I'm not a fan of it no matter what. Sports tend to be cyclical anyway, in terms of which teams are on the top and on the bottom, and artificially forcing it and speeding it up isn't my bag. My big gripe here is that a completely level playing field rewards mediocrity and punishes success and achievement.

 

Besides, you don't NEED to buy concessions to watch a baseball game. I know you might WANT to, but you don't really NEED to.

Of course you don't. But saying the owners aren't anti-fan because the nosebleed seats are cheap, while every fan is getting bent over with no Vaseline at the concession stands, is really kind of pointless. I understand that owners have to make money, but it's obvious to me that they are, at least the vast majority of them.

 

Barry Bonds is the best hitter in the game right now, and he turned 38 years old this year. Bonds broke into the league at age 21, but it took him until he was 25 to really hit his stride and become the marquee player he is right now. For the four years previous to 1990, he hit .255 with 84 homeruns and only 233 RBIs, or about 56 ribbies a year.

To be fair, Bonds did come into the league as a leadoff hitter, before his power skills emerged. The point remains, though: a lot of players are very productive for a good many years on the "wrong" side of 30, while a top draft pick, if he pans out at all, is usually 3-5 years away from making any impact at all. The MLB had something like the Bird exemption in place, teams could afford to keep their players (and I agree that the NFL would benefit tremendously from that, as well). Giambi would still be with the A's, and his $17 million per year would only count as $8.5 against the A's cap.

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

My big gripe here is that a completely level playing field rewards mediocrity and punishes success and achievement.

 

Well, sorta. It's not "rewarding mediocrity", per se, it's more "playing to your strengths". My favorite example is my oh-so-infuriating Redskins. Last year, the Schottemheimers tried to throw the ball all over the place when they had no quarterback and unproven receivers. And that led to an 0 and 5 start. After that, when the Redskins began running the football thirty to forty times a game, they won 8 of their next 11. It's all about finding out what you do well, and doing it. The Patriots blitz from everywhere and try to sustain ofensive drives by running the ball and passing short for first downs. the Rams look for the big play every time they touch the ball. The Eagles play stellar pass defense and let Donovan McNabb make plays on offense. And as long as you can keep doing what you do well, you'll win ballgames.

 

But saying the owners aren't anti-fan because the nosebleed seats are cheap, while every fan is getting bent over with no Vaseline at the concession stands, is really kind of pointless.

 

I didn't mean for what I said to sound like I think the owners are angels for letting fans have the shitty seats for a lower price. I mean to say that the owners aren't devils for charging more money for the good seats. If you really want to, and if you can smuggle a couple Pabst Blue Ribbons on the subway, you can have a good time at the ballpark without tearing a hole in your wallet. So charging $50 for front row seats isn't a huge deal, because you can still go to the game without paying $50 for a seat. Ticket prices are going to be that high as long as owners can sell enough tickets to keep their revenue high - basic economics, really. There are TONS of things that you can hate owners for, but hating owners for "high ticket prices" is just as pointless as defending them for the whole nosebleed-Vaseline thing you said before.

 

LUNATIC

- Pimpin' ho's and clockin' a grip like my name was Dolemite.