I think Major hit the nail on the head here guys. The players are drunk on money and like most addicts, you have to admit you have a problem in order to seek help. I do see 2 differences in this situation as opposed to 1994: 1) The owners look to be ready to go the long haul with this. They know that without competitive balance they will go through this every few years until several teams fold. This would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. So maybe they's open it up for tryouts and never bring the union in again. 2) Interviews I have seen with players reps from various teams are more uncertain about a strike. In 1994 all the players were ready and rearing to have their strike. This year it is ..."ummm...I don't know that we want to do this." I think they realize what a bad idea a strike would be right now.
good observations, refman..particularly number 2 on your list...i agree...there does seem to be some hesitation in certain corners. i don't know him personally, but i'm guessing a guy like bagwell has to be a little embarassed about striking when, 1. he makes a fortune and 2. his window of opportunity on winning a world series shrinks with each passing day.
If you had someone giving you all this money, and then all of the sudden, they wanted to stop, would you be so quick in agreeing to it? I'm not saying this is right. I'm also not saying that the players are not unlike the franchises in that the rich get richer and the vast majority don't. But the point is, you people are so quick to blame the players when you're lying if you say you wouldn't have taken the money yourself, and by nature, you wouldn't be so quick to give up the money, or the chance to make that much money.
Rm95 I agree with you to a point. True, I too would probably be just as overcome with greed as the players have become. True, I would probably not be willing to just give back all this earning potential once I had gained it. Sure I'd say the same things that the players are saying about how they deserve everything they get, ect. ect. But I'm not them, and I am in a position to look at the situation and see the big picture. The players, not the owners, the PLAYERS are destroying baseball. The players, not the owners, the PLAYERS have all sold thier soul to agents. The players, not the owners, The PLAYERS care more about thier individual financial situation than competitive balance. It's that lack of balance that has striped the game of its legitimacy. Are the owners lying about how much they are making...absolutely. But what damn business is it of the players how much the owners are making? This is about reastablishing competitiveness, and to do that you need some sort of cap. This is about reastablishing trust between the game and the fan, and to do that you need drug testing. You think the players don't know this? Of course they do. They are more interested in making a couple of more million dollars though, than they are in the health of the league. They are like ticks who don't know when to stop sucking the blood out of something even though it's about to give out. And in the end, it doesn't matter if I, you, whoever would do the same thing. It's WRONG!!!
I would actually be ok with a propsed labour dispute in baseball if I felt that this time they would finally resolve the problems facing the game, and that all the owners would agree to a salary/ego cap, and revenue sharing to hold out for, but as with all of baseball's recent history, one or three short-sighted self-serving idiots will continue to destroy the game to increase their own trophy cases, and as such, I have little hope that this will be anything more than another excercise in futility/greed.
Ha, I must've missed the story about the players that put a gun to the owners' head and forced them to pay them all that money.
Ha, I must've missed the story about the players that put a gun to the owners' head and forced them to pay them all that money. In most businesses, the company can set company-wide payrates and control these things internally. They negotiate with the union as a single entity. In baseball, you have one company (MLB) negotiating with the Player's Union. However, the company is not allowed to work within itself to set market payrates or standards because there are 29 different owners - it would be collusion. Here, you basically have 29 divisons of the same company being forced to compete against each other. This ties the owners' hands. On one hand, they are a single organization in terms of trying to generate revenues and profits. On the other, they are not allowed to act like a single organization, and instead are competing against other parts of the organization as would multiple companies. From a business standpoint, that's a messed up situation to be in and it gives the employees a ridiculous amount of power. There's no doubt the current system is f#$@ed up and it's completely the owners' fault that it is so. It shouldn't be a surprise, however, that the owners would accept a prolonged work stoppage to fix it. They aren't allowed to act as a normal organization and work together outside of their labor negotiations every seven or so years. During that time, they better act as one or the system will never get fixed.
I agree Major...it's just flat out wrong and hypocrticial to blame all of MLB's problems on the players...they're both at fault.
I agree Major...it's just flat out wrong and hypocrticial to blame all of MLB's problems on the players...they're both at fault. Absolutely. Both sides got themselves into this mess, and you can't blame the players for liking it. I think the anti-players feeling is the same as the Anti-Yankees feeling. The Yankees shouldn't be blamed just because they can spend money -- they are working within the rules of the system. From a fan perspective, though, they are the embodiment of all that is evil in baseball. I think the same applies here -- the players just get the brunt of the blame because they are the ones benefitting from the current messed up system.
You're right Major, the owners do share some of the blame in this mess. They are just as responsible as the players for the problem that has been created. There is a simple solution... Salary Cap. The owners realize this fact. The players, however, see these facts don't care. They protect the system that benefits them while ignoring the fact that it is killing the game. That is why I am blaiming the players.... for their actions now.
Don't blame just the players this thing seems to be a two way street I was watching the movie Eight Men Out the BLACKSOX thing The owners screwed those players around enough to make them WANT TO cheat. . . . it seems alot of players are paranoid of the owners The owners for thier part are holding onto this golden goose call theMONOPOLY exception .. . which seems to serve notangible purposes except the ability to say they have it Why does Basketball and Football not have as MANY issues as baseball. Rocket River
It's not all that complex. The NBAPA and NFLPA are not as strong of unions as MLBPA. Both the NBA and the NFL have salary caps. A cap will go a long way to fix the problem, but the owners need revenue sharing as well. This is cure the problem on BOTH sides of the cash flow. Not that the players will agree to any of it. I honestly think that the Barry Bondses of the world could care less if baseball is ever played again. they got obscenely rich off of the deal and have milked it for all its worth. They are finished with it so it can die in their opinion.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! While I agree that the players are being self-serving too, the root of the problem lies with guys like Ted Turner, George Steinbrenner, and Ruppert Murdoch who excercise no interest in anything but their own egos. The reason that the players in baseball have yet to have to give way on a salary cap is that the owners have never, repeat NEVER been able to come to a consensus on that issue, as guys like those I mentioned don't want the parity evident ( to different degrees) in the other sports. Their rationale is that they have invested greater in more valuable commodities, therefore they deserve greater returns, which is true...but only if you have only short-sighted self-interested myopia. The anti-trust exemption is resolvable if the owners ever arrive at a consensus, but as of yet egos have prevented this form happeneing. The players in baseball are absolutely no different than those in other sports, and would give in in the face of owner solidarity like those in the NFL and NBA did, but as of yet they haven't had to. What are the greater odds, that one group of a few hundred guys is remarkably different than another group of a few hundred, or that there are a few owners in baseball who would rather spend whatever it takes to fill their trophy case, the rest of the owners be damned?
I agree with JAG that the owners have never been united. That is anothing fact that makes this go around different. This time it seems that the owners realize that without a resolution that changes the basic financial structure of baseball it simply will not survive. The owners do not want to see the asset that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to become basically worthless. They seem to have a sense of urgency here.
Well people it's like this. You see, the owners rent the car and the players buy the gas. And then like the owners are steering the car but the players put the gas in so they have their foot on the gas. So then the owners see the big steep cliff on the horizon and the players just don't believe them so they keep mashing on the gas. And then the owners start swirving around to avoid the cliff so the players mash the gas even more. Did I mention the fans are in the back seat? Yes we're all going to die. This message brought to you by Kenny Smith.
''If something were to happen and there would be a work stoppage, in our careers the game would never be the same,'' Schilling said. ''I'm 35 years old. I want to play five or six more years. I don't want to play five or six more years in front of 7,000 people.'' This quote from Curt Schilling (a powerful clubhouse guy in MLB) was published on ESPN.com today. This is the type of reluctance I've been talking about.
