Longgone

Yes, that's fair.

Nope

They don't consider "worth". The Tigers are presenting that a 90% salary increase is appropriate based on past history in arbitration. Boras is saying that more than tripling his salary can be justified in this case. Yes, he has to pick one or the other, but that doesn't mean his "worth" is mid range between the two.

Skubal is not going to extend. Arbitration is not necessarily based on what a player is "worth", it is based more on precedent, and what is reasonable and fair, regarding wage progression, compared to others in a similar situation who have gone before.

Then fix the huge competitive economic disparity between franchises.

The current system was fairly negotiated and is based on the premise that teams could limit player costs prior to players earning free agency. If that system is breached, and the Skubal case is an attempt to drastically raise the bar for future arbitration cases, then the system is broken.

I think if you look at his injury history, his shooting declined in correlation with trying to play through the injuries, back issues this year, shoulder issues, including surgery, previously. Hopefully the Pistons are up to speed on recovery prognosis.

I have no faith in Javy offensively.

Some think 32 is between 30 and 40.

I think he's been plagued by some nagging injuries, if/when healthy I believe he'll be fine.

They didn't "low ball" him, Arbitration isn't intended to reflect what a players value would be in free agency.

Don't worry, pitching is not stable.

He does have great hair.

The broadcast issues are those that can and need to be solved by the owners, not at the table. The owners know they're not getting a cap and aren't going to die on that hill.

These are mostly old issues that have been proposed, discussed and tweaked for decades. There is no large precipitating issue that should lead to an impasse. We are dealing with human beings, however.

Why do you think this? I don't see any huge, must have, hot button issues on either side, like there has been in the past, that would lead to a bitter stand off.

Yes it is, I was responding to op saying he's only done short term so far.

You are correct, it doesn't prove anything, remains to be seen.

And it disproves any notion that Harris is unwilling to make a long term commitment to a premium player.

That wasn't a premium, long term commitment.

Yes, I do, but it will have to be a player on which Harris is totally convicted and fills a big hole, not simply who is available.

Like everything in life, it depends. You trade if you get back more organizational value/fit than you give up. Myself, I would lean more towards accumulating young, ascending players, and less on older, descending ones. I also admire a GM who has the patience and discipline to wait for players on which he has full conviction, and not panic and settle for what's available to address immediate perceived needs.

They are only two votes, and it's more likely than the players ever agreeing to any salary inhibitions. MLB is the anomaly in this regard for US sports leagues. LA and NY have no revenues without the other franchises to play against.

For heavens sake, just share equally all broadcast revenues, you don't even need the CBA to do that. Without the gross revenue imbalance, more teams will compete for free agents.

Trading a 30 year old pitcher, who will require a long term, mega contract, for a haul of young talent, and then using that financial wherewithal to invest in other needs, diversifying your risk, makes sense.