Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,031

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. Longgone
    This doesn't address any of the issues. The players need to be fairly compensated, at around 50% of revenues. But, competitive parity is a huge issue for the league, and the CBT is effective at correcting some of the disparity. There are many ways to ensure players get fairly compensated, and parity issues are also addressed. Encouraging greater disparity is counterproductive.
  2. Longgone
    I'd like you to try to explain how that would be good for the league.
  3. Longgone
    Yes, and there is no way spiraling salaries set by the richest clubs is good for the league, and the competitive health of the league trumps maximizing player salaries every time. And yes, as currently constructed, there will always be a resource disparity, but it would be malfeasance not to narrow the gap as much as possible.
  4. Longgone
    Is there a point in all this? Until there is greater competitive parity, there is going to be a great disparity in payrolls, and thus teams that struggle to compete and continue to rebuild, which you erroneously call "tanking". This is not good for the overall health of the league.
  5. Longgone
    Yes, and this is what the owners logically want to avoid; the market being set by those few clubs with grossly disparate resources. No one in their right mind would want that to happen, and it would be bad for the league.
  6. Longgone
    No matter how many times you repeat this, it simply isn't true. The disparity is simple math, and the restrained spending is only on the richest clubs, and checks them from dominating the free agent market, but still allows them to easily outspend everyone else.
  7. Longgone
    Baseball is unique in that there is a large competitive disparity between the haves and the have nots. The CBT does act like a soft cap, and this is a good thing. Other leagues successfully have hard caps. The richer teams can well afford to exceed the cap and pay the penalties, thereby narrowing the gap. Small and mid market teams will likely never reach the ceiling anyway. So the CBT is really only restraining the richest clubs from dominating the free agent market. The lower the ceiling and stiffer the penalties the narrower the resource gap, the higher the ceiling, the greater the disparity. This isn't rocket science. There just needs to be a ceiling that creates enough balance.
  8. Longgone
    This is such a tired, shallow banality. Teams will spend when they can be competitive, until then they will rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with spending on scouting, player development and infrastructure, rather than payroll.
  9. Longgone
    And the players want the owners to fix the players problems. That's why it's a negotiation.
  10. Longgone
    They both need to negotiate, rather than nibbling at the edges of their offers. Nobody is going to force the other side to cave by holding out, that is a loser strategy. Deal with each others issues and negotiate.
  11. Longgone
    It's more like the KBB is $30k, and MLB says we'll give you $8, and the PA says we won't take less than $250k.
  12. Longgone
    Who cares! BACON!!!
  13. Longgone
    Hence the desire for a lower ceiling and stiffer penalties. Having the richest clubs not dominate the free agency market also opens opportunities for smaller markets to spend.
  14. Longgone
    Yes, they need to deaden the ball. Nothing extreme to severely hinder offense, just go back to the balls they were using a few years ago.
  15. Longgone
    Yes, and keeping the ceiling low has little to do with spending. It's a soft cap that the richer clubs can easily exceed, paying a tax that goes to the smaller markets, enhancing their competitiveness, and improving overall parity. Greater parity helps the smaller markets avoid the constant tear down and rebuild caused by having the deck stacked against you year after year.
  16. Longgone
    An artificial floor makes no sense, unless you believe the myth that owners don't care about winning, only profit, so they have to be forced to spend. No, the problem is Baseball has a very fundamental parity issue that can't be denied. Teams will only avoid the cycle of tear down and rebuild when the competitive disparity is narrowed. No other league has ever required a floor, because teams tend to max out salaries when parity exists, and all teams have similar resources for team building. A hard cap that is low enough to be sustainable by the smaller markets will never be agreed upon by the players. One high enough to maintain the players at a fair share of revenues can't happen unless there is massive revenue sharing and the owners won't agree to that. So you're kind of stuck with the CBT, where you only approach parity with a lower ceiling and higher penalties, so you can see where Ilitch is coming from. A higher ceiling and lesser penalties just perpetrates the disparity.
  17. Longgone
    I don't believe any of those were obstacles. The negotiated issue was how much lead time for rule changes. Owners wanted the current year reduced to 45 days.
  18. Longgone
    The owners, obviously, believe the CBT addresses this problem. The big budget teams are restrained somewhat, and the penalties shift revenues to the smaller markets. Not sure what a better, yet palatable, system might be.
  19. Longgone
    Yes, the concept is that the lower the CBT ceiling and stiffer the tax penalties for going over, the more you lessen the gap between the haves and have nots. This could result in smaller markets having larger payrolls, and being more competitive. The main problem with MLB versus other leagues that more equally share revenues, is the extremely lopsided distribution of resources, and this is how they've chosen to deal with it. The players want the large revenue teams to set the market, but also want smaller clubs to spend more and not rebuild (tank), and these may be conflicting objectives. The level of the ceiling will have an impact either objective, if it's high the large markets will maintain a competitive advantage, if it's low, the resource gap narrows, and perhaps creats greater parity and competition.
  20. Longgone
    Doesn't matter what they said. Owners made the last offer and made some concessions, it's the players turn, that's what bargaining in good faith is all about. Clock's ticking, keep pushing.
  21. Longgone
    Why haven't the players countered? What are they waiting for?
  22. Longgone
    Hard to believe revenues have gone up since '19 with a partial season in '20 and attendance way off last year.
  23. Longgone
    How is that relevant to the labor contract? How are they any more a monopoly than the NFL or the NBA.
  24. Longgone
    There is no differentiating between the two, just misuse of the term, which I admit, is becoming common. But, claiming a lockout, or a franchisor setting up rules to benefit it's franchisees, two common practices in a capitalist economy, is socialism, is just bizarre. I understand you support the players, but there are many very good reasons to support them without this cockamamie "socialist" bullshit. If there is private ownership and autonomy regarding the production, distribution and sales of the product, that is capitalism.
  25. Longgone
    That's a very big assumption you are making, you seem to have a very strict definition of capitalism, and a very broad one for socialism. Like lockouts don't happen with capitalism. And no, I'm on the side of objectivity, not hyperbole.
×
×
  • Create New...