Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,031

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. Longgone
    *bull residence
  2. Longgone
    Everyone is trying to win. It's just like poker, sometimes you fold on a lousy opportunity to win now, for a better opportunity later.
  3. Longgone
    And sometimes it's prudent to rebuild, sometimes things are cyclical, sometimes it makes no sense to expend resources now, while simultaneously trading current assets for future ones. The goal is to build a future championship team, not a current mediocre one.
  4. Longgone
    I believe tanking, which is deliberately trying to lose, rarely, if ever, happens. I believe there are teams, who are not competitive at present, that trade present assets for future assets, and don't see the sense in wasting financial resources in this weakened state just to rise to mediocre, while they try to accumulate a young base to build around. I can see where this bothers fans, however, whether you like it or not, whether it is successful or not, it is a legitimate strategy and it should be a teams prerogative how to build their club, and there should be no artificial incentives or penalties installed to manipulate teams into doing something other than what they feel is in their best long term interests, especially when the issue is more perception than reality. All teams want to win. How they do that should be up to each individual team. When players speak of tanking, they simply mean they want teams to spend more money, which is understandable.
  5. Longgone
    This is just as shallow, biased and lopsided an opinion as the one you are venting about.
  6. Longgone
    The players have consistently been adamantly opposed to ay type of hard cap, and the owners seem well beyond proposing one at this point. I don't see that being an issue for this negotiation.
  7. Longgone
    I'm still stuck in Brampton after kayaking over from Whitefish Point last year.
  8. Longgone
    Unfortunately, none of them are covered by the agreement.
  9. Longgone
    You can have an inferior party for the minor league portion.
  10. Longgone
    I'm not advocating for either side. Merely stating the situation that exists that makes this negotiation a bit difficult. The players have lots of demands and few concessions to give, The owners have meager demands, and no incentive to make concessions. That makes these negotiations tricky and puts the onus for movement on the players. Those are just facts.
  11. Longgone
    Nothingburger
  12. Longgone
    Players will never agree to a hard cap in any form, and I'm not suggesting any type of floor or minimum.
  13. Longgone
    For heavens sake, it's not a matter of reasonable. Its a negotiation. It's a lot of demands from the current negotiated agreement with no concessions. What sounds "reasonable" to you is irrelevant .
  14. Longgone
    I think there are two main areas that could lead to a resolution without too much disruption of the status quo. One, raise the luxury tax ceiling based on some formulation of revenue, second, find a way to get younger players paid more, without the risk of smaller markets losing control, i.e. performance bonuses or early arbitration, etc.
  15. Longgone
    Early arbitration, early free agency, eliminating the luxury tax, eliminating draft penalties for signing premium free agents...
  16. Longgone
    If it gets to the point where you have to try to force the other side into a concession, instead of bargaining in good faith, you have failed.
  17. Longgone
    That would be a fair and reasonable conclusion, to be made whole from the previous agreement, and gain some modest improvements. That's far from what is the current position, however.
  18. Longgone
    And all i am saying is that puts the onus on the players in this go around, since they are the ones with the demands and no concessions, and all negotiations are, by nature, two sided.
  19. Longgone
    When you are in the position the players are in you really have two choices; settle for smaller incremental gains over time, or put your industry through hell trying to force a concession, which generally results in harming both sides.
  20. Longgone
    Negotiations are two sided, it is not intended for one side to make demands without reciprocity. In this case the players have many demands, the owners few. Makes it difficult.
  21. Longgone
    No doubt, however, the point is, they haven't much leverage, but a lot of issues, which doesn't bode well.
  22. Longgone
    And no one has yet walked away from the table, there is no impasse.
  23. Longgone
    I think there is a reasonable rationale for the lockout, but I'm not talking about strategy, or who's right or wrong, just that the negotiating position of the players makes this hard for them to gain any major concessions, which may make this difficult to resolve.
  24. Longgone
    This could be a tough one for this reason; yes, it's the owners who have locked the players out, but this one is on the players. Normally negotiations are two sided, one side makes concessions to gain a benefit. In this case the players have many significant demands, while the owners really don't want much to change. They'd like expanded playoffs, but that isn't something the players really oppose. So with significant demands and few concessions to give on the player side, where is the ability to fairly negotiate any appreciable changes?
  25. Longgone
    Catchers of his caliber are rather easily replaced.
×
×
  • Create New...