Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,014

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Longgone
    Why haven't the players countered? What are they waiting for?
  5. Longgone
    Hard to believe revenues have gone up since '19 with a partial season in '20 and attendance way off last year.
  6. Longgone
    How is that relevant to the labor contract? How are they any more a monopoly than the NFL or the NBA.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Longgone
    None of those things are socialism. The fallacy here is that the entity is MLB, which does compete in the dog eat dog capitalistic world for our entertainment dollar. Each team is simply a franchise of that entity, who deem that parity, a relatively level playing field, is essential for their overall well being. There is nothing socialistic about that, every franchisor practices this, because the health of every individual franchise is important to the over all health of MLB. There is nothing more capitalistic than that.
  10. Longgone
    Some people have taken to calling any government program, any wealth redistribution, any parameters or regulations within a capitalist system "socialism", and use it as a pejorative to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with them. None of those things are Socialism, they are simply real life components of a capitalist system, and always have been.
  11. Longgone
    Then you have a different definition of Socialism. As I said, parameters and regulations that prevent the excesses, and cover the inadequacies of Capitalism, are simply inherent and necessary in the actual practice of capitalism, and in no way change the fundamental economic system from capitalism to socialism.
  12. Longgone
    I think you'd agree that pure Capitalism is not feasible. There needs to boundaries and checks against excesses: fraud, unsafe practices, monopolies, inequity, market collapse, etc. None of those adjustments to Capitalism are Socialism. Welfare programs, as well, are not socialism. Both American and European leagues are capitalistic. Parameters that create parity, do not in any way mean they are practicing socialism, no matter how much you want to stretch to term to suit your biases.
  13. Longgone
    It seems more like both sides have started with the extreme negotiating position, with neither side blinking. Logically, you'd move towards meeting in the middle, but no sign of that yet. It can happen fast, though.
  14. Longgone
    They are two separate things, and it's illogical to assume because a team wants to be profitable, it is not also committed to winning. Each team represents a community, staff and players who desperately want to win. Sharing profitability with the players is also appropriate, and as I've said previously, it's been remarkably close to 50%. I think both sides would be happy to maintain that level, if they can trust that will be the result of any changes.
  15. Longgone
    I fail to see where public ownership of the means of production is relevant. Go ahead, enlighten me.
  16. Longgone
    I'd like to think you are better than that.
  17. Longgone
    There is a huge competitive disparity between clubs. This is a mechanism that reduces that disadvantage. It's a problem that some clubs can simply, vastly outbid other clubs, and this is a mechanism to reduce that advantage. Do you have any better ideas?
  18. Longgone
    Sure, and the bantomweight may get a few punches in, which illustrates how absurd the whole idea of a league with built in competitive disadvantage is. Competitive parity is the goal of every league.
  19. Longgone
    Tell me the truth, Lee. If you were starting a new league today from scratch, would you give a few teams an overwhelming competitive advantage and operational resources 10 to 20 times their competitors? That would be inane. You'd want every team to win or lose based on their skill and talent, not having the deck systemically stacked against you, no matter what you did. The idea that sometimes an underdog can rise up, doesn't make it fair competition in any way, and that's what makes a league viable, each team has the same opportunity and talent and skill wins, not your location or local tv deal.
  20. Longgone
    Sure, and it'd be fun to watch the heavyweight champ pummel a bantomweight amateur.
  21. Longgone
    I don't like expanded playoffs any more than Lee.
  22. Longgone
    There is no correlation between a huge disparity in competitive resources, and the number of teams making the playoffs. More teams making the playoffs, and that hasn't even been agreed upon, would not address any competitive resource imbalance. A few teams could still outbid and outspend everyone else for talent.
  23. Longgone
    Yes, it is. And the player's proposal is much worse than the status quo, and no ones giving an inch.
  24. Longgone
    Up until the pandemic years, players share of revenues stayed remarkably close to 50%. Players salaries have fallen the last few years, but so have revenues with the shortened season and limited attendance. I believe both sides would/should be happy to maintain it at that level, but predictably, have widely different views on the impact of various changes.
  25. Longgone
    And the CBT and revenue sharing have been in place, so your point?
×
×
  • Create New...