Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,024

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. 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.
  2. Longgone
    And the players want the owners to fix the players problems. That's why it's a negotiation.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Longgone
    Who cares! BACON!!!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Longgone
    Why haven't the players countered? What are they waiting for?
  15. Longgone
    Hard to believe revenues have gone up since '19 with a partial season in '20 and attendance way off last year.
  16. Longgone
    How is that relevant to the labor contract? How are they any more a monopoly than the NFL or the NBA.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Longgone
    I fail to see where public ownership of the means of production is relevant. Go ahead, enlighten me.
×
×
  • Create New...