Owners' Lockout? Fans Must Boycott

[lecroy24fan]

2 hours ago, spanman2 said:

Fair point...they have the family section I do know that.  I have never sat there so don't know how much the concessions are there.  

I don't sit there either but I think a hot dog and pop come with each ticket.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 12/8/2021 at 1:11 PM, nicksaviking said:

The owners repeatedly prove they care more about profit than fan interest and saving the game. They sold their broadcasting rights for a boatload of money and now sit and watch the chaos and fan apathy that's occurring due to that decision.

They eliminated about 1/4th of all minor league teams, denying those communities their decades long ability to watch hometown baseball, all because they wanted to pay fewer minor league players.

They threaten relocation and contraction if they don't get handed free money for new stadiums. It doesn't matter to them if the tax payers of Oakland can't actually afford it, they want that money.

These are the actions of people who want to grab every dime they can, they don't protect the product OR fan interest, they only protect their financial situation. People certainly can make the case that the players have unreasonable demands, but that doesn't mean the owners aren't the one's at fault for the mess the game is in. They make it very, very clear that they'd rather make as much money as they can now, and worry about the future later, if there is a future at all. Which is looking less and less likely every year.

And let's not forget that it was the OWNERS who kept offering the *same deal* over and over again in 2020 and it was the owners that could have started the season 6-8 weeks earlier than they did and it was the owners that created the abomination of a 2020 season for no reason other than it cost them less money to literally stop baseball from happening for as long as possible. The players had no control over what the owners did in 2020, they could only say "no" to proposals that changed the CBA.

Glorifying the owners in any way, shape, or form baffles me.

[Don't Feed the Greed Guy]

On 12/7/2021 at 6:31 AM, Major League Ready said:

If winning has nothing to do with revenue, why are they signing players to $100M, $200M or even $300M plus contracts?

Buy a share of stock and go to a board meeting.  Ownership cares about their product and their fans far more than employees in general.  Employees have self-interest at mind and when there is an opportunity to generate generational wealth by age 35, there is a laser focus on "getting theirs".  We (the fans) fund this league.  We should be thinking in terms of what's best for the game and that includes the small markets.

No employee is at fault when their employer offers them a $300M contract. That's on management. The union wants to protect pre-arbitration players, too. The money is there. Management just wants to keep it to themselves. 

I favor a cap floor and redistribution of the top six draft picks to the top six teams that finish just out of the playoffs. Raise the cap floor, and quit rewarding teams that tank.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Don't Feed the Greed Guy said:

No employee is at fault when their employer offers them a $300M contract. That's on management. The union wants to protect pre-arbitration players, too. The money is there. Management just wants to keep it to themselves. 

I favor a cap floor and redistribution of the top six draft picks to the top six teams that finish just out of the playoffs. Raise the cap floor, and quit rewarding teams that tank.

The players have been quite vehement in their opposition to any form of cap.  I don’t see that happening.  They don’t care about competitive balance as demonstrated by their proposal to cut revenue sharing. 

You have completely shifted the context of the discussion of $300M contracts.  The original point was from a comment where someone said teams were unwilling to spend and don't care about winning.  Frankly, if the owners demonstrated the same desire to get every penny than are able, teams would be operating at a gigantic profit.  it's not like players would do something else if MLB compensation was half of what it is today.  The large contracts were simply used as evidence of their willingness to spend.

The union has not included anything on minimum salary increases according to all the reports I have seen.  As a matter of fact, this was a point of discussion on MLB radio recently.  Their only focus has been free agency and reducing revenue sharing.