TheLeviathan

Cool. One team. Got any others? This is the "the exception proves the rule" sorta thing. And it quite obviously misses the point. If your pattern holds out, you'll just move the goal posts. Basically, you're not making a consistent, fair argument here and purposely missing the point.

I have proven your sermons pointless, yet you preach on. Which is why engaging them is not worth my time. I can't cite anything specific because the owners stance is not specific. It is a generalized "we're good like this". Owners want to maintain the current environment which is crushing baseball's future. They have no specific policy changes, only to keep the status quo which is broken. That's the closest thing to a stance they have: "stay broken". The players want to change things in a way that's just "broken in a new way" Both of them are not moving in the right direction - significant change for the health of the game.

No one is saying revenue sharing fixes management. What it fixes is the opportunity GOOD management has to be successful in any market. In baseball, you can be a god damn wizard and it won't make up being outspent 4 to 1 by a rival. Especially year after year after year.

Good lord this is a good post. Especially the last line. Meanwhile, if baseball could, they'd put 8 teams in NY and LA and write into the CBA that anyone who lives within 100 miles of corn can field replacement players in a box and take their 120 losses and like it.

Owners want to keep the status quo of a broken game with an ever decreasing amount of relevancy. I can't imagine a worse stance. Save your sermon though. We've all heard your broken record.

No league can do anything in their CBA to fix a franchise that is mismanaged. That is a separate issue from the revenue sharing that happens to allow a fair shake at competition. What makes some franchises more valuable is somewhat related to revenues they make through branding and the success of their team, but a very high percentage of revenue is shared in the NFL. But franchise value has a lot to do with their management, their locations, their stadium, their history, etc which is completely unrelated to this.

Yup, so not "middle class". I appreciate your acknowledgement that your example was irrelevant to what you were trying to argue.

I think you can get something of value for all three of those players. You wouldn't have to cut them. Either way you're going to pay the price on your cap for a few years, but it's worth it to move on IMO. Anything you get of value is a bonus.

*Looks at football* That looks good. Parity and sanity. Could use more guaranteed money for the players, but from a league structure standpoint...I like what I'm looking at. Baseball should do that.

The lack of a floor creates incentive for teams to bottom out and that's bad for the game. I don't deny the players are a huge part of the problem. Just like the owners. I've said before and I'll say again (which makes me really unpopular with both groups who take sides) - I could list a half dozen stances on both sides of negotiations are that are absurdly stupid and bad for the game. They both suck and they're both killing the game. But I can't feel pity for billionaires over millionaires. They both suck but only one of them is taking my money to pay for their businesses. So 55-45...one sucks a little more.

I think we've reached the stage where won't has persisted to the point of being too late. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we won'ted our way into a can't situation.

So you cited a bunch of aging, ring-chasers who would be out of the league as the "middle class"? Well, now we're just being silly. The NBA splits almost the same amount of money as baseball (3-4B) over half the number of players. Part of why the league has so many teams pushing the cap (and well above it) is that basketball teams know that even letting average dudes hit free agency is a recipe for losing them without any compensation. They'd rather exceed the cap and price-match salaries in trade than lose them. That's why guys like Taurean Prince, Michael Beasley, and Hernangomez are making significant money in the NBA (just to name three recent Wolves). Those guys are the middle class and they are getting PAID. Go ahead...name three more teams not named the Thunder and I'll find hefty contracts they gave out to bench players. Same goes for the NHL too BTW - where plenty of third liners or blue collar D-men are being paid 3-6M. Right Victor Rask? (I admit, lumping Rask in with third liners is deeply unfair to third liners, my apologies) And why is that? Well, unlike baseball, teams in the NBA and NHL know they can't just let their players "test the waters" and then limp back for a deal later. In leagues with a floor, middle class players are not low-balled or leveraged by a low number of suitors. Floors, and the spending incentive they create and the corresponding need to retain assets, create a more competitive bidding process. Or force trades to avoid losing players for nothing. It may not happen instantaneously, but instead creates a culture in which everyone is expected to be competing and paying players. That has a trickle down effect. So does the reverse, as MLB keeps demonstrating.

Because baseball staunchly refuses to acknowledge the underlying issues.

Baseball is too slow and too regional as the poster above indicated. There is no Madden and won't be.

In the NFL you can tear a roster down and compete in a year. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Taurean Prince is making 13M a year. Gary Harris is making 20M. Please....invite me to continue destroying this notion.

That's certainly how it works in other sports. The middle class of FA benefit from the floor. I do not understand why the MLBPA is dying on the luxury tax hill. Then again, these two sides are in a slap fight with stupidity as their primary weapons.

I would suggest that Leftwich hasn't accomplished much without Brady. Especially if you subtract all the excessive garbage time yardage with Winston. What he did with Rosen was less than impressive. I'd pass on him personally.

The roster needs a serious reboot regardless of who the coach is. With the cap and the age of the defense....there isn't much of an alternative.

I don't like the combination of a brand new, inexperienced GM and Jim Harbaugh. That seems like a road paved for Harbaugh to steamroll.

I'm trying to remember the last time an NFL team had a black GM and a black head coach. Like....I can't remember there ever being a time that happened. If Ryans is the guy, that would be a real step forward for the NFL and good for the Vikings to lead the way in that regard.

Yup....not a "football guy" by trade and experience. I dig it though.

Not only is there no evidence for this suggestion specifically to shortstop, it flies in the face of actual evidence that says this isn't true.

It's possible he sees Daniel Jones as a diamond in the rough. There are Allen similarities.

Ortiz deserves it. Now elect the other guys that do as well: Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens. Right now the HOF morality lines make about as much sense as the CBA negotiations.