In the NY Times, hardline San Diego owner John Moores says he and 8 or 10 other owners would rather shut MLB down for a year than accept an agreement with the players that wouldn't suit them.

The article also states that "the Yankees are so concerned about what [a new economic system might cost them in payments] that they are contemplating legal action" against MLB if they don't like the new Basic Agreement's tenets.

Just another reminder of how divided the owners are. The only reason we don't hear of the player's divisiveness is because they are a "union" and don't have secret ballots. It is a shame that we'll probably end up in another strike. I am starting to have doubts as to whether I'll come back to the game or not.

More columnists sticking their necks out like this must be a good sign ...right?

Why there won't be a strike (Tim Kurkjian, espnmag.com)

Mr Moores of San Diego, btw, made a Fortune list of corporate highwaymen for cashing out to the tune of $646 million as his company was failing....

Let's just hope Kurkjian is right, that the owners and players need to realize just how bad a strike will be.

Some co-workers and I were talking about just how bad things are down here in Ranger country. You pay A-Rod this ridiculous salary ($12,000 per inning, or something like that) and the fans who would in essence "pay" that salary can't afford to go to more than a handful of games in a year? And the rest of the team sucks!

What is the use in being one of the best ever to play the game, if no one is there to watch you play? Thats what will happen if (1) owners are forced to keep raising ticket prices, or (2) players walk out on August 30.

1) A-Rod is worth every penny. It's not his fault Texas hasn't made any other good baseball decisions (OK, reeling back Kenny Rogers looks like a good one). Try calculating what Jay Leno makes per minute for tossing softball questions to interchangeable celebs...

2) The owners are not "forced" to raise ticket prices; don't fall for that propaganda... "STOP ME before I spend again!!!" As Don Fehr says, you can't find a decade in baseball history where the owners said they made money.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
As Don Fehr says, you can't find a decade in baseball history where the owners said they made money.

---

Exactly right. When the reserve clause was abolished and free agency established, then-Commissioner Bowie Kuhn sputtered that with so many ballclubs in such precarious financial condition, every American League team faced bankruptcy within the next two seasons, and the National League would only be able to operate with six to eight teams.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
1) A-Rod is worth every penny. It's not his fault Texas hasn't made any other good baseball decisions

---

OK, I never said he wasn't worth the money. HOWEVER, Tom Hicks did CHOOSE to pay A-Rod $100 million more than any other owner. Which leads to your second statement....

[quote]2) The owners are not "forced" to raise ticket prices; don't fall for that propaganda... "STOP ME before I spend again!!!" As Don Fehr says, you can't find a decade in baseball history where the owners said they made money.

---

I can't argue that point either. However, the owners are blaming the players for "demanding" high salaries, and that is the reason for increasing ticket prices. If the owners didn't pay those salaries, then the players wouldn't constantly demand more. That is why the free agency period in baseball has seen this 46-fold increase in salaries in a 30-year period. Both sides are at fault, just as both sides would be at fault if ticket prices have to go up and the common "fan" can't afford them.

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBulldog:
..the free agency period in baseball has seen this 46-fold increase in salaries in a 30-year period.

---

If I'm recalling the numbers correctly, MLB's total annual revenue when free agency began was $180 million. It's now about $3.5 billion! That makes roughly a 20-fold increase, so if you presume that in the reserve clause days the players were underpaid by at LEAST half (extremely conservative), there's nothing outrageous about the rate of salary escalation.

Instead of criticizing the contract of an all-time great like A-Rod, look at the silly contracts given to the likes of Derek Bell to see where the wasted revenue goes.

Notice that I said salaries, not revenue. If I'm off on the 46-fold, I should go back and find the source for that number rather than making one think that I pulled it out of the air (I'll do a little research). And even using your numbers, that rate of increase based on the revenue increase is still somewhat dramatic.

OK, enough picking on A-Rod. He is arguably the best player in the game today, and at this current pace will be a first ballot Hall of Famer barring injury. Still, he was given $100 million more than the next closest OFFER. And yes, Derek Bell and the like are way overpaid, and the number of bad contracts has been discussed on other threads on this board. Having money, and knowing how to wisely spend it, are two different things. Bad management will always be a part of baseball. But looking at the Marlins and Expos, one wonders why Jeffrey Loria has been allowed to take ownership of both teams based on where they are today. Who knows, maybe Selig brought Loria in just to illustrate his point that contraction SHOULD happen. Just think, 10 years ago the Seattle Mariners would have been a candidate for contraction but look where they are today.

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBulldog:
Notice that I said salaries, not revenue.

---

I know you did, I was just tying salaries to revenue... when you consider that in 1974, many players had PART-TIME JOBS in the off-season (!!!) -- anyone else remember Richie Hebner, gravedigger? -- a doubling of the rate of rising salaries compared to revenue doesn't seem large to me...

I concur with your contraction view. Not the answer, never was.

Here's a link to a column I read this morning, taking the viewpoint that if there's going to be a strike, then the owners should shut down until they get what the NFL got from its players: a hard salary cap.

Drop back and punt: baseball should regroup, learn from football

And if that happens, here's a story about a player who would actually have some difficulties: Melvin Mora of the Orioles, who has 6 kids--including 1-year-old quintuplets--as well as relatives in Venezuela that he supports.

Strike threat adds to Mora's worries

A debate over at Baseball Prospectus -- well argued on both sides -- about whether or not a MLB salary cap would solve a thing.

Aren't most of you guys notoriously "free market"? Then you should buy Gary Huckabay's point that "a salary cap takes away my incentive to invest in my own business, and that's just wrong."

This excerpt, referring to the NFL and its salary cap, is telling:

[quote]Dave: That structure will work in baseball, too!

Gary: Whether or not it'll work is completely beside the point!

---

Umm, no it's not. Baseball needs a system that will work to the benefit of the sport itself--not just the owners, not just the players, but the sport itself and its fans. The salary cap in the NFL has worked. The owners are happy. The players are happy. The fans are happy.

As for the quote "a salary cap takes away my incentive to invest in my own business"--if that happens, then fans of that team shouldn't buy tickets.

That is ostensibly the reason people haven't been going to Phillies games--those who still identify as baseball fans, that is--because the team won't spend money on big-name players. (And just look at the Mets for Exhibit A against that argument--not to mention that the Phillies have spent money on Lieberthal and Abreu and more than likely Burrell is next, not to mention their increased expenditures to resuscitate their minor league system.)

So why should it be any different under a salary cap?

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]