Negotiators for the commissioner’s office and the union have been meeting regularly since early in the season. You have not read much, if anything, about the talks because the negotiators aren’t talking. They aren’t talking, that is, to the news media. They decided that silence gave them their best shot at completing an agreement.
Rob Manfred, baseball’s chief labor executive, and Donald Fehr, the players’ labor leader, reiterated their silence over the weekend, declining to answer questions or to provide even bits of information.
Despite their silence, we know they are not on the verge of reaching an agreement. But this time it would be surprising if there was any kind of labor stoppage. That is not to say they will have a deal by the end of the World Series or even by Dec. 19, the date the existing agreement expires.
The atmosphere, however, is conducive for negotiations. The relationship between the two sides is better than ever, and the game’s economics give the sides reason to continue living in peace. Attendance, revenue and the number of postseason contenders keep going up.
With seemingly all of North America in contention for the National League wild card, as General Manager John Schuerholz of the Atlanta Braves has said, baseball cannot complain about competitive balance.
Negotiators are scheduled to meet this week to discuss, among other topics, proposals on revenue sharing. This was the central issue of the 2002 negotiations; it didn’t create a crisis then, and it doesn’t figure to do so now. In fact, there may be greater disagreement among the clubs than between the clubs and the players.
Some of the teams that pay into the revenue-sharing fund have complained that the recipients of the fund have become complacent with that status, doing little to try to increase their revenue.
Why should they work to increase their revenue, the thinking supposedly goes, when they would only be elevating their economic position to where they would have to pay money into the fund instead of receiving payments from it?
Critics of the existing formula would like to see a system that rewards and penalizes teams depending on the growth or lack of growth of their revenue.
There is also a struggle going on between middle-revenue and low-revenue clubs. The middle-revenue clubs emerged from the 2002 negotiations with a greater percentage of revenue-sharing proceeds than the low-revenue clubs, and the poorer teams want to regain some of the money they lost.
The union, of course, has a stake in the revenue-sharing formula because that’s the money that clubs have or don’t have to pay players. If clubs put revenue-sharing money in their pockets, players don’t benefit.
The Yankees aren’t in the middle or the bottom groups, but they have their own interests to protect. Last year, they put $77 million into the revenue-sharing pot and paid another $34 million in luxury tax on their $213 million competitive-balance payroll. That comes to $324 million, a steep price to pay for playing baseball.
The Yankees, their critics point out, don’t have to spend that much money; all they have to do is lower their payroll. The Yankees, however, note that their revenue is as high as it is because of the team they have spent lavishly to put together.
In addition, the union likes the way the Yankees spend because it forces other teams to spend more and influences the salaries that still other teams have to pay.
Barring some totally unexpected development, the union and the clubs will reach an agreement that will include some tinkering with revenue sharing and the luxury tax. The agreement will also very likely eliminate draft-choice compensation for lost free agents.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject:
It's great news that these guys are keeping quiet to the media, at least so far. It keeps Fehr's mug off the TV. I'm not into guys at all or anything, but that's one ugly dude. I don't like to see ugly people on my television sets or computer monitors. Super bad mojo.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1871
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject:
How serious an impact will there be for a team such as the Diamondbacks should the draft-pick-compensation element be lost from the new CBA?
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:59 am Post subject:
Commissioner Bud Selig met briefly with reporters just before American League Championship Series Game 3 and implied that he is optimistic about the negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. The current CBA expires Dec. 19.
Selig also said baseball leadership will discuss ways to create a greater disadvantage for wild-card teams. With today's Tigers win over the A's, a wild-card team has now made the World Series each of the last five seasons.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1871
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:17 am Post subject:
TAP wrote:
Selig also said baseball leadership will discuss ways to create a greater disadvantage for wild-card teams. With today's Tigers win over the A's, a wild-card team has now made the World Series each of the last five seasons.
What the...? Sure, that makes a lot of sense! Bud must have just finished reading Orwell's Animal Farm; and all he remembers is, "All animals are created equal; but some are more equal than others." It's not enough to have the 4th-best record in the league to make the playoffs as the wild card -- not if you're Bud Selig. No, he wants you to have to bat with one hand behind your back or something if you dare to play a division winner... Gimme a massive break!
Another "wonderful" idea from the genius who gave us the "win the All-Star game and your league has home field advantage in the World Series" idea...
Hey, let's have a contest to help Bud find a really stupid way to accomplish his stated intention!
1. The wild card team must play all its games in the stadium of its opponent.
2. The wild card team must bench its top hitter and/or pitcher for the LDS.
3. The wild card team must have an overwhelming preponderance of rookies in its lineup for the LDS (unless it was such a lineup that brought the team to the playoffs; in which case, there must be a preponderance of "proven veterans"). Put another way, no one with enough ABs to qualify for the batting title may play for the wild card team in a LDS.
4. No starting pitchers may appear for a wild card team in a LDS.
And finally, my favorite:
5. All in-game player changes made by a wild card team must be approved by Bud Selig.
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:57 am Post subject:
The wild card isn't necessarily the 4th best record in the league. It's the best record of all non-division winners. The WC could have the 2nd best record in the league. This year's Tigers had the 3rd best AL record.
The WC already has a disadvantage in the playoffs. They start each series on the road. It's MFY & Oak's fault that they're not in the WS, not the Tigers fault for happening to play well right now. This is Selig's latest attempt to kiss King George's ass. FU Bud.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1871
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:08 am Post subject:
Oden wrote:
The wild card isn't necessarily the 4th best record in the league. It's the best record of all non-division winners. The WC could have the 2nd best record in the league. This year's Tigers had the 3rd best AL record.
Thanks, Oden. I knew there was something wrong with what I said when I wrote it -- but couldn't get the fog to clear from my brain. Thanks for setting it right.
Oh, and I agree with your analysis of the motivation for Selig's latest foray into mindlessness. It's not the fault of the wild card teams that the Yankees haven't won the WS since 2000!
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?
This is Selig's latest attempt to kiss King George's ass. FU Bud.
Not so sure that this is entirely accurate. There's been previous discussions among a number of "traditionalists" that were concerned about the concept of non-division winners in the playoffs (Bob Costas is among many that argued against this from its inception), and the talk merely got louder due to recent string of WC team successes with this being the fifth consecutive year that at least one WC team advanced to the World Series.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3241
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:50 am Post subject:
As it is in baseball, so it is in life?
Quote:
Some of the teams(people?) that pay into the revenue-sharing fund (tax system) have complained that the recipients of the fund (public assistance programs) have become complacent with that status, doing little to try to increase their revenue (income/job prospects).
Why should they work to increase their revenue, (income) the thinking supposedly goes, when they would only be elevating their economic position to where they would have to pay money into the fund instead of receiving payments from it?
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
