Hello,

Given that my Sox have players w/ bloated contracts that don't match their production (cough* cough* Adam Dunn) and given that every team in MLB has this problem, why doesn't Bud (owners) threaten to lock-out the players until contracts are no longer guaranteed? Given the economics of baseball, with many teams claiming negative operating income (most likely due to these bad contracts), why don't the owners fight to have a system like the NFL: where only the signing bonus and 1st yr, is guaranteed?

I think this would prevent many players from becoming the cliched, over-paid athlete who cashes in on free agency and does practically nothing afterward (like: Pujols, Hamilton, A-Rod, Carl Crawford in Boston, the list goes on and on).

If Bud were to sell it to us (the fans) like this, "Why should the White Sox be held hostage to these players who got lazy after getting paid? B/c Player X is taking so much cap space, your team cannot maneuver in free agency and at the trade deadline to compete for a World Series! This ain't right. We have to correct this for baseball to really thrive." - I think he'd have a decent shot at gaining public support behind a lock-out.

With our economy the way it is, with even competent ppl (workers) getting laid-off every day, I think if Bud told the baseball public that under-achieving players are abusing the system and need to feel consequences if they don't perform, I doubt he'll hear many protests aside from the Players Union.

In the court of public opinion, if Bud could win the argument that these under-achievers need to be able to be fired (like it is for every job in America) without the team crippling itself (salary structure-wise) in the process, I don't think he would have to worry too much about the fans coming back after a prolonged lock-out.

Bottom line, Pujols does not deserve the money he is getting. A-Rod doesn't care anymore. Baseball salaries are skyrocketing and rewarding inferior play. That ain't right.

MLB needs to save itself from all the incompetent GMs who are handing out all this money.

You're a fucking idiot.

_________________

_________________

To elaborate:

1) No sport has ever been hurt more by a labor stoppage than baseball. They're never going to let it happen again.

2) You can't initiate a labor stoppage in the middle of a collective bargaining agreement, which baseball just ratified not too long ago.

_________________

Work stoppages have crippled baseball in the past b/c previous Commissioners didn't have the PR smarts to "sell it" to the public.
Every fan thinks of these things as "Billionaires vs Millionaires" and no one cares.
But if u phrase it like this, "Why do over-paid players deserve to be paid the same amount after performing poorly?", I think MLB could sway public opinion in their favor... eventually.

Either way, sometimes u have to cut off your ear to save your face.

Yes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement ensures this is not gonna happen.

Why bother? Owners will cut bad players and then overpay someone else.

Bud is a dumb prick, he cares more for $ than the integrity of the game..never happen. I would like a salary cap.

_________________

Thats quite a foolish statement. You speaking on behalf of all of the MLB owners.

Maybe they dont want a stoppage because they all make money, but what happens when 5 teams are making $500 mill and the rest of the league makes $50 mill and those making $50 mill start asking for more from the shared revenue?

CH, maybe you do quite a bit of reading, thus a Harry Potter expert, but your business analysis and real life applications seem way off base.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

And a work stoppage would cause all of those teams to make $0.

_________________

I think I can safely say that baseball is highly averse to another labor stoppage inasmuch as they just ratified a new CBA before its expiration while the other three leagues let them expire and subsequently locked out (all of whom retained the same law firm in doing so) their respective unions, giving them the longest labor peace in sports. That, to me, says that they're willing to hash out their finances among themselves without resorting to something as deleterious as a lockout. I mean, the owners took the brunt of the blame for 1994, and that was a strike, not a lockout. Imagine if they were not only shutting down their own business to bust labor, but the fourth league since 2011 to do so. Maybe "never" was a strong word--who can say what 2143 shall hold--but there will not be any lockouts in the considerable future. Certainly not in 2017, when the current agreement will have expired.

I don't read Harry Potter books.

_________________