7A626067677061667B7A6C090 wrote: MLB Reportedly Expresses Willingness To Cancel Games As Lockout Continues
Seems both sides have valid arguments. Does anyone lean in favor of either one and why?
I don't favor either side. All I want is baseball featuring a way that small-market clubs can produce WS Championship teams on par with big-market, big-spending clubs. And outlaw Scott Boras and his Corporation.
I second the Boras comment. The guy has damaged baseball irreparably, he is driven by unrestrained greed.
does anybody know if Bob Nutting and Scott Boras are related?
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Scot Boras is good for baseball. BOB Nutting and his kind are bad for baseball. I don't care who proposes it, but whatever agreement that's approved that leads Nutting to put the franchise for sale is one that I would wholeheartedly support. That is the only thing the Pirates need that would make them more competitive.
-
Bobster21
The next CBA and the future of MLB
063324242F1624242F2824410 wrote: Scot Boras is good for baseball. BOB Nutting and his kind are bad for baseball. I don't care who proposes it, but whatever agreement that's approved that leads Nutting to put the franchise for sale is one that I would wholeheartedly support. That is the only thing the Pirates need that would make them more competitive.
Boras is good for his clients. But horrible for baseball.
Boras is good for his clients. But horrible for baseball.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
What is good for the people who lace them up and play the sport is good for the sport.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
The next CBA and the future of MLB
Skimmed a quick blurb this morning that said the two sides had some fruitful discussions yesterday that covered salaries, service time, and other player-related compensation ideas, but mentioned nothing about creating equity among the franchises.
Personally, I don't think they care about that. They're all making lots of money now, so why change? We sure are lucky here in Pittsburgh.
Personally, I don't think they care about that. They're all making lots of money now, so why change? We sure are lucky here in Pittsburgh.
The next CBA and the future of MLB
2F796F7B746E7E75786F5D7A707C7471337E1D0 wrote: Skimmed a quick blurb this morning that said the two sides had some fruitful discussions yesterday that covered salaries, service time, and other player-related compensation ideas, but mentioned nothing about creating equity among the franchises.
Personally, I don't think they care about that. They're all making lots of money now, so why change? We sure are lucky here in Pittsburgh.
from discussions so far, I think the changes are going to be pretty minor. DH in NL will likely happen. Pre-arbitration pool to get more money to those players that perform well in first two years, sounds complicated but I guess owners like it better than having arbitration for everyone after two years. I don't think there will be anything regarding equity among franchises although there may be something more detailed about revenue sharing and x percentage of it going towards payroll rather than improving the team.
Personally, I don't think they care about that. They're all making lots of money now, so why change? We sure are lucky here in Pittsburgh.
from discussions so far, I think the changes are going to be pretty minor. DH in NL will likely happen. Pre-arbitration pool to get more money to those players that perform well in first two years, sounds complicated but I guess owners like it better than having arbitration for everyone after two years. I don't think there will be anything regarding equity among franchises although there may be something more detailed about revenue sharing and x percentage of it going towards payroll rather than improving the team.
-
Bobster21
The next CBA and the future of MLB
0B3E2929221B29292225294C0 wrote: What is good for the people who lace them up and play the sport is good for the sport.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
-
WildwoodDave2
The next CBA and the future of MLB
220F02131405125251600 wrote: What is good for the people who lace them up and play the sport is good for the sport.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
Spot on. I wonder how many posters are aware that players actually took pay cuts for a bad performance the previous year.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
Spot on. I wonder how many posters are aware that players actually took pay cuts for a bad performance the previous year.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
The next CBA and the future of MLB
4A676A7B7C6D7A3A39080 wrote: What is good for the people who lace them up and play the sport is good for the sport.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
All too often, a player leaving has more to do with poor talent assessment as much as anything else. We don't think the veteran player is worth the money they seek, let him leave, then replace him with a roll of the dice.
We tend to focus more on the finances than the questionable competence level.
In the Pirates' case, it's both.
We gripe about how bad a guy like Huntington was. Yet, the owner was all set to keep him until he heard the complaints. That's not a player's fault. Thet's just an example of incompetence. That has nothing at all to do with any agent. It's purely internal.
No amount of revenue sharing is going to solve matters when we have this stuff to deal with.
But, let's bitch about Boras.
I prefer high salaries. High salaries helps to attract the best talent, as in any industry. I'd rather have the best athletes play MLB than them going into other sports or entertainment field.
Our problem isn't one agent or any agent. Our problem is our owner. If he isn't willing to be in the game, he should get out of it.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
All too often, a player leaving has more to do with poor talent assessment as much as anything else. We don't think the veteran player is worth the money they seek, let him leave, then replace him with a roll of the dice.
We tend to focus more on the finances than the questionable competence level.
In the Pirates' case, it's both.
We gripe about how bad a guy like Huntington was. Yet, the owner was all set to keep him until he heard the complaints. That's not a player's fault. Thet's just an example of incompetence. That has nothing at all to do with any agent. It's purely internal.
No amount of revenue sharing is going to solve matters when we have this stuff to deal with.
But, let's bitch about Boras.
I prefer high salaries. High salaries helps to attract the best talent, as in any industry. I'd rather have the best athletes play MLB than them going into other sports or entertainment field.
Our problem isn't one agent or any agent. Our problem is our owner. If he isn't willing to be in the game, he should get out of it.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
The next CBA and the future of MLB
0E232E3F38293E7E7D4C0 wrote: What is good for the people who lace them up and play the sport is good for the sport.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
Bobster your right as rain. Couldn't agree with you more. The game has been damaged irreparably by free agency with no salary cap. There is no way I'm going to pay $100 per person for a nose bleed seat. Greed by both the owners and the players is destroying America's game. Without limits (caps) on these contracts this game will continue to hemorrhage fans, we can't afford to attend games. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer with unregulated free agency and the common man is out of the game for good. Players have lots of nerve to ask a man making $50,000 a year pay his $30,000,000 a year salary. You would think they would realize how absurd that is. Their greed knows no bounds.
Some don't realize: the only reason for Boras to exist....is because people like BOB exist.
I disagree, although we may have different definitions of "the sport." I look at it in terms of the fans' enjoyment of the game.
For instance, free agency was wonderful for the players. But for the fans, it saw favorite players leave or be traded before they could leave, the cost of attending games dramatically increase and a system of haves vs have-nots in which some teams almost always compete, and some teams rarely compete. IMHO, that was good for the people who play the sport but bad for the sport itself. Agents like Boras get their clients every penny they can and so they steer them to, and away from, particular teams. That's great for the players. But it drives up the cost of doing business, which gets passed onto the fans. And the high cost for players prevents many teams from obtaining or keeping good players, which perpetuates the haves vs have-nots. Teams now are even reluctant to bring up their best prospects and "start the clock" on how long they can have them before they leave. As a fan, I enjoyed the sport much more before the age of free agency and mega salaries.
Bobster your right as rain. Couldn't agree with you more. The game has been damaged irreparably by free agency with no salary cap. There is no way I'm going to pay $100 per person for a nose bleed seat. Greed by both the owners and the players is destroying America's game. Without limits (caps) on these contracts this game will continue to hemorrhage fans, we can't afford to attend games. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer with unregulated free agency and the common man is out of the game for good. Players have lots of nerve to ask a man making $50,000 a year pay his $30,000,000 a year salary. You would think they would realize how absurd that is. Their greed knows no bounds.