OnlyBucs

From the MLB Trade Rumors page --- Scherzer on the CBA negotiations.



"When you look at how the 2016 CBA agreement and how that has worked over the past five years, as players, we see major problems in it,” Max Scherzer told The Washington Post’s Chelsea Janes (Twitter links) and other reporters. “Specifically, first and foremost, we see a competition problem and how teams are behaving because of certain rules that are within that. Adjustments have to be made to bring up the competition. As players, that’s critical to us to have a highly competitive league, and when we don’t have that, we have issues.”



Yep, there is a problem when 1 player will earn more or nearly more than the payroll of an entire team, and when new management takes over a team and commits $80 - $85 mil in new payroll on only 4 players on the same day. This disparity will obviously result in competitive problems. The players (and likely many owners), however, appear unwilling to consider payroll approaches used in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL to try and create a more balanced and competitive system.



In the NFL, the Mets may have been able to sign Scherzer, but it would have impacted their ability to add Marte, Escobar and Canha (sp?) on the same day, and according to reports, to still be looking to add more talent.



Oh well, back to more mundane matters rather than fretting about the state of baseball negotiations.

1D31393E3512253323500 wrote: From the MLB Trade Rumors page ---  Scherzer on the CBA negotiations.



"When you look at how the 2016 CBA agreement and how that has worked over the past five years, as players, we see major problems in it,” Max Scherzer told The Washington Post’s Chelsea Janes (Twitter links) and other reporters.  “Specifically, first and foremost, we see a competition problem and how teams are behaving because of certain rules that are within that. Adjustments have to be made to bring up the competition.  As players, that’s critical to us to have a highly competitive league, and when we don’t have that, we have issues.”



Yep, there is a problem when 1 player will earn more or nearly more than the payroll of an entire team, and when new management takes over a team and commits $80 - $85 mil in new payroll on only 4 players on the same day.  This disparity will obviously result in competitive problems.  The players (and likely many owners), however, appear unwilling to consider payroll approaches used in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL to try and create a more balanced and competitive system.   



In the NFL, the Mets may have been able to sign Scherzer, but it would have impacted their ability to add Marte, Escobar and Canha (sp?) on the same day, and according to reports, to still be looking to add more talent. 



Oh well, back to more mundane matters rather than fretting about the state of baseball negotiations.


If the players feel that strongly about having a competitively balanced league, then they should insist that the owners implement a system whereby all teams are required to have the same payroll.  Yeah, that'll happen.

6234223639233338352210373D31393C7E33500 wrote: From the MLB Trade Rumors page ---  Scherzer on the CBA negotiations.



"When you look at how the 2016 CBA agreement and how that has worked over the past five years, as players, we see major problems in it,” Max Scherzer told The Washington Post’s Chelsea Janes (Twitter links) and other reporters.  “Specifically, first and foremost, we see a competition problem and how teams are behaving because of certain rules that are within that. Adjustments have to be made to bring up the competition.  As players, that’s critical to us to have a highly competitive league, and when we don’t have that, we have issues.”



Yep, there is a problem when 1 player will earn more or nearly more than the payroll of an entire team, and when new management takes over a team and commits $80 - $85 mil in new payroll on only 4 players on the same day.  This disparity will obviously result in competitive problems.  The players (and likely many owners), however, appear unwilling to consider payroll approaches used in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL to try and create a more balanced and competitive system.   



In the NFL, the Mets may have been able to sign Scherzer, but it would have impacted their ability to add Marte, Escobar and Canha (sp?) on the same day, and according to reports, to still be looking to add more talent. 



Oh well, back to more mundane matters rather than fretting about the state of baseball negotiations.


If the players feel that strongly about having a competitively balanced league, then they should insist that the owners implement a system whereby all teams are required to have the same payroll.  Yeah, that'll happen.


But you can't do that until you make sure the media dollars are evenly spread out (like basically every other league does). Half the league would bankrupt itself it was expected to keep up with the dodgers and whoever with their billion dollar tv contracts.

What the players ought to do is insist on contracting five owners who won't get in the game.



The other twenty-five they have no issue with.



Here, we have a guy who won't pony up, but there are people more than willing to buy the team from him and he won't part with it. Is there still any wonder why he won't?

04363A3A2E1C3F363B3E3136570 wrote: From the MLB Trade Rumors page ---  Scherzer on the CBA negotiations.



"When you look at how the 2016 CBA agreement and how that has worked over the past five years, as players, we see major problems in it,” Max Scherzer told The Washington Post’s Chelsea Janes (Twitter links) and other reporters.  “Specifically, first and foremost, we see a competition problem and how teams are behaving because of certain rules that are within that. Adjustments have to be made to bring up the competition.  As players, that’s critical to us to have a highly competitive league, and when we don’t have that, we have issues.”



Yep, there is a problem when 1 player will earn more or nearly more than the payroll of an entire team, and when new management takes over a team and commits $80 - $85 mil in new payroll on only 4 players on the same day.  This disparity will obviously result in competitive problems.  The players (and likely many owners), however, appear unwilling to consider payroll approaches used in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL to try and create a more balanced and competitive system.   



In the NFL, the Mets may have been able to sign Scherzer, but it would have impacted their ability to add Marte, Escobar and Canha (sp?) on the same day, and according to reports, to still be looking to add more talent. 



Oh well, back to more mundane matters rather than fretting about the state of baseball negotiations.


If the players feel that strongly about having a competitively balanced league, then they should insist that the owners implement a system whereby all teams are required to have the same payroll.  Yeah, that'll happen.


[highlight]But you can't do that until you make sure the media dollars are evenly spread out[/highlight] (like basically every other league does).  Half the league would bankrupt itself it was expected to keep up with the dodgers and whoever with their billion dollar tv contracts.






I agree. If the players feel that strongly about competitive balance, then they should insist that the owners do whatever's necessary to make it happen, including working with the media dollars. But the sun will burn out before the large market teams will ever share that money.

6154434348714343484F43260 wrote: What the players ought to do is insist on contracting five owners who won't get in the game.



The other twenty-five they have no issue with. 



Here, we have a guy who won't pony up, but there are people more than willing to buy the team from him and he won't part with it.  Is there still any wonder why he won't?
That's the stupidest suggestion ever. It's nothing more than Bob hate, and completely off the mark.



Bury your head in the ground with those kind of comments, I see them all over the internet, print, tv, etc. You all think that would make a difference?



Okay, let's say BOB ponies up to 150 million. That doesn't solve the problem, when the Dodgers and Mets can still spend 300 million. THAT'S why teams take the tanking approach. The system created BOB and his ilk, they're just trying to keep a franchise in town. For everything Bob isn't, at least we gone the longest time since the effing 80's of any talk of relocation. We still have a team, and some people are at least happy about it from that end. Yes, we're the ones that get made fun of because we go to games.



So yeah, go join the idiot band led by Scherzer. Contract all the teams that aren't trying to compete.



Good luck saying goodbye to all those guys making league minimum, and arb 1-2-3 salaries. Because that 6-8 team league you want won't last very long, so there won't be any 43 million dollar contracts either.



Please, think before you speak. Nutting being cheap isn't the problem. It's the cavernous disparity in teams ABILITY to spend.



You yourself even made fun of certain signings by low market teams, because they won't have the guy around. Not only do you want teams to do things they really can't, but you expect them to keep that guy the whole contract, which is another absurd position you take.



Until revenues are shared equally, things are just going to get worse.



Don't worry, they keep going this direction, you'll get your wish. I guess in a sad way I'll get mine, the trolls will die at least.

I maintain my point of view and respect yours.