New MLB labor deal almost done ... without the fanfare finally.

softparade

DETROIT -- Negotiators for baseball players and owners bargained again Saturday as they intensified efforts to reach a new labor contract before the end of the World Series.


The sides' Friday session in New York didn't end until 3 a.m. Saturday, and they returned later in the day for more negotiations before recessing talks in the early evening until Monday. Several people on both sides with knowledge of the talks said it was possible an agreement could be reached next week, perhaps in time to be announced when the World Series shifts to St. Louis.


Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, participated in the Friday night talks before heading to the World Series.


The current contract runs out Dec. 19, and reaching agreement before the expiration would be a landmark for baseball, which had eight work stoppages from 1972-95.


In August 2002, the sides agreed to a deal hours before players were set to strike. It was the first time since 1970 that players and owners reached a labor contract without a work stoppage.


Revenue-sharing, the luxury tax and ensuring that teams spend the revenue-sharing money they receive in an effort to improve themselves are the chief topics in the talks, which have taken place without public acrimony.


A new agreement would run through 2011 and ensure baseball 16 years of labor peace since the 1994-95 strike, which wiped out the World Series for the first time in 90 years.


"By the mid-'90s people were tired of reading about it," commissioner Bud Selig said earlier in the week. "There were no winners. There was a lot of acrimony. There was a lot of hatred. There was a lot of bitterness. It was bad. I give both sides an enormous amount of credit.


"Why is the sport doing so remarkably well now? You have to put labor peace at the top of the list," he said. "It wasn't much of a relationship for 30 or 35 years. The relationship between the parties is now what it should be. It's mature. We understand them. They understand us. That's the way it's supposed to be. Owners and players fighting with commissioners in the middle fighting with both was just not a very happy set of circumstances."

Axtell

The sport's doing 'remarkably' well?

I think they are fooling themselves if they really believe that...tv ratings continue to plummet as their marketing of only major market teams on national broadcast games comes back to bite them in the postseason.

ziggy29

And I suppose it does nothing about some teams being able to throw $250 million payrolls out there when some teams can't afford $50 million. Which is probably why there isn't much fighting from the MLBPA.

Superficially baseball is doing fine. But underneath the facade there are very serious structural and economic problems that have to be made. In the long run, a small number of deep-pockets teams creating an escalating baseball "arms race" is not good for the health of the sport.

Revenue sharing and luxury taxes are a band-aid. I believe in a salary cap AND a salary *floor*, all tied to a percentage of league revenue. When the game prospers, the players share equally in the prosperity. The salary cap is a terrible idea by itself unless there is also a salary floor set at a minimum of about 50-60% of the cap.

ToppsCo1lector

Ziggy and everyone-The only, ONLY way MLB will thrive again is to install NOT ONLY a salary cap but a salary minimum like the NFL. There isn't a poor owner in the bunch, trust me. Some "non market" team owners just realize that in utilizing the current system they can pocket many millions without even attempting to compete. I don't like and I speak it loudly, on "poor owner" talk. Just my .02.

Axtell

No one doubts there are owners who are pocketing the money, but, can you blame them?

Why should the devil rays' ownership spend $80 million on payroll (as opposed to $30 million) when it's going to make a difference of 80 wins as opposed to 60? Throw in the Sox and yankees spending $125+ million per year, and these small market teams have no incentive to go for broke.

There needs to be a hard cap, a floor, and true revenue sharing for all TV revenue.

Baseball will surely die without them.

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>No one doubts there are owners who are pocketing the money, but, can you blame them?

Why should the devil rays' ownership spend $80 million on payroll (as opposed to $30 million) when it's going to make a difference of 80 wins as opposed to 60? Throw in the Sox and yankees spending $125+ million per year, and these small market teams have no incentive to go for broke.

There needs to be a hard cap, a floor, and true revenue sharing for all TV revenue.

Baseball will surely die without them. >>



I agree on the principle of hard cap, minimum, and revenue sharing(to be required to be invested somehow back into the organization though). To compete on a small budget means as a whole organization you must improve. Scouting prospects, developement of prospects and young guns, and smart(both fiscal and performance) FA signings. NO team should spend over 100 million. NO team. If it was me, I'd set a low hard cap of around 85 million. The competitive balance would be so much improved, the league as a whole(as well as us fans) would benefit greatly. I'm a Yankees fan Ax, but I'm first a fan of the game. It's what's best for the game, and it would eliminate(with lets say a cap minimum of 45 million) knowing that for example the D'Rays would be of course in last place.

ziggy29

<< <i>Ziggy and everyone-The only, ONLY way MLB will thrive again is to install NOT ONLY a salary cap but a salary minimum like the NFL. There isn't a poor owner in the bunch, trust me. Some "non market" team owners just realize that in utilizing the current system they can pocket many millions without even attempting to compete. I don't like and I speak it loudly, on "poor owner" talk. Just my .02. >>

That's why I said I don't like a salary cap without a salary FLOOR as well.

I don't like revenue sharing or the "luxury tax" because cheapskate owners play the "small market woe is me" card and pocket the revenue sharing money. They get all this money from the Yankees, Red Sox and others and put in their pocket. If the idea behind revenue sharing and a "luxury tax" is to allow the "have nots" to have a chance, they should be required to spend that money on building a better team.

IMO, a salary floor could do that.

If the owners and the union could agree on a fair percentage of revenue that should go to player salaries, that could be the basis for a cap AND a floor. When baseball prospers, the cap and floor both rise and the players share in the prosperity. But if they want to be equal partners, they also have to share the downside risk.