This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
you're a bit off base by jt
the players don't want a system where the pay is tied to revenue as they see it as a salary cap and they'd never agree to a salary cap. What is basically being said at this point is that the players agreed to a pro rated salary based on number of games played (true) and the owners are saying that, while they did agree to that, both sides agreed to continue to negotiate if fans couldn't attend the games (in dispute).
Nobody has made any formal proposals as of yet and the owners are again negotiating in bad faith by leaking things to the press before taking it to the players. I believe that the owners see an opportunity here with the weaker (than in the past) leadership in the mlbpa.