1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Offseason baseball Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Elliotte Friedman, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    When is the last time a team traded away the "face of the franchise" when he still had something left in the tank? The Mariners with Griffey maybe?

    (Or I guess the Marlins with Stanton).
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    No way in hell the players would oppose a floor.
     
  3. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    To get a floor you need a cap. No way in hell the players want a cap.
     
  4. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    A floor would inevitably lead to a cap. I doubt the players would ever agree to a floor.
     
  5. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    You can't arbitrarily implement a floor without linkage. Which means you need a cap.
     
  6. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Agreed.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Why can't you just have a floor? You can do it. The teams just won't accept it, because then the low-revenue franchises might actually push back against the system.

    The floor could be a condition of revenue sharing. If they don't want a floor, then revenue sharing goes away.

    The owners have conned the players and many fans into accepting things as linked that don't have to be done together. It's a well-played con, but it's still a con.
     
  8. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    This is a laughable. Please tell me how they just decide on a floor without linkage to revenue?
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I said you can have it without total revenue sharing and you can. I already explained how it would work. You are too busy being your usual baseball apologist self to see it.

    The owners have you conned. Granted, it isn't hard to con you, but I guess I have to give them some credit because you're not alone.
     
  10. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    You haven’t explained a damn thing. Cmon rain man put your proposal out there. Yelling floor, floor and apologist is not a proposal.

    So tell us how you come up with a salary floor without salaries tied to a percentage of revenues.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Scroll up and read, pile jumper. Also, I never said it wouldn't be tied to revenues. That is another failure in reading comprehension on your part.
     
  12. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Please tell me this isn't what you pass off as a solution.

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page