urquhart@utcs.UUCP (Prof. A. Urquhart) (05/24/85)
Would someone who knows what's going on be kind enough to explain
what the dispute between the players and the owners is really all
about? I would also welcome an explanation of the 'free agent draft'
and the compensations to which teams are allowed.
The general feeling in the Toronto media is that ball players
are payed well enough and are just plain greedy. But it seems to me
that if salaries are as high as they are it is because owners are
willing to pay that much. So any ceiling on salaries imposed by the
owners are going to be only to their advantage (they are not going to
lower the price of tickets are they?). Why not allow players the
freedom of playing for the highest bidder?
Hoping for no strike.
Andre Vellino
Department of Philosophy
University of Toronto
uucp: {decvax,ihnp4,utcsri,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!urquhart
--
Andre Vellino
Department of Philosophy
University of Toronto
uucp: {decvax,ihnp4,utcsri,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!urquhartdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/28/85)
> Would someone who knows what's going on be kind enough to explain > what the dispute between the players and the owners is really all > about? That's easy: money. The owners wish to minimize payrolls, the players wish to maximize them. At the center of the struggle is how much freedom to allow a player in selling his services. In the antedeluvian era (a.k.a. before the Flood (sic)), the owners had an ideal situation: the players were bound to the teams, greatly depressing salaries. The ideal situation for the players (at least the ones good enough to hold down full-time major league jobs) would be a free market for their services from the dawn of their professional careers. Neither is ideal for the fans; the first depresses the level of competition by making a baseball career less attractive, and the second would severely disrupt instutional loyalties. And the LONG term interests of both players and owners require the third group be happy, creating some self-interest in sacrificing their own "ideal" situations for the "good of baseball (read: the fans)". >......I would also welcome an explanation of the 'free agent draft' > and the compensations to which teams are allowed. Each team which loses a "Type-A" (top 20%) or "Type-B" (top 50%, I think) player via free-agency is entitled to compensation. For the first, it is the selection of any unprotected player from any organization (each team may protect 40); for the latter, it a draft pick. The formulae are sufficiently abstruse to bollux estimation up, and teams with substantial minor league talent cannot cover themselves. Thus the White Sox GAINED when they lost Dennis Lamp to the Blue Jays, as the Mets felt compelled to protect their blue-chip minor leaguers and gamble that the White Sox, with a strong starting rotation, wouldn't gamble on an aging starter with strong New York ties; thus Seaver moved over to the AL. Neither players nor owners are satisfied with this arrangement. The former would drop compensation altogether, while the latter would limit it to clubs that signed free agents (thus discouraging free agency). > The general feeling in the Toronto media is that ball players > are payed well enough and are just plain greedy. But it seems to me > that if salaries are as high as they are it is because owners are > willing to pay that much. So any ceiling on salaries imposed by the > owners are going to be only to their advantage (they are not going to > lower the price of tickets are they?). Bullseye. >..........................................Why not allow players the > freedom of playing for the highest bidder? Why not? Because teams in small markets will be blown out of the water. The cable teams will especially profit, particularly the Cubs, as Chicago still refuses to share any cable revenue (the Braves, Mets, Yankees, and Rangers have reached agreements with the Commmisioner's Office). Some degree of restriction, especially for young players, is necessary, else no one will have any incentive to develop players. > Hoping for no strike. Best reason to hope: the owners couldn't get strike insurance this time around. David Rubin