ramsfan125
09-10-2002, 11:42 PM
As we all know, on August 30, 2002, the Major League Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball agreed to an agreement to keep baseball going without a strike. There are mixed opinions about this. Here's my two cents.
I think the owners by far won in this agreement. They got everything there was an argument about. Luxury tax, revenue sharing, worldwide draft, drug testing, you name it. Amazingly, most sports writers, fans, and internet polls will argue it was a tie. If not a tie, it's pretty split down the middle over if the players and owners won it. The owners, who I consider some of the dumbest people in the world (wasting 10 million extra on A-Rod is an instant classic example), made a genius move in here. They increased the minimum salary.
This is definitely a win for players. But it hurts their reputation. The biggest misconception in this whole thing is unarguably what the argument is all about. Most will say it's about player salaries, and since the minimum increased by 100 thousand, the players must have won, and they are a bunch of greedy crybabies who always get their way. Most support was to the owners. I never understood why, because the owners are already billionaires who raise ticket prices and make millions of dollars. The player's sin has been that they have been able to steal money from the moronic owners, who as I mentioned earlier, give out outrageous ammounts of money for no real reason.
The owners won on a lot of levels, the players had their plus point(s), but I say the fans won the most. I can't speak for everybody, but I say I couldn't care less how much money players make. Just give me baseball in October, and I'll pretty much go with it. Hey, I need my filler until football season. Who else has got an opinion?
I think the owners by far won in this agreement. They got everything there was an argument about. Luxury tax, revenue sharing, worldwide draft, drug testing, you name it. Amazingly, most sports writers, fans, and internet polls will argue it was a tie. If not a tie, it's pretty split down the middle over if the players and owners won it. The owners, who I consider some of the dumbest people in the world (wasting 10 million extra on A-Rod is an instant classic example), made a genius move in here. They increased the minimum salary.
This is definitely a win for players. But it hurts their reputation. The biggest misconception in this whole thing is unarguably what the argument is all about. Most will say it's about player salaries, and since the minimum increased by 100 thousand, the players must have won, and they are a bunch of greedy crybabies who always get their way. Most support was to the owners. I never understood why, because the owners are already billionaires who raise ticket prices and make millions of dollars. The player's sin has been that they have been able to steal money from the moronic owners, who as I mentioned earlier, give out outrageous ammounts of money for no real reason.
The owners won on a lot of levels, the players had their plus point(s), but I say the fans won the most. I can't speak for everybody, but I say I couldn't care less how much money players make. Just give me baseball in October, and I'll pretty much go with it. Hey, I need my filler until football season. Who else has got an opinion?