If anyone believes the MLB dispute could lead to a salary cap, that’s dreaming. None of the owners would ever be militant enough.
It’s not like hockey in 2004-05. Teams aren't losing money. Win or lose, MLB franchises profit vastly. In the middle of all this lunacy, MLB just reached a billion-dollar deal with Turner Sports to televise playoff games.
Fantasizing about a salary cap is Pittsburgh baseball porn. It might get you excited, but at day’s end you’ve got to do the job yourself.
The current mess is 100 percent on the owners. The players get none of the benefits of ownership when circumstances are good. They shouldn’t share the burden of ownership when problems arise.
If the owners impose a 50-game schedule or thereabouts, what’s the difference between that and 72 games…or 76, or 82, or 89, 0r 114, or any of the proposed numbers? It’s all a far cry from 162, but you make do because of the pandemic.
The owners should have picked the number of games weeks ago and spared us all the embarrassing bickering. The owners agreed to pay full pro-rated salaries in March. They've tried to renege ever since.
The owners also should have submitted their most recent plan first: 72 games at 83 percent of prorated salaries. It’s reasonable. I wonder what the players’ reaction might have been if they hadn’t first been backed into a corner with absurdly bad offers.
If a schedule is imposed by the owners, don’t blame the players if they’re uncooperative beyond playing the games: With branding, media, TV, etc. – everything ancillary.
But the players need to give 100 percent on the field, proving decisively they’re the good guys in this stupidity.
But forget about a salary cap ultimately emerging from this mess. No chance.