Only 4 Years?

Max Power · 08-30-2002, 12:20 PM

The rumor here is that the deal is for 4 years.

That's terrible, IMHO.

I hated the fact that every 7 years or so, we had to go through this process.

Now they say we have to do it again in 4 years!

Very dissappointing. Four years goes very fast in baseball.

This is a bandaid.

qtlaw · 08-30-2002, 12:25 PM

Yes, but a bandaid now is better than having to get psyched about Nebraska-Troy State and the Bengals-Browns.

I think the 4 years was set because I think the TV contracts are up then plus the owners wanted to see how the luxury tax worked.

08-30-2002, 12:29 PM

Hey! I'm already pumped about Bengals-Browns!

4 years instead of 7, because if the system doesn't fix anything, the owners want to do it again, and if it fixes too much, the players want to do it again.

poorme · 08-30-2002, 12:41 PM

4 years should be ok, but we have to start hearing about it in 2!

rcartman28 · 08-30-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by poorme
4 years should be ok, but we have to start hearing about it in 2!

hmmmmmmmm....kind of like the presidential election.

moose · 08-30-2002, 12:50 PM

Gift horse, steve. Steve, gift horse.

I'd love to have a 100-year deal, but I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF BUD'S CONTRACT RUNNING OUT AS THIS DEAL DOES.

sorry about the caps, too lazy to bold

KCBOOMER · 08-30-2002, 01:21 PM

I just hope it is a good deal that both sides can build on. The 1994 deal was so one sided that you knew the next time it came up there would be trouble.

JamesI · 08-30-2002, 01:26 PM

According to ESPN.com the deal extends to a 5th year automatically if no new deal has been worked out before that.

qtlaw · 08-30-2002, 03:39 PM

That's even better news. Maybe by then Bud will be out and the next Giamatti will be in.

Ytown Tribe fan · 08-30-2002, 03:55 PM

I'm already looking forward to 2006.

satchel · 08-30-2002, 04:23 PM

I think the idea behind limiting the deal to four years is that there were philosophical differences that really couldn't be resolved with hypotheticals. This gives the anti-contraction folks four years to show that revenue sharing can fix the problems for the clubs that claim to be losing money. Both sides then get to reevaluate. Although I agree with you, Steve, that I'd rather not have to worry about the CBA again so soon, it really is a sensible move given how contentious (and hard to prove) the issues were this time around.

And most importantly, there's baseball being played.

soxfan121 · 08-30-2002, 04:33 PM

Seeing as how I expected something VERY short term (a one year extension of the previous deal, something of that ilk), I'm pleased as punch that a 4-year agreement is in place.

As a wise friend of mine says - cross the bridge when you come to it, not while it is still distant on the horizon.

sweaver · 08-30-2002, 04:46 PM

Four years is typical for a CBA, I thought.

willyg · 08-30-2002, 05:02 PM

Unlike some I really do not have a problem with the length of this deal, what I am waiting for are the particulars. Although many will attempt to do so, the true impact of this agreement cannot be judged now, its going to take some time. Lets see a smaller, or middle market team (without three young stud starters) prove they belong on the same field with the Yankees and the Braves and give them a run for their money. If you ask me that is the true test of this agreement.

If that happens, agreement works. Does not happen, agreement accomplished nothing.

I haven't heard anything about a drug testing policy, and I think the idea of a worldwide draft has been nixed. Granted they were not the key issues, but they are two very important issues.

Basically what I want to see is a team that "shouldn't" be able to sign or trade for a certain guy, get that guy.

08-30-2002, 05:09 PM

The major difference in this deal is that the level of cooperation between the two sides is vastly superior to what was happening in 1994 (and the ensuing years). It seems to me that the next negotiation should go a lot more smoothly than what we have gotten used to. In any event, I'm pleased that the issue is settled for now - let's play ball!!

08-30-2002, 12:20 PM	#1
Max Power NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: May 2002 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 5,548	Only 4 Years? The rumor here is that the deal is for 4 years. That's terrible, IMHO. I hated the fact that every 7 years or so, we had to go through this process. Now they say we have to do it again in 4 years! Very dissappointing. Four years goes very fast in baseball. This is a bandaid. __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator "They come and they go, Hobbs. They come and they go." That's why there's NetShrine.com

08-30-2002, 01:21 PM	#7
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	I just hope it is a good deal that both sides can build on. The 1994 deal was so one sided that you knew the next time it came up there would be trouble. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

08-30-2002, 04:23 PM	#11
satchel NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 2,601	I think the idea behind limiting the deal to four years is that there were philosophical differences that really couldn't be resolved with hypotheticals. This gives the anti-contraction folks four years to show that revenue sharing can fix the problems for the clubs that claim to be losing money. Both sides then get to reevaluate. Although I agree with you, Steve, that I'd rather not have to worry about the CBA again so soon, it really is a sensible move given how contentious (and hard to prove) the issues were this time around. And most importantly, there's baseball being played. __________________ Rare mold, old vomit - An anagram rejected by Tom Riddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tigers' Off Season - It's been broke for 10 years	WiredTiger	2003 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	35	02-19-2003 08:15 AM
30 Years ago today	rc3000	2003 Baseball History Archives	13	01-02-2003 06:42 PM
ATM report--Minor injuries to a couple of stars	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	2	08-17-2002 09:45 AM
ATM report--Trades; Bonds returns, homers, and may have reinjured himself	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	3	08-04-2002 04:35 PM
Closer To The End?	Slippery Pedro	2002 Baseball History Archives	18	04-23-2002 04:47 PM

08-30-2002, 12:25 PM	#2
qtlaw Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: El Cerrito, CA Posts: 668	Yes, but a bandaid now is better than having to get psyched about Nebraska-Troy State and the Bengals-Browns. I think the 4 years was set because I think the TV contracts are up then plus the owners wanted to see how the luxury tax worked.

08-30-2002, 12:29 PM	#3
CpUltravox Posts: n/a	Hey! I'm already pumped about Bengals-Browns! 4 years instead of 7, because if the system doesn't fix anything, the owners want to do it again, and if it fixes too much, the players want to do it again.

08-30-2002, 12:41 PM	#4
poorme Guest Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: washington dc Posts: 2,625	4 years should be ok, but we have to start hearing about it in 2!

08-30-2002, 12:50 PM	#6
moose Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Socs Posts: 3,400	Gift horse, steve. Steve, gift horse. I'd love to have a 100-year deal, but I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF BUD'S CONTRACT RUNNING OUT AS THIS DEAL DOES. sorry about the caps, too lazy to bold

08-30-2002, 01:26 PM	#8
JamesI Netshrine Vacuum Cleaner Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Potsdam, N.Y. Posts: 3,723	According to ESPN.com the deal extends to a 5th year automatically if no new deal has been worked out before that.

08-30-2002, 03:39 PM	#9
qtlaw Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: El Cerrito, CA Posts: 668	That's even better news. Maybe by then Bud will be out and the next Giamatti will be in.

08-30-2002, 03:55 PM	#10
Ytown Tribe fan Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Scrappers territory Posts: 2,515	I'm already looking forward to 2006.

08-30-2002, 04:33 PM	#12
soxfan121 Renounced Membership 7/9/03 Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Live Free Or Die, USA Posts: 1,335	Seeing as how I expected something VERY short term (a one year extension of the previous deal, something of that ilk), I'm pleased as punch that a 4-year agreement is in place. As a wise friend of mine says - cross the bridge when you come to it, not while it is still distant on the horizon.

08-30-2002, 04:46 PM	#13
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	Four years is typical for a CBA, I thought.

08-30-2002, 05:02 PM	#14
willyg NetShrine MVP Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: New Jersey Posts: 203	Unlike some I really do not have a problem with the length of this deal, what I am waiting for are the particulars. Although many will attempt to do so, the true impact of this agreement cannot be judged now, its going to take some time. Lets see a smaller, or middle market team (without three young stud starters) prove they belong on the same field with the Yankees and the Braves and give them a run for their money. If you ask me that is the true test of this agreement. If that happens, agreement works. Does not happen, agreement accomplished nothing. I haven't heard anything about a drug testing policy, and I think the idea of a worldwide draft has been nixed. Granted they were not the key issues, but they are two very important issues. Basically what I want to see is a team that "shouldn't" be able to sign or trade for a certain guy, get that guy.

08-30-2002, 05:09 PM	#15
taoleary Posts: n/a	The major difference in this deal is that the level of cooperation between the two sides is vastly superior to what was happening in 1994 (and the ensuing years). It seems to me that the next negotiation should go a lot more smoothly than what we have gotten used to. In any event, I'm pleased that the issue is settled for now - let's play ball!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)