Whilst masticating on , Ed Grinnell (1:170/1701)
wrote to Dave Neuman:
EG> No different. Money has never been an issue except on the owner's part -- 
Not entirely true.  Sure, the owners would like to make some profits from 
their teams (not an unreasonable position), and they've been known to use 
underhanded tactics, but money is definitely an issue on players' part as 
well.  If not, why would Tom Glavine criticize Mike Mussina for taking less 
money than the union felt he's worth because he wanted to stay in Baltimore?  
Glavine and others feared Mussina's "below market value" signing would cost 
THEM money in their own contract negotiations. 
EG> that is, their saving money for themselves, either by 
EG> denying the players benefits or their fair share of licensing.
Players certainly deserve their share of licensing - they are the product!  
Nobody wants uniform jerseys with the owner's name on them.
As for benefits, baseball now has the best pension plan of all pro sports.  
EG> NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING concerning money has been the focus of 
EG> the players' anger with management. Maybe your view is colored by 
EG> someone either in the press or in management, who has gained some 
EG> credibility with you and has been able to convince you that the 
EG> players are only concerned with money with all their strikes (or 
EG> ANY of their strikes). Payments to old timers and licensing 
EG> revenue  for old timers and current players was among the many 
MLB players have shown little, if any, interest in old-timers.  Joe Garagiola 
(who I believe started the Baseball Assistance Team for old players) has said 
that often.  The NBA is a different story.
--- Msged/2 4.10
---------------