Honestly, I don't see how anybody can be on the side of the owners at this point.Whatever money you feel they are quibbling over, why would you prefer that money to be in the pockets of the owners?
All else being equal, I have no preference between the owners and players. I don't really care personally which of them makes the most money. But I want baseball, so I am looking for which side is being the most reasonable. And by "reasonable", I mean a proposal that makes sense for both sides, because I believe it is unreasonable to make a demand in which you win, and the other side is worse off. Since none of us know the exact numbers, there are three possibilities under the players' proposal:
Scenario 1:
The players and owners both make money. Players make full per-game wages, and owners make a profit. If the owners cancel the season just because they want to make
bigger profits, then I'd side with the players. Because it would be irrational for the owners to cancel a season in which they'd have made a profit.
Scenario 2:
The players make money, and the owners lose money. Player's make full-game wages, but the owners will lose less money than they would if there was no season at all. Under this scenario, I'd probably side with the players again, because it would be irrational for the owners to cancel a season and lose even more money as a result.
Scenario 3:
The players make full per-game wages, and the owners lose even
more money than if there was no season at all. Under this scenario, I'd side with the owners, because it is unreasonable for the players to demand full per game wages, while expecting that the owners lose even more money than if there was no season at all.
We may disagree as to which of these scenarios is the most likely. But, do you at least agree with how which side would be in the right/wrong under each of those scenarios?
We all want the most baseball possible, right? Well, the players are the ones who proposed a 114 game schedule while the owners countered with 48.
If the number of games proposed to be played is your criteria, then you'd back the owners if they proposed a 120 game season, but with players only making 50% of their per game wages?