No reason to pick sides in MLB lockout talks

A recent Facebook post peaked these thoughts.

The substance of that post was, “in the ongoing MLB lockout, who are you rooting for, the players or the owners?”

Think about that for a minute. We are now supposed to think of negotiations over the writing of a new Basic Agreement first and foremost as a sport unto itself, complete with good guys and bad guys.

And our job as fans is to pick sides.

No reason to pick sides in MLB lockout

Let me simply assert that if you saw that same post and responded either, “the players” or “the owners,” then you are a part of the problem. To pick sides defeats the purpose of the entire exercise, which is first to reach an agreement on mutually acceptable terms, second to do so before any games – or at least any meaningful games – are lost, and third to breathe into that agreement a shelf life that will make the effort put into writing it worthwhile.

In this Twitterfied world, we already have more than enough people whose first instinct is to pick sides – even in questions of little or no substance – as opposed to encouraging reasoned discussion. Subjecting inherently contentious labor negotiations driven by sincerely held differences of approach regarding revenue distribution and competitive balance to the forces of the emotional mob only makes the challenge of reaching an agreement more difficult.

In what some view as the “game” being played between owners and players, there is no such thing as a home team.  This may come as a surprise to those who “favor” one side or the other, but there will be no games March 31 unless both negotiating “teams” are satisfied with the outcome.

That means the concept of “winners” and “losers” is self-defeating.

It is, obviously, still permissible to analyze the proposals made by each side with an eye toward their importance to the game, their fairness and equity, or lack thereof. I for one have written previously about the inherent wisdom of teams “tanking,” a strategy that appears to be a principal target of the players in these talks.

In that article, I noted that over the past decade close to 60 percent of the five lowest-payroll teams played at least one post-season game within two years of carrying that very low payroll. Seems to me that’s evidence that tanking spurs competitive balance rather than damaging it.

But that’s just evidence in a factual discussion; it’s not taking a side. If anything, it provides an invitation to compromise, a place where one of the sides might find room to give ground in exchange for the other side giving ground elsewhere.

The bottom line idea is for MLB and the Player’s Union to reach a solution. Contrary to what that Facebook user thinks, it isn’t for one’s favored side to “win.”