The ripple effect is more like a tidal wave. And there are only 100 days until spring training. To get all, or even some, of these issues resolved in the next 100 days seems next to impossible.

There is some sentiment for retracting a couple of teams -- it's not completely outlandish. But if the owners were serious about wanting contraction to go down peacefully, and, more importantly, serious about wanting it to succeed, they would have gone to the union and attempted to work out a labor deal and contraction at the same time.

Management could have said, "We feel we need to save money by contracting two teams, which will cost your side some jobs. What do you want to do about it?" Instead, they went to the union and said, "Here is what we are going to do, how are you going to stop it?"

It was much more of an affront than it had to be. Relations between the owners and the union have been much better since Paul Beeston came aboard. When Beeston and Rob Manfred were in charge of the negotiations, they were getting very close to a deal and it would have been a deal based on the best of the previous agreement -- more revenue sharing, heavier luxury taxes.

It wouldn't have given everybody everything they wanted, but it would have established peace, continuity and an atmosphere of cooperation. Instead we are back to an atmosphere of confrontation.

Selig said Tuesday that there would not be a lockout if these issues aren't resolved. That means the current deal would be carried over until there is either a new deal, or until there is an "impasse," at which point the owners would go to court or the NLRB and try to implement their last proposal.

They don't have the votes for a lockout, and the truth is that a prolonged lockout would put some teams out of business.

Another truth is that nobody wants to be the side that brought baseball to a halt, again. Selig has very carefully positioned himself to make this seem like it has nothing to do with the labor agreement or a work stoppage -- that he was simply trying to help all by eliminating two teams.

A third -- and perhaps the most stark -- truth is that what Selig's statement really was was an attempt to put the responsibility of a work stoppage on the union without locking the players out. It is simply a different form of leverage.

It is extremely unlikely that they could negotiate to an impasse, get the impasse declared in court, and successfully implement a prior proposal without a challenge by Feb. 15 (spring training) or even April 1 (Opening Day).

Which would mean that everything stays the same, except that baseball would open the season next year under a contraction cloud and all of its ramifications. And that cloud will hang there for a long, long time.

Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.