We’d like to do readers the same favor as a year ago, but we can’t this time, not in good conscience anyway.

Whereas the Chicago Tribune and most other media outlets kept their eyes focused on the remarkable developments on the field in 2001, instead of the gathering storm clouds from another labor dispute, the future of baseball is tied too deeply to economic reforms to block out the turf war between players and management.

So in honor of the season openers, we give you some thoughts on the ongoing labor negotiations.

Numbers alone don’t explain why the time has finally arrived to slow the phenomenal growth of player salaries 32.3 percent over the last two years and more than 400 percent since 1987 and to redistribute money from the Yankees and other top-revenue clubs to low-revenue clubs. It takes a look behind the numbers.

Owners spent 60.3 percent of their overall revenue on player compensation in 2001, compared to 66.9 percent in 1995. Wouldn’t that be a good trend for owners? Are they seeking major changes in the system just to put more money in their pockets? That’s not the belief here.

Consider how well teams and Commissioner Bud Selig’s staffs have grown revenues in recent years. Thanks mostly to the opening of eight state-of-the-art ballparks (not counting the monstrosity known as Tropicana Field), a new television contract, relentless selling of advertising and a two-team expansion, revenues have increased from $1.385 billion in 1995 to $3.548 billion in 2001.

Players have been the biggest beneficiaries of baseball’s remarkable job of growing revenue, with the outlay for salaries going from $927 million to $2.14 billion. But does anyone really believe revenues will jump another 156 percent during the length of the next labor contract?

Gate receipts have gone up drastically since 1995, in large part because of increases in ticket prices. But higher prices are hardly the only distasteful way clubs have raised revenue. Advertising continues to intrude on the game, with ballparks and even players looking more and more like the hood of Bobby Labonte’s Pontiac.

The New York Post’s Phil Mushnick wrote Friday that Major League Baseball “would consider eliminating third base if a corporate sponsor came up with the right number to underwrite the extraction.” His salient observation comes at a time when the Boston Red Sox, who have led the way in the staggering rise of ticket prices, are considering selling advertising space on Fenway Park’s storied Green Monster.

Red Sox President Larry Lucchino notes that the 37-foot-tall wall was used as a billboard when Babe Ruth and Ted Williams took aim at it.

“We’re well aware of the history of Fenway Park where signage was an integral part of The Wall,” Lucchino said. “It’s fair to say we have an open mind on the subject.”

In the most recent of the labor disputes that have led to eight work stoppages, the union always began its defense of the economic system which is the envy of every other pro sport by saying owners should get their act together before asking for help. The growth of revenue, as well as a plan to increase revenue sharing significantly, suggests the owners have done that.

Yet when Selig extended an olive branch to the Players Association last week, pledging not to lock out players or implement new working conditions through the end of the World Series, Donald Fehr bit his hand off. He declined to make a no-strike pledge.