NEW YORK -- After a discussion that focused mostly on baseball's drafts, players and owners recessed their labor talks until Monday, still far apart on the central issues.

Owners say they must have a luxury tax and vastly increased revenue sharing in order to slow the rate of increase in salaries and to promote competitive balance.

In their March 13 counterproposal, players ignored the call for a luxury tax and proposed on a small increase in revenue sharing.

"What we said with respect to the luxury tax is we feel we need a direct form of payroll regulation to promote competitive balance," management negotiator Rob Manfred said. "Revenue sharing alone is not enough."

Owners made their proposals to the union on Jan. 9 and Feb. 26, and spent Tuesday and Wednesday asking questions about the union's counteroffer.

"They gave us some responses to some of the questions we raised in the areas of the amateur draft and the professional player draft," Manfred said. "They owe us an additional response."

The union is fearful that too much revenue sharing will drain money from high-revenue clubs, who would cut spending on salaries. Players oppose a luxury tax, which discourages the teams with the highest payrolls from spending money on players.

"Everybody knows what our position is on a luxury tax," Fehr said.

That hasn't pleased management.

"Essentially, all they've said on a tax is they haven't seen the need for a response," Manfred said.

Two days of talks are scheduled in each of the next two weeks as the sides try to negotiate an agreement to replace the deal that expired Nov. 7. Players and owners also are working with arbitrator Shyam Das to schedule a completion of the union's grievance against contraction. The union claims the owners' Nov. 6 vote to eliminate two teams violated their labor contract.

If Das agrees with the union, contraction would become a larger issue in bargaining.