NEW YORK -- Baseball's top labor lawyer thinks there's a way to work out a new contract without another strike.

Sounding unusually optimistic, Rob Manfred said after Thursday's five-hour bargaining session that the sides will meet again Friday and probably will have sessions for five straight days starting Monday.

That would be the longest period of sustained talks since the previous contract expired Nov. 7.

"I have said repeatedly, publicly, that I believe it is possible for us to reach a negotiated agreement without having an interruption of the season, and I still believe that,'' said Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations.

Players, fearful owners will change work rules after the season or lock them out, are threatening to strike in August or September, which would be baseball's ninth stoppage since 1972.

Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, concurred with Manfred that the sides had made progress on revenue sharing.

Union head Donald Fehr was traveling home from Montreal and hasn't been updated on the session. Gene Orza, the union's No. 2 official, wasn't as optimistic but did say the talks were "informative and enlightening'' and that "we were able to narrow the focus of what we have to do.''

"There are still substantial problems,'' he said. "I don't mean to sound pessimistic. I just don't think bells and whistles are in order.''

He agreed with Manfred that an agreement was possible without a walkout.

"I don't think anyone's ever doubted that,'' Orza said. "I depends how much are people willing to recede from their positions.''

The central issues are management's proposals to increase the amount of locally generated revenue each team shares from 20 percent to 50 percent, and to have a 50 percent luxury tax on the portions of payrolls above $98 million.

Players think those plans would drain too much money from the big-spending teams that push salaries higher.

The previous contract contained a 34-to-35 percent luxury tax for the 1997, 1998 and 1999 seasons, with the threshold at the midpoint between the teams with the fifth- and sixth-highest payrolls.

Because the threshold wasn't fixed, owners thought the tax was largely ineffective. Players think the tax acted as a restraint, keeping the highest spenders from having far-higher payrolls than their closest rivals.

"It would be very difficult for me to get the clubs to ratify an agreement that did not contain a form of payroll regulation,'' Manfred said. "I don't believe the clubs are prepared to accept an agreement with the same precise luxury tax that was in the last agreement. There was one particular structural flaw with that agreement that made it largely ineffective: The threshold went up if the high-payroll clubs spent more.''

He disputed the union's contention that a high tax is tantamount to a salary cap, such as the NFL and NBA have, saying that teams were willing to add payroll and pay a tax from 1997-99.

"I'm sure no matter what agreement I negotiate this time, they'll probably do it again,'' Manfred said.

The union is opposed to a tax, saying it blocks clubs from spending as much as they want to on players.

"We didn't bite into taxes at all,'' Orza said.

Because of the union's reluctance to accept a tax, it probably will be the final unresolved issue as talks progress.

As for revenue sharing, the sides disagree on both the amount and the structure.

About $167 million was transferred last year in revenue sharing and management's current proposal, if it had been in place, it would have transferred about $298 million last year. The union's plan would have moved approximately $228 million.

Owners also want to switch from a "split-pool'' plan -- which gives more money to the teams with the lowest revenue and takes less away from the teams with the highest revenue -- to a "straight pool'' plan, which helps clubs in the middle more.

"It's important that the second- and third-quartile clubs have the ability to compete with the very-highest clubs,'' Manfred said. "Everybody gets treated the same. There's no additional burden here or there.''