Jump to content
southsider2k5

MLB 2020-21 off season catch all

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, poppysox said:

What kind of fair contest allows a team to spend 5 times the amount of some of its competitors.  Firm floor and ceiling limits need to be set asap.

A team with owners willing to spend that much. It's no fault of the Dodgers that everyone else chooses to spend less year after year. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said:

A team with owners willing to spend that much. It's no fault of the Dodgers that everyone else chooses to spend less year after year. 

Some teams aren't sticking to the Collusion/Covid script/payroll.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, poppysox said:

What kind of fair contest allows a team to spend 5 times the amount of some of its competitors.  Firm floor and ceiling limits need to be set asap.

They are paying a tax on it so whatever. If other teams choose not to spend, why is that the Dodgers problem?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

I am getting more and more in favor of a salary cap but it will never happen

I think that would make things even worse. A salary floor is what the game needs

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think that would make things even worse. A salary floor is what the game needs

A salary floor can't work unless the teams agree to share local TV revenue equally.

Also, don't look up where the Sox rank in local TV revenue. It will make you puke when you compare it to this season's payroll.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think that would make things even worse. A salary floor is what the game needs

It really needs both.  This idea that teams should be allowed to spend tenfold more than their competition because of the market they are in is ridiculous while at the same time the Pirates trotting out like a $30M payroll is simply unacceptable.  It probably won’t happen because MLB likes having its big market teams in the playoffs as much as possible, but floors & caps are exactly what’s needed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So the Dodgers owners should be pocketing the money and not spending it trying to win.

Lol apparently. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So the Dodgers owners should be pocketing the money and not spending it trying to win.

No, there should be broader revenue sharing with the money going to small market clubs being forced to be actually spent on players via a salary floor.  It’s bizarre so many fans here are cool with a team getting to spend $100M than 75% of the league simply because the market they’re in.  I guess some people must hate the parity of the NFL without the NY teams being gifted a massive advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

No, there should be broader revenue sharing with the money going to small market clubs being forced to be actually spent on players via a salary floor.  It’s bizarre so many fans here are cool with a team getting to spend $100M than 75% of the league simply because the market they’re in.  I guess some people must hate the parity of the NFL without the NY teams being gifted a massive advantage.

But they rarely take advantage of their advantage.  We are White Sox fans. Look at the advantage the White Sox should have over their division rivals, yet ownership plays down to their level. I know you don't find that noble.

The Dodgers above their payroll which will cost them $14 million do also throw a lot into the revenue sharing pool. Winning a WS makes you some money. If they want to spend it on players more power to them.

 

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

No, there should be broader revenue sharing with the money going to small market clubs being forced to be actually spent on players via a salary floor.  It’s bizarre so many fans here are cool with a team getting to spend $100M than 75% of the league simply because the market they’re in.  I guess some people must hate the parity of the NFL without the NY teams being gifted a massive advantage.

I get your points but the major problem is the teams on the bottom not spending. The very tiny problem is the disparity between large markets and small. I gurantee you that difference isn’t as big as it seems. These low narket teams are liw market because their pocketing the money.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

But they rarely take advantage of their advantage.  We are White Sox fans. Look at the advantage the White Sox should have over their division rivals, yet ownership plays down to their level. I know you don't find that noble.

The Dodgers above their payroll which will cost them $14 million do also throw a lot into the revenue sharing pool. Winning a WS makes you some money. If they want to spend it on players more power to them.

 

I’m not faulting the Dodgers for spending $250M in payroll, I’m faulting the league for not putting rules in place that force better parity.  In other sports large market teams aren’t gifted a massive advantage over their small market peers, which is evident by teams such as the Jets & Knicks being absolute garbage for extended stretches of time as they can’t simply spend their way out of the cellar.  There is no doubt in my mind that baseball is broken when the the Dodgers’ payroll can be 8x of that of the Pirates.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it will ever change since MLB cares more about generating big playoff TV ratings (and the financial benefit that comes from that) than giving every team an equal shot each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I get your points but the major problem is the teams on the bottom not spending. The very tiny problem is the disparity between large markets and small. I gurantee you that difference isn’t as big as it seems. These low narket teams are liw market because their pocketing the money.

Do you know how much more in revenue the Dodgers & Yankees make than the Pirates and Rays?  It has little to do with these small market pocketing money and everything to do with the massive TV deals from being in large markets.  I do agree that revenue sharing is broken to some extent since the small market teams can pocket that money theoretically, but that can be fixed by a salary floor.  The only way to prevent the Dodgers from spending significantly more than their competition is to put a hard salary cap in place and not the ruse that is the luxury tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m not faulting the Dodgers for spending $250M in payroll, I’m faulting the league for not putting rules in place that force better parity.  In other sports large market teams aren’t gifted a massive advantage over their small market peers, which is evident by teams such as the Jets & Knicks being absolute garbage for extended stretches of time as they can’t simply spend their way out of the cellar.  There is no doubt in my mind that baseball is broken when the the Dodgers’ payroll can be 8x of that of the Pirates.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it will ever change since MLB cares more about generating big playoff TV ratings (and the financial benefit that comes from that) than giving every team an equal shot each year.

I agree 100%.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m not faulting the Dodgers for spending $250M in payroll, I’m faulting the league for not putting rules in place that force better parity.  In other sports large market teams aren’t gifted a massive advantage over their small market peers, which is evident by teams such as the Jets & Knicks being absolute garbage for extended stretches of time as they can’t simply spend their way out of the cellar.  There is no doubt in my mind that baseball is broken when the the Dodgers’ payroll can be 8x of that of the Pirates.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it will ever change since MLB cares more about generating big playoff TV ratings (and the financial benefit that comes from that) than giving every team an equal shot each year.

How many teams in the NBA have a legit shot at a title every year?  Way less than MLB. Same with the NFL. 
 

I think it is a shame a team like the Blackhawks built what could have been a dynasty with maybe 2 or 3 mor Stanley Cups, but had to trade players as they became more expensive because of a salary cap. 
 
MLB hasn’t had a repeat champion since 2000. Yes , there are some teams that will probably never win, but that is the case even in the hard cap sports.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dick Allen said:

How many teams in the NBA have a legit shot at a title every year?  Way less than MLB. Same with the NFL. 
 

I think it is a shame a team like the Blackhawks built what could have been a dynasty with maybe 2 or 3 mor Stanley Cups, but had to trade players as they became more expensive because of a salary cap. 
 
MLB hasn’t had a repeat champion since 2000. Yes , there are some teams that will probably never win, but that is the case even in the hard cap sports.

 

These are different issues though.  The NBA will continue to have super-teams as long as they keep max contracts in place that vastly underpay the top stars in the league.  They could fix that in a second, but that would hurt their TV ratings and ultimately the bottom line, so they‘ll continue to let half the league rot in NBA hell.

The only challenge with the NFL is the QB position and the limit of premium players there.  That issue affects all clubs equally though, which puts a greater focus on talent evaluation to be successful.  Honestly, the NFL is pretty close to perfect from a parity standpoint.  Just got to make sure when you have the chance to land a franchise QB you take Deshaun Watson over Mitch Trubisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

What a joke of a punishment. They don't even lose a pick, they just get the 40th pick instead of the 30th pick? Lol 

Yes, teams should be “punished” for signing the best players, and rewarded for signing the worst / cheapest players. 

This logic explains the fervent defending of those who delivered decades of White Sox mismanagement and failure both on and off the field.

Remaining hopeful regime change occurs this decade.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Do you know how much more in revenue the Dodgers & Yankees make than the Pirates and Rays?  It has little to do with these small market pocketing money and everything to do with the massive TV deals from being in large markets.  I do agree that revenue sharing is broken to some extent since the small market teams can pocket that money theoretically, but that can be fixed by a salary floor.  The only way to prevent the Dodgers from spending significantly more than their competition is to put a hard salary cap in place and not the ruse that is the luxury tax.

Also the tv playoff revenue.  Dodgers vs/or Yankees, advertising price goes up.  Not so much for Pirates vs/or Rays, etc.  Big bucks for all teams.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 3:30 PM, South Side Hit Men said:

Yes, teams should be “punished” for signing the best players, and rewarded for signing the worst / cheapest players. 

This logic explains the fervent defending of those who delivered decades of White Sox mismanagement and failure both on and off the field.

Remaining hopeful regime change occurs this decade.

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. Excellent reading comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see this posted, Twins signed Matt Shoemaker for $2M (projected fWAR 1.5, among top dozen available FA SPs this off-season).

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/02/twins-to-sign-matt-shoemaker.html

Four projected +1.0 fWAR free agents remain available: Odorizzi (1.7), Porcello (1.6), T. Walker (1.2) and B. Anderson (1.1).

Another Savvy Twins deal in terms of $s and projected fWAR.,

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/free-agent-tracker?&nteam=MIN

A. Simmons (3.1/$10.5M); N. Cruz (1.6/$13M); M. Shoemaker (1.5/$2M); A. Colome (0.1/$6.25M) and H.Robles (0.1/ $2.0M).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Didn't see this posted, Twins signed Matt Shoemaker for $2M (projected fWAR 1.5, among top dozen available FA SPs this off-season).

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/02/twins-to-sign-matt-shoemaker.html

Four projected +1.0 fWAR free agents remain available: Odorizzi (1.7), Porcello (1.6), T. Walker (1.2) and B. Anderson (1.1).

Another Savvy Twins deal in terms of $s and projected fWAR.,

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/free-agent-tracker?&nteam=MIN

A. Simmons (3.1/$10.5M); N. Cruz (1.6/$13M); M. Shoemaker (1.5/$2M); A. Colome (0.1/$6.25M) and H.Robles (0.1/ $2.0M).

Dat wodda ben nic, yo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 12:11 PM, Chicago White Sox said:

No, there should be broader revenue sharing with the money going to small market clubs being forced to be actually spent on players via a salary floor.  It’s bizarre so many fans here are cool with a team getting to spend $100M than 75% of the league simply because the market they’re in.  I guess some people must hate the parity of the NFL without the NY teams being gifted a massive advantage.

Totally agree with a floor, especially when some of these teams are doubling their revenue via revenue sharing yet still not even trying to compete.  I wouldn't see an issue with the cap bottom being the bottom teams revenue for a year minus 10 percent but how do we eve find out what that is????  Oh yeah we won't.   

 

However, an article in Forbes in 2019 said the central shared revenue was $2.76 billion or about $92 million per team before local revenues and other profit sharing by market.  There is zero reason there shouldn't be a minimum cap at $100 million.  I don't care if you want an upper cap but it needs to be at about $250 million then because teams that draw 3 million should be able to spend more than a team that brings in 900,000 and just pockets the rest.  This will never happen because the owners don't want a floor and the players don't want a cap

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/04/10/baseball-team-values-2019-yankees-lead-league-at-46-billion/?sh=52d7a3fd69b2

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Wisebri224 said:

Totally agree with a floor, especially when some of these teams are doubling their revenue via revenue sharing yet still not even trying to compete.  I wouldn't see an issue with the cap bottom being the bottom teams revenue for a year minus 10 percent but how do we eve find out what that is????  Oh yeah we won't.   

 

However, an article in Forbes in 2019 said the central shared revenue was $2.76 billion or about $92 million per team before local revenues and other profit sharing by market.  There is zero reason there shouldn't be a minimum cap at $100 million.  I don't care if you want an upper cap but it needs to be at about $250 million then because teams that draw 3 million should be able to spend more than a team that brings in 900,000 and just pockets the rest.  This will never happen because the owners don't want a floor and the players don't want a cap

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/04/10/baseball-team-values-2019-yankees-lead-league-at-46-billion/?sh=52d7a3fd69b2

The players don't want a minimum.  They have called out teams for not spending,  but a minimum also means a maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×