Balta1701

There’s still ways to make that work. The last CBA has bigger penalties for teams that were above the tax multiple years - if the repeater penalties are gone that could balance it out.

There’s no legal issue that would prevent this. Whether the owners would do it I dunno.

That’s after a one time boost of almost 10% though. There’s likely some find tweaks but the number should work on that issue.

Apple TV is $4.99 a month after a 7 day free trial and you may need hardware to run it. My Sony Tv runs android Tv and so Apple TV is the one service I can’t get on it.

“The two teams and the stadium all have expenses,’’ Reinsdorf told USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. “None have income. That’s a bad business model. The Bulls got to play 75% of the season, so the losses aren’t bad. We had a lousy season [22-43], so we weren’t going to be in the playoffs, anyway. But the baseball losses are tremendous.’’

Let's see, do I note that baseball players cost the taxpayers money, or that teachers seem necessary to generate "any economic activity at all"? Actually, both.

The value of the players in each sport is and should be determined by how interested people are in the sport and how much they'd pay to see it. This is the "If baseball doubled their ticket prices, they wouldn't double revenue" problem we discussed months ago - you can't arbitrarily say one is worth more than the other based on anything other than the market. The only diversions from that are what controls the league puts on player movement (i.e. the drafts and rookie contracts, arbitration, revenue sharing so that teams are profitable even if they're bad, and the luxury tax).

You actually got the answer to this yesterday - remember when we talked about how with a $180 million payroll cap the White Sox couldn't have signed Gravemann or Leury? The White Sox are a prime example here. They would, by every account we've ever heard, insist on staying below the tax line. They have 3-4 positions they need help at - backup catcher, starting pitcher, RF, and 2b (maybe reliever if someone were to take Kimbrel). Right now they have $13 million to spend below last year's tax level to fill those 4 positions. That means they'd be spending on average $3 million per spot, meaning everyone would be bargain hunting. Blow that up to $230 million, suddenly the White Sox can spend $33 million while still staying under the tax. Now they go sign a Conforto (he gets more money out of it), they trade for Bassitt, and they still have $5 million to spend on 2 more positions. Upping this limit means that a team like the White Sox can bid on either mid or high level guys, and that gets those mid-level guys contracts.

I think right now the Owners’ side is completely rudderless and adrift. What other explanation is there for “this is our final offer” last week including hidden text changes overnight, then a substantial shift this week? I think you have a completely ineffective commissioner and some of the experienced owners like Reinsdorf who could lead groups of owners are staying on the sidelines, so the owners are swinging wildly from one day to the next. That leaves it impossible to guess what they will accept today.

The part more interesting to me is the drop in revenue sharing money, because that is the money that supports the parasite franchises and rankin teams so that they’re massively profitable while 1500 people are watching their September games on TV. Cutting that share will sting those teams some.

I could be wildly wrong on this by now but IIRC they are still substantially different on the drop in revenue sharing fraction and the arbitration bonus pool as well, so it’s not just the CBT level holding this up? At least that’s what I saw last week.

I gotta admit, I am intrigued by the concept of a league where the luxury tax has kept up with revenue growth and the Mets sit just under the tax next year with their payroll of a billion dollars.

I have wondered if that would be a way to get around the current tax level impasse, but I think at even $60 million you suddenly get more teams voting against it (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). They would tolerate that for a hard cap, but not for a luxury tax.

I’m fine with saying some of the other ones are off, but “don’t bet on your own sport” is one of the cardinal rules of professional sports.

48% is the amount of local revenues that currently goes to the shared revenue pool among teams. It is not the players’ share of total revenue. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-three-reasons-why-the-players-union-wants-to-alter-baseballs-revenue-sharing-system/amp/

While I totally agree that it would bankrupt zero teams, it would impact more than half the league at some point (including the White Sox go basically printed money for 2 years with payrolls below that) so if it only takes 8 votes by owners to torpedo a proposal, a legitimate minimum salary has a gigantic uphill climb.

It had a $180 million hard cap attached that would result in a significant cut from current payrolls. Plus, the players have made it totally clear that they will take less money overall to avoid a hard cap. The White Sox are more than $15 million over that number right now. They’d have been over the cap without Leury and Gravemann and would have had to cut payroll substantially.

Exactly. Why were the Angels a no vote? They want constraints on their competition, including the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox.

The obvious issue with this stat is that it's likely biased by injury - when he was feeling healthy they'd put him in the OF, when he wasn't feeling right or was coming back from a previous injury, those were the days when he was selectively put at DH.

I don't think it makes sense for the White Sox with their financial situation, but someone like the Yankees or Twins should absolutely go grab him. These are teams regularly spending money on and trading for piitchers at that level with far lower ceilings than Rodon.

I would hate it if a 106 win team like the Giants had to go into a best of 3 series like that. You’ll never get your best teams reaching the World Series and you’ll miss out on seeing matchups between the best teams at the end.

While I don’t disagree, this is one where there is a powerful devil’s advocate position. (Channeling Scott Boras here). Carlos Rodon had a single shoulder injury. This injury took years to recover from and pitching through it caused him to mess with his mechanics (causing TJS). Combined that cost him multiple seasons and prevented him from getting stretched out. Now that he’s actually healthy, he showed the dominant pitcher he can be, putting up a 5 win season in only 130 innings. It is totally unsurprising that he couldn’t get past 130 innings without his arm wearing out, so you can’t count that as a major negative against him - you would have written that part of the script in spring training and some unnamed poster here wanted him shut down after the All Star break. If you sign him to a multi year deal, you have a solid shot at signing a 6-7 win per season pitcher for less than you are spending on Keuchel. That is a huge potential return for this risk.

I like this too and maybe this could work for the owners since they come in as elimination games and those make for excellent TV? IIRC the Boston/NYY wild card game last year was one of the top rated baseball games in years. Yup, highest ratings for a single game single 1998. https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2021/10/boston-red-soxs-wild-card-game-win-over-yankees-was-most-watched-mlb-game-on-espn-since-1998-delivered-198-rating-in-boston-market.html?outputType=amp