Balta1701

Well I am getting what seems like 43 days worth of snow…

LOL!

The owners. Their proposal would end The existence of Super-2 status for arbitration eligible players, which would take ten or so $10-20 million-ish contracts and turn them into minimum salary deals each year.

I’d say the statement that no one wants to see 100 win and 55 win teams is one I very much disagree with. What I want to see in terms of the bottom - is for it not to be the same teams winning 55 games every year. I get it that teams need to rebuild and sell off players sometimes, but that should be a 3 to 4 year process. The Cubs sold guys off and started a rebuild and in year 5 they made the NLCS. The Astros sold guys off and in year 5 won the wild card. The White Sox sold guys off and in year 4 made the short season playoffs and in year 5 made the playoffs legitimately. These things have to happen sometimes, when your franchise is old and has very little talent around. Teams can absolutely use tools to get out of those rebuilds more quickly. The Mets are way into the luxury tax, so much so that under the old CBA it would cost them draft picks. But, if they traded Cano, it would probably get them back draft picks and save them 1.4 times his contract. So Cano to the Pirates along with the Mets top 2 prospects - the Mets save money and get back two draft picks, the Pirates add talent and heck if Cano ever stays healthy maybe he could even be moved at a trade deadline for a minor piece? The White Sox are up against the luxury tax and Keuchel had a bad year, so package Keuchel with Burger or someone like that, send him to Pittsburgh. Pitt gets a prospect and a guy who might be tradeable, the White Sox get luxury tax space. Why aren’t these bottom feeding teams doing that? Money. The other big thing I want to put a stop to is teams like Cleveland and Oakland rebuilding. 2020 Cleveland made the playoffs, they made them for what 5 consecutive years, they had a star at SS, homegrown player - and traded him away for being too expensive. That’s terrible for a fan base. I once said that Joe Mayer staying In Minnesota was bad for the white Sox and good for baseball - guys like Lindor leaving playoff teams who have low salaries is terrible for baseball. Oakland is a regular playoff team, they missed narrowly last year after one of their players had his face broken, and now rather than adding a couple players to get past the Astros they’re talking about rebuilding? Come on, without adding anyone the Fangraphs projection put them right in the Wild Card race. In a year or two, fine they lose Bassitt and Chapman and maybe that’s the point where they have to rebuild, but now?

He claims he can back that up. If he has something that does show it, the NFL will never let that case get to discovery where he might have to produce documents or witnesses, they'll settle it beforehand with a non-disclosure agreement.

If you forced me to tolerate 12, I'd do it, that's not going to make a big difference and usually you're still adding a team in the upper 80s of wins. I'd be disappointed about losing the 1-game play in because as unfair as that is, it's ridiculously good TV. If we start getting to 16, that's more than 1/2 the league, so statistically a below .500 team getting a wild card (not a division) seems like it might become normal then? That seems excessive to me, and that's where I figure this is heading.

I think Jimmy Cordero's arm just twitched.

The guy who asked the question that I think got it all started said that he thought he was giving him a softball question, where he could do exactly what you're saying.

If I'm a gambler, I can also evaluate public information like "Their roster" when deciding to place bets. Daniel Palka is on the roster and the White Sox want to see if he could be a useful long term player - so he's likely to get playing time somewhere, even if that puts him out in RF, and him in RF increases the chances of a game-costing error. I can evaluate that when deciding my wager, or when figuring out the odds on each gam! Rick Renteria gets a secret bonus if he loses today, so Daniel Palka just moved over to CF - this seems difficult to assess in advance.

Are they particularly positive on Burger or extremely down on Vera (and others)?

There's a difference between "putting together a roster that won't win a lot of games but trying your best" and "trying your best to actually lose". The former is accepted and understood in each league, because sometimes teams do need to rebuild and get cheaper, younger, etc. The latter is what is alleged here.

I feel like there was a lawsuit filed against some league along these lines but I can't find it on Google. Am I crossing this up with another lawsuit filed by gamblers?

Yeah, but the amounts risked on a single game in MLB compared to the amounts risked on a single game in the NFL differ a whole lot. Say you found in discovery that the Dolphins had in fact paid our a $100k bonus for a coach losing a specific game, and thus everyone who had bet on that game could join a class action lawsuit. Then you found out the same thing about a single baseball game. How do the 2 lawsuits compare?

Well one "Whatever reason" in this case is obviously gambling. That's probably why the NFL will want to make this go away as fast as humanly possible with a settlement - because they don't want to face lawsuits from people gambling on those games.

So was there any racism in hiring in the early 1980s?

Aside from the tiny increase in the minimum salary, it doesn't seem like there's anything right now that would address this issue coming from either side.

So how many black coaches could have gotten hired twice in the 1980s and managed to keep their jobs despite that baggage?

Get me the guy who used to work for me who happens to be white and you’re not allowed to realistically consider any black guys is not an ok sentiment. It’s literally what the Rooney and Selig rules are written to say teams should not do, and a team short-circuiting that rule is now getting sued. Get me the guy from Buffalo he’s the most qualified and conduct a sham interview with a black guy. Is that an ok sentiment for you? I would say it isn’t, and the fact that it keeps happening in the NFL is a symptom of the embedded racism. If the Giants’ last coach was black would that make it ok for them to target only a white guy this time?

I don’t want a rule where he’s not allowed to take that into account. If he has procedures that have worked in the past to give an effective and diverse workforce, he does not get to short circuit those procedures, and he deserves to be called out when he does. Being anti racist sometimes doesn’t give you credits you can cash in. If I’m recruiting students for something, and over a 2 year period 75% of my students come from underrepresented groups (true by the way), I don’t get to say “I did my part now I can recruit a bunch of white students.” Rather, I say “this procedure worked so I will keep doing it, so what else can I work on this year in another subject to continue improving”. If I decided to recruit a team that was all white one year, even if I pointed to their exemplary performance and my previous history to justify it, and changed my procedures to make sure it happened, I’m still the asshole. If there’s a place for a rule, it’s a monstrous fine for passing over his own procedures that worked for creating diversity in the past. Have the team create standard procedures and don’t deviate from them. If they do, that’s where the penalty comes in.

See this just isn’t ok. With the White Sox we have a case of their owner wanting to hire his old white guy at any cost and the org conducting a clear sham interview. It was blatant at the time and frankly more obvious than the Giants would have been without the texts. You either can act in a just way every time or not, and when an owner decides to advantage the old white guy, he should be called out for it. He does get to build up nonracist credits that he can cash in when the time is right to do a racism. The sham interview should have him being lumped in with the Giants, Texans, Dolphins, etc, not praised because he didn’t do it every time.

Oh it was absolutely both, useful to him and a sham interview. Flores has probably had those too, here there was just a paper trail.

So this creates an interesting question…would people do that contract for Harbaugh? I am almost certain i wouldn’t, and It’s the years more than the money. Too many reasons why things might not work even with a good coach.