Jack Parkman

Agreed. I have mixed feelings. It's probably pretty dumb to have a season now. If the owners announced cancellation this weekend I wouldn't blame them. Coming back is a PR nightmare waiting to happen. If MLB or any other sport tries to play I expect it to be a disaster where it's cancelled due to a huge covid outbreak. I miss sports as much as anyone, but the brain tells me it's dumb, even though I want it back badly.

I'd have rather given him the deal that Quinn got.

Who knows? I think the Sox still really like Collins.

Btw I'm beyond surprised that Jadeveon Clowney is still unsigned.

Does anyone else think that Collins or Mercedes could be traded to an NL team now that they've adopted the DH? Was looking for other people's thoughts on this. There's also the option that they keep Collins in case Encarnacion sucks, which is always a possibility because he's old.

I don't put a price on my integrity, but to each their own.

Big time. I don't even watch the NBA until the conference finals, and I used to be a die hard. That's a good way to alienate even your most loyal fans.

ding ding ding, we have a winner. That's why the long season and limited playoffs. I'd honestly rather them go back to four than expand to 16. I can live with 8 to 12. 16 is way too many. If this ends up with teams with 85 wins or fewer winning a lot of championships, that will suck.

You're probably right on here. Those teams would have reason to buy. It would also create a more active TDL as more teams are looking to improve and it would also create a massive seller's market. That could end with the teams at the bottom getting better, faster. if teams toward the middle decide to buy instead of sell at the TDL, or make baseball moves, that would help. One thing I can't stand over the last decade plus is the death of the baseball move, where veterans get traded for each other. In most sports trades are all about futures now.

In 2017 4 teams would have qualified under .500 out of the 16 total. The lowest win total would have been a 77 win Marlins team. the other three won 80 games. In 2016 two NL teams qualify with 79 and 78 wins, all AL teams were above .500, with one team having 84 wins excluded. In 2015 only one team out of 16 was below .500

I know.....what's the point of the long season then? the point was always to eliminate the variance as much as possible...the cream rises to the top. I agree that it's stupid if 3 of the 8 teams have 79 or fewer wins. Just as recently as 2017 there would have been 3 teams that made the playoffs in the AL under .500 (all with 80 wins), and that same year in the NL a 77 win Marlins team would have qualified.

It's a weird thing.....do you want the best team to win or not? If you do, then going back to pre-1995 is better. If you want the most compelling TV, the expanded playoffs are better.....however.....If we find that teams that used to not get in are winning the majority of championships, then there's going to be an issue. 16 teams is too many because you only have 12 teams or so finish above .500 in a given season. Teams below .500 shouldn't be allowed to make the playoffs. If you wanted to do a floating number where it's based on how many teams finish .500 or above, I can buy that.

I think there will be preference given to the three division winners. Those three teams get a bye, then the bottom 5 teams duke it out for the last spot.

Yeah, the owners won't give up that dough. They could cut the season down by a month then, but that would cost the owners too much money. I think it will lead to going back to 154 games instead of 162. 8 games isn't that much to lose for an extra week of playoffs.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/ NHL has the most parity, but NFL and MLB are virtually identical. When I was talking about variance, I was referring to season to season performance of each individual player. It makes sense. Puck luck plays a fairly big role in hockey playoffs, along with the huge field.

Just go through the MLB standings from 2002-present and it's fairly apparent. Go through the NFL standings during the same time and there's more continuity there. The NFL has high variance among teams without an elite QB. The teams with an elite QB are almost always in the playoffs. MLB has high variance period.

MLB has the highest level of variance from season to season out of any sport. Even good teams can have bad seasons. In the NFL it's all about the QB. Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger or Tom Brady represented the AFC in the Super Bowl in every year except two from 2001-2018.

I think a soft cap similar to the NBA with a floor could be a good compromise, where you're only allowed to exceed to retain your own talent, have stuff like the MLE, etc.

The NHL. It shouldn't be though, hockey is a really fun game. I think its lack of popularity has a lot to do with how expensive it is to play as a kid. That's killing baseball too. Hockey is a rich kid's sport, and baseball is trending that way too. With football you just need a football and some open space and with basketball you need one ball and a hoop and you're good.

Right. equally lottery the picks and International pool money, then it's all based on how good your front office is and nothing more. You could also make it so you can't be in the top 5 in both lotteries.

Well they already agreed to the luxury tax as a de facto cap. There's no way in hell that the owners are giving that up, so might as well go to a cap and floor system.

I agree here, but the MLBPA seems to be against that. Given that the luxury tax is a de facto ceiling, with no floor that makes owners really happy. I'm also for players being allowed arbitration rights after completing one full season in MLB, that would eliminate the cost savings from tanking as well.

^^^^

Yeah....that's the point.....that team has just as much of a chance to get the 1st pick as the team that was the worst. It eliminates the race to the bottom.

That's under a weighted system, not an unweighted system.