2 hours ago, nitetrain8601 said:

What PaleAleSox said, it's heavily weighted by guys who are never going to make it and guys who got sent down, etc.

Is there a rule that says such? No. But I could also say there's no rule that says anyone over 30 can't still be considered a prospect. Being logical, you would tell me you're not a prospect. Tell me what other players on the flip side of 25 are considered top prospects in baseball. I genuinely don't know.

AAA is where non prospects who cant make it typically go. AA is the prospect level, therefore looking at the avg age is reasonable.

20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Lip thinks that the small market owners should endure massive losses to ensure parity with the big market owners who leverage their structural revenue edges to finance massively unfair payrolls.

The most recent piece of common wisdom I've come to embrace is "If the wording of your solution starts with, 'if everybody would just...', you don't have a solution."

Why is it that acquisition of amateur players operates in a regressive capped way, such that poor teams get first pick and more money, yet the Dodgers still end up with the best ones? Is it that such systems are not guaranteed to achieve their stated goal in this great game of baseball?

4 minutes ago, Jake said:

Why is it that acquisition of amateur players operates in a regressive capped way, such that poor teams get first pick and more money, yet the Dodgers still end up with the best ones? Is it that such systems are not guaranteed to achieve their stated goal in this great game of baseball?

They have an edge in their scouting, technology, and development departments.

3 minutes ago, hi8is said:

They have an edge in their scouting, technology, and development departments.

Yes, only the bonus amounts to players are capped. They can still outspend the competition on all the foundational stuff.

1 hour ago, Snopek said:

We’re so far from being on the same page that I’m not going to spend any more time on this.

You’ll see enough of Ryan in the division to let that determine how you feel about him.

This reply is a response. You still haven’t answered the question of what 28 year old is a prospect in baseball.

And the Dodgers are my favorite NL team. But I also don’t want to see baseball die.

I think this trade is bad for baseball.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/zyhir-hope-big-name-tigers-115047481.html

4 hours ago, WestEddy said:

The most recent piece of common wisdom I've come to embrace is "If the wording of your solution starts with, 'if everybody would just...', you don't have a solution."

There's some truth in your comment. But I'm just being realistic. The MLBPA simply will not agree to a salary cap so the owners are going to have to figure out some other way to 'equalize' things if they are so concerned about 'competition.'

Hint: They aren't in the slightest as Ken Rosenthal reported by the way. They want a salary cap for one reason only. They want the value of their franchises to equal what the NFL is getting... but I digress. 🙂

So, since the union isn't going to budge the owners either decide to start competing and bring in people to franchises who are willing to do that, or they tuck their tails between their legs and shut up keeping the status quo making their millions.

Like I wrote this is going to be a very long lockout in my opinion and the only question really is how many regular season games are going to be missed.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Lip Man 1

Certainly they could do something about the deferments without a hard cap? Just limit what percentage of a contract you can defer and/or for how long.

You want to have a billion dollar superteam? Fine. Pay for it now and not in 15+ years.

1 minute ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Certainly they could do something about the deferments without a hard cap? Just limit what percentage of a contract you can defer and/or for how long.

You want to have a billion dollar superteam? Fine. Pay for it now and not in 15+ years.

I actually agree with this, there should be limits on how long you can defer a contract down the line. I'm guessing this could be a point both sides could compromise on in negotiations. This seems reasonable to me.

6 hours ago, nitetrain8601 said:

Name pitching prospects who have been excellent at the age of 28? If he was excellent, why were the Dodgers rolling Eric Lauer out there? Why did Henriquez pitch Friday? Why were the Dodgers looking for an ace considering their rotation?

Maybe he's not

Because he’s on the IL for a hamstring strain.

I gotta say, you’re line of reasoning on this is really strange. You’re hyper-fixated on a single point of PROXY data that isn’t even a direct measurement of his ability, at the complete exclusion of a plethora of performance data that paints a different picture.

I mean, I just got done listening to Eno Sarris say that Ryan has the third highest Stuff+ (the metric most highly correlated with future mlb success) in all of AAA, has FIVE pitches that rate above average, and is able to command them to hitters of both-handedness. Don’t you think THAT might be what makes him a prospect? Rather than his outlier age, which is easily explained by the combo of his late conversion to pitching and TJ surgery during his rookie year?

Edited 25 minutes ago25 min by Eminor3rd

12 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There's some truth in your comment. But I'm just being realistic. The MLBPA simply will not agree to a salary cap so the owners are going to have to figure out some other way to 'equalize' things if they are so concerned about 'competition.'

Hint: They aren't in the slightest as Ken Rosenthal reported by the way. They want a salary cap for one reason only. They want the value of their franchises to equal what the NFL is getting... but I digress. 🙂

So, since the union isn't going to budge the owners either decide to start competing and bring in people to franchises who are willing to do that, or they tuck their tails between their legs and shut up keeping the status quo making their millions.

Like I wrote this is going to be a very long lockout in my opinion and the only question really is how many regular season games are going to be missed.

I don't believe any of this is about competition. It's all about making the game more marketable. Pitch clocks and all were about speeding it up to make it more consumable. And reining in the Dodgers is about making the postseason seem more attainable to more teams, thus increasing fan interest. The Dodgers could win the next 20 World Series and they wouldn't care. They just want to be able to walk around their own ballparks safely without being booed.

The revenue issue is legitimately unfair. There’s no reason to hate the dodgers for what they do, but their revenues are so much higher than mean/median that I’m not sure it’s something they actually deserve credit for. Their TV revenue alone is comparable to or in some cases higher than the TOTAL revenue of half of the league, and TV revenue is traditionally the third-highest revenue source, meaning their resources are (extremely likely) so laughably more abundant than average, who is to say they’re even being all that aggressive?

It is not uncharitable to say that something needs to be done to address competitive balance.

However.

The MLBPA has a very strong point that the imbalance can be addressed with an overhauled revenue sharing framework, something that could be solved entirely within the ownership class, without input or even opinion from the players, beyond token ratification. The problem being highlighted by Manfred is real, but it’s being used as a Trojan horse for the salary cap, which is NOT the only (or even necessarily the simplest) way to address the problem.

The reason the owners want the cap is black and white: their franchise values are constrained by the uncapped and rising market costs of competitive labor. You can see this each time a team sells — the sale values are significantly lower than those of the NBA despite the MLBs greater reach and drastically more monetizable schedule.

I have been recently convinced that the owners are very much prepared to absorb very substantial short term loss in order to get this implemented, in some form, this time around — because they see it as their best opportunity to do so.

Not because the dodgers got Skubal. The coming lockout was a certainty long before that happened. Don’t allow the narratives to twist your thought processes.

Edited 31 minutes ago31 min by Eminor3rd

Does the White Sox winning the World Series this year save the sport?

2 minutes ago, PaleAleSox said:

Does the White Sox winning the World Series this year save the sport?

Or the Brewers/Rays.

Just can't be LAD Yankees Braves Cubs Red Sox....heck even the Astros and Alvarez would be a pretty amazing story in its own right.

Cleveland and Minnesota being competitive are further counterexamples.

The argument will be 2/3 biggest payrolls in NYM and Blue Jays are total disasters.

Edited 31 minutes ago31 min by caulfield12