SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 20, 2019 13:30:40 GMT -5
Soccer is doing fine because the sport is awesome, Agreed, and baseball is even awesome-er! Miami-Dade just built the Marlins a new stadium, just to watch the team be stripped so that the owners could collect the revenue-sharing prospects, so competitive balance doesn't seem to help with corruption and shadiness. Chris Davis got 522 plate appearances last year! Yeah I mean Aroldis Chapman shot up his girlfriends house and then was acquired three times on purpose by contenders in the next 12 months. Again, doesn't seem to be a competitive-balance-related problem. Kinda proving my point here - the draft picks those teams got from being awful aren't helping at all yet. In the Braves case, it was very much a prospect-hoarding result. But, like the Brewers are good because they acquired Christian Yelich, using Lewis Brinson, who the Brewers got in a trade from the Rangers for Jonathan Lucroy, after the Rangers had drafted Brinson with the #29 overall pick. Yelich was a 23rd overall pick. Lucroy went in the 3rd round. The Brewers are like an ideal example of a all scouting & development successes, not "tear down, suck, and compile draft pick" successes. I do agree some competitive balance standards should be put in place. I have no issues with a luxury tax, for example. I think it should have a more generous annual lift (cost of living adjustment built in, at the very least). I don't want A's vs. Royals to always be bad. I have no strong feelings about Real, Barcelona, or NASCAR, but I would 100% watch a television segment where you try to convince people watching NASCAR that Real vs. Barcelona is pretty much the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2019 13:33:35 GMT -5
Maybe you don't mess with the draft order, but you mess with the signing bonus cap. Could apply this to IFAs. Maybe you don't make a hard salary floor, but you do an inverse version of the CBT where if you're not spending in a way to make your team competitive, you don't get draft and IFA money. That might be more palatable for the owners than radically changing the draft order or something like that.
I also wouldn't mind them tweaking how they do the draft cap entirely. Instead of tying it to the value of the first 10 rounds' worth of picks (which leads to the silliness we see with the picks at the end of day 2 being used on $5k senior signs, after which better players are taken to start day 3), just find a way to compute draft caps that applies only to, say, players signed throughout the draft for more than $100,000. Also, cut 10 rounds off the damn thing. No team signs 40 players, so why are they drafting that many?
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Feb 20, 2019 14:03:10 GMT -5
Agreed, and baseball is even awesome-er! That's disputable, baseball is a non contact sport. There's definitely room for both Miami-Dade just built the Marlins a new stadium, just to watch the team be stripped so that the owners could collect the revenue-sharing prospects, so competitive balance doesn't seem to help with corruption and shadiness. So? Let's change that and avoid the bad things about the current sports leagues in America from happening. There's bound to be better role models than soccer for that. But those were some veteran savvy, intangible fueled plate appearances. And you're arguing against yourself here considering Chris Davis is currently rocking a $161,000,000 contract. Bad money really is bad. But at least we're aware of that and don't approve of the Yankees employing him, I find the soccer world to be annoyingly hush-hush when it comes to players transgression. Messi and Neymar tax evasion schemes are also signs of the system they are currently employed by. I agree with you that The Process fever that is happening across every major league is troubling but doing away with the draft isn't the solution either. Like you mentioned, you can rebuild on the fly and not have to go through some extreme periods of ineptitude, but getting a high pick is an unique surge of excitement for a bad team. I remember when the Nats got Harper and Strasbourg, it was tangible that the fans cared again. Not even having that possibility is a bummer. Edit: another example of that would be the Colts or Spurs. Both were very successful franchises that had a terrible injury ridden year and got elite talent in Duncan and Andrew Luck that set up their next run. They weren't tanking initially, it just happened like that and sometimes it works poetically. Luxury tax is actually a very nice system, the problem is that low spending teams don't get taxed so you still have a gargantuan disparity and also teams like the Marlins which LMAO. There should be a minimum threshold as well, I feel a lot could be solved by doing that. Both are the normie pick for their sports, real fans know that the true beautiful competition lie elsewhere (Formula 1 and Premier League).
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Mar 14, 2019 19:42:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 15, 2019 0:46:42 GMT -5
I rest my case. The one piece of the equation they left out is what a win is worth to the team. That chart would be an eye-opener. They also seem to take team claims of poverty at face value. That's bogus. There's so much additional revenue from digital technology that they're rolling in dough. On the plus side, the article cinches the case that teams are now making data driven decisions which has been obvious for two seasons. The reason why I previously brought up the question of how much of the take should go to the players is this: emphasizing that replaces the navel gazing about individual salaries with a hard target. It might just put owners on the defensive having to explain to the world why they can't make a living on half the take. Stay tuned. This is just getting rolling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 15, 2019 16:44:41 GMT -5
But if they're no longer overpaying the older players, but still underpaying younger ones, that's a problem, right?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 15, 2019 22:59:29 GMT -5
I'm with you here. My point in the previous post related to the clear statement by ownership that they understood aging curves and were acting on them. I agree that the MLBPA needs to work to get younger players something closer to what they're worth. They have to do that while appeasing a middle class that feels they're being cut out, though. That will be hard.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Mar 16, 2019 12:46:06 GMT -5
Maybe you don't mess with the draft order, but you mess with the signing bonus cap. Could apply this to IFAs. Maybe you don't make a hard salary floor, but you do an inverse version of the CBT where if you're not spending in a way to make your team competitive, you don't get draft and IFA money. That might be more palatable for the owners than radically changing the draft order or something like that. I also wouldn't mind them tweaking how they do the draft cap entirely. Instead of tying it to the value of the first 10 rounds' worth of picks (which leads to the silliness we see with the picks at the end of day 2 being used on $5k senior signs, after which better players are taken to start day 3), just find a way to compute draft caps that applies only to, say, players signed throughout the draft for more than $100,000. Also, cut 10 rounds off the damn thing. No team signs 40 players, so why are they drafting that many? NFL requires all teams to pay 90% (in cash) of the salary cap over any 5 year period. This works extremely well. Could run a similar system in baseball where payments to all players (mlb, milb, draftees, etc) are added up and if a team doesn't pay 'x' percent of the luxury tax threshold over that time then the $$ are shared by the other teams. This would help veteran players as a team like the Marlins would know 'we need to spend $12mil or we lose it' and they would then sign 1-2 veteran players to add up to $12mil. (Best example I can think of in NFL to this is the browns trade for Brock Osweiler - teams generally plan ahead so it isn't an issue) The major problem I see with implementing the above is getting the milb to agree to non-Union members being included in the formula as that's essential for MLB's systems. But given how restricted spending on prospects has become, maybe it's not too big a problem.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 16, 2019 18:57:36 GMT -5
I honestly think baseball won’t recover from a long strike (if it happens)
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Mar 20, 2019 10:28:04 GMT -5
I have no strong feelings about Real, Barcelona, or NASCAR, but I would 100% watch a television segment where you try to convince people watching NASCAR that Real vs. Barcelona is pretty much the same thing. Like!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2019 10:44:10 GMT -5
Maybe you don't mess with the draft order, but you mess with the signing bonus cap. Could apply this to IFAs. Maybe you don't make a hard salary floor, but you do an inverse version of the CBT where if you're not spending in a way to make your team competitive, you don't get draft and IFA money. That might be more palatable for the owners than radically changing the draft order or something like that. I also wouldn't mind them tweaking how they do the draft cap entirely. Instead of tying it to the value of the first 10 rounds' worth of picks (which leads to the silliness we see with the picks at the end of day 2 being used on $5k senior signs, after which better players are taken to start day 3), just find a way to compute draft caps that applies only to, say, players signed throughout the draft for more than $100,000. Also, cut 10 rounds off the damn thing. No team signs 40 players, so why are they drafting that many? NFL requires all teams to pay 90% (in cash) of the salary cap over any 5 year period. This works extremely well. Could run a similar system in baseball where payments to all players (mlb, milb, draftees, etc) are added up and if a team doesn't pay 'x' percent of the luxury tax threshold over that time then the $$ are shared by the other teams. This would help veteran players as a team like the Marlins would know 'we need to spend $12mil or we lose it' and they would then sign 1-2 veteran players to add up to $12mil. (Best example I can think of in NFL to this is the browns trade for Brock Osweiler - teams generally plan ahead so it isn't an issue) The major problem I see with implementing the above is getting the milb to agree to non-Union members being included in the formula as that's essential for MLB's systems. But given how restricted spending on prospects has become, maybe it's not too big a problem. The issue is not all teams can afford 90% of the luxury tax threshold. For some teams that would be around 80% of all team revenue, for others like the Yankees it would be like 30%.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 20, 2019 14:08:44 GMT -5
Eloy Jimenez just signed for 6/$43M and two club options
Hasn't made his MLB debut yet, so they're buying out a lot of minimum salary years in exchange for some options at a reasonable cost if he turns into even a great player, let alone a superstar
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 20, 2019 14:14:56 GMT -5
Eloy Jimenez just signed for 6/$43M and two club options Hasn't made his MLB debut yet, so they're buying out a lot of minimum salary years in exchange for some options at a reasonable cost if he turns into even a great player, let alone a superstar No reason for him to learn the ropes in the minors anymore. I imagine service time holding back promotions will be a huge topic in next CBA. How much money is he potentially giving up in arb and FA to start his clock "on time"? Also, he got $42M before a ML inning, so pretty awesome.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2019 14:48:35 GMT -5
It still seems borderline bizarre to me that both Keuchel and Kimbrel remain unsigned. Idk if it’s the refusal of both to settle or a general lack of interest (or, really, the combination of both, namely lack of interest at what the players deem “reasonable”), but wow... Those are two players who would almost assuredly be significant booms to any contender. And given the extremely hotly contested AL East (OK, there are some major, varied in nature, salary constraints there), NL East, and NL Central...you’d think *somebody* would bite the bullet. I mean, ATL needs relief help in a huge way, NYM or Washington both could benefit from a reliable, quality innings-absorbing SP, MIL actually arguably *needs* a SP, Cincy is on the verge of being good and could use either to dramatically boost their chances in an “up-for-grabs” division...it’s just weird. I’m all for fiscal restraint, it’s generally the smart way to do business. But I don’t think either of those two will get fat deals, so I doubt either contract looks like an albatross no matter how the years/$ shake out. I mean, imagine if SD signed Keuchel...with Machado and their stupidly good/deep talent well, they’d be in WC contention this year and for the foreseeable future. They’d also be able to keep payroll low for years on that bunch. 10 top-100 guys?! They should have a TON of avg-to-better regulars making league minimum for the next 5-7 years.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 20, 2019 15:17:56 GMT -5
Maybe you don't mess with the draft order, but you mess with the signing bonus cap. Could apply this to IFAs. Maybe you don't make a hard salary floor, but you do an inverse version of the CBT where if you're not spending in a way to make your team competitive, you don't get draft and IFA money. That might be more palatable for the owners than radically changing the draft order or something like that. I also wouldn't mind them tweaking how they do the draft cap entirely. Instead of tying it to the value of the first 10 rounds' worth of picks (which leads to the silliness we see with the picks at the end of day 2 being used on $5k senior signs, after which better players are taken to start day 3), just find a way to compute draft caps that applies only to, say, players signed throughout the draft for more than $100,000. Also, cut 10 rounds off the damn thing. No team signs 40 players, so why are they drafting that many? NFL requires all teams to pay 90% (in cash) of the salary cap over any 5 year period. This works extremely well. Could run a similar system in baseball where payments to all players (mlb, milb, draftees, etc) are added up and if a team doesn't pay 'x' percent of the luxury tax threshold over that time then the $$ are shared by the other teams. This would help veteran players as a team like the Marlins would know 'we need to spend $12mil or we lose it' and they would then sign 1-2 veteran players to add up to $12mil. (Best example I can think of in NFL to this is the browns trade for Brock Osweiler - teams generally plan ahead so it isn't an issue) The major problem I see with implementing the above is getting the milb to agree to non-Union members being included in the formula as that's essential for MLB's systems. But given how restricted spending on prospects has become, maybe it's not too big a problem. Players in the NFL might disagree with the system working well. Obviously the total money spent players like. But players who become injured or get older HATE the system because they are cut due to no guaranteed contracts.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,644
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 20, 2019 15:21:10 GMT -5
It still seems borderline bizarre to me that both Keuchel and Kimbrel remain unsigned. Idk if it’s the refusal of both to settle or a general lack of interest (or, really, the combination of both, namely lack of interest at what the players deem “reasonable”), but wow... Those are two players who would almost assuredly be significant booms to any contender. And given the extremely hotly contested AL East (OK, there are some major, varied in nature, salary constraints there), NL East, and NL Central...you’d think *somebody* would bite the bullet. I mean, ATL needs relief help in a huge way, NYM or Washington both could benefit from a reliable, quality innings-absorbing SP, MIL actually arguably *needs* a SP, Cincy is on the verge of being good and could use either to dramatically boost their chances in an “up-for-grabs” division...it’s just weird. I’m all for fiscal restraint, it’s generally the smart way to do business. But I don’t think either of those two will get fat deals, so I doubt either contract looks like an albatross no matter how the years/$ shake out. I mean, imagine if SD signed Keuchel...with Machado and their stupidly good/deep talent well, they’d be in WC contention this year and for the foreseeable future. They’d also be able to keep payroll low for years on that bunch. 10 top-100 guys?! They should have a TON of avg-to-better regulars making league minimum for the next 5-7 years. According to Jon Heyman, from what I saw on mlbtraderumors.com, discussions between Craig Kimbrel and the Brewers are in "pretty serious" discussions so Kimbrel might wind up with the Brew Crew which would strengthen their bullpen between Jeffress, Knebel, and Hader. As far as Kimbrel goes if he signs it should be interesting to see if he gets multiple years or if it's just a high one year deal. I don't know if Kimbrel's agent was being totally unreasonable and turned down a bunch of deals or if teams were scared off by his 2nd half and post-season performance. With him, his agent is pushing his lifetime accomplishments while his most recent performances were being scrutinized by teams resulting in red flags. I mean, with him, there's probably a wide range between the lifetime accomplishments versus what teams think will happen going forward. Probably the same deal with Keuchel. Maybe he's expecting to get paid like a former Cy Young award winner while teams see a guy who was pretty hittable last season. If that's the situation you get a huge gulf of difference between the player/agent's expectations and what teams see going forward - and maybe that's why things have totally dragged on for so long for these two particular players. I suspect it's different than what Harper and Machado went through. I suspect they had substantial offers but were waiting as long as they could for the highest offer - basically watching the offers go up and up and up until they decided they were going to get as good as they were going to get.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2019 15:31:52 GMT -5
NFL requires all teams to pay 90% (in cash) of the salary cap over any 5 year period. This works extremely well. Could run a similar system in baseball where payments to all players (mlb, milb, draftees, etc) are added up and if a team doesn't pay 'x' percent of the luxury tax threshold over that time then the $$ are shared by the other teams. This would help veteran players as a team like the Marlins would know 'we need to spend $12mil or we lose it' and they would then sign 1-2 veteran players to add up to $12mil. (Best example I can think of in NFL to this is the browns trade for Brock Osweiler - teams generally plan ahead so it isn't an issue) The major problem I see with implementing the above is getting the milb to agree to non-Union members being included in the formula as that's essential for MLB's systems. But given how restricted spending on prospects has become, maybe it's not too big a problem. Players in the NFL might disagree with the system working well. Obviously the total money spent players like. But players who become injured or get older HATE the system because they are cut due to no guaranteed contracts. Well NFL players sign for the guaranteed money, not the total money. They know damn well what they're actually getting.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 3, 2019 8:17:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 31, 2019 2:46:55 GMT -5
nypost.com/2019/05/30/mlbs-attendance-problem-is-getting-worse/amp/Fan interest in the game of MLB is getting worse and worse with each season. Also, fan interest is tied into big offseasons, which was my point all along. You would sell more merchandise sooner and maybe sell more tickets if you could fix your free agency issues MLB- "Large rises have taken place for Philadelphia (10,383), Oakland (4,027), San Diego (3,465) and the Chicago White Sox (2,311). The Phillies signed Bryce Harper and the Padres added Manny Machado." Huge LOL at MLB for having two unsigned free agents into June (Kimbrel and Khechul) who are well worth 50+ million dollars the next 3 years .
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 31, 2019 8:49:31 GMT -5
nypost.com/2019/05/30/mlbs-attendance-problem-is-getting-worse/amp/Fan interest in the game of MLB is getting worse and worse with each season. Also, fan interest is tied into big offseasons, which was my point all along. You would sell more merchandise sooner and maybe sell more tickets if you could fix your free agency issues MLB- "Large rises have taken place for Philadelphia (10,383), Oakland (4,027), San Diego (3,465) and the Chicago White Sox (2,311). The Phillies signed Bryce Harper and the Padres added Manny Machado." Huge LOL at MLB for having two unsigned free agents into June (Kimbrel and Khechul) who are well worth 50+ million dollars the next 3 years . You really want to take a victory lap with Oakland as the second team on that list? Look, it's bad and dumb that Kimbrel and Keuchel are still unsigned. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees here, the trees in question being these tiresome "see, I was right and you guys were mean to me!" posts.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 31, 2019 14:29:46 GMT -5
I'm not taking a victory lap. Just proving that I had a good general point, when at the time, people disagreed.
Oakland has the second best attendace spike because they were a playoff team last year and won 97 games last year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 31, 2019 15:56:29 GMT -5
Also, Harper didn't sign until the end of February, which kinda blows up the notion that the speed of the offseason particularly matters.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 31, 2019 16:02:36 GMT -5
Also, Harper didn't sign until the end of February, which kinda blows up the notion that the speed of the offseason particularly matters. Not really, because they could have sold more imo. In the MLB off-season, you have the holiday season where people line up to spend money. MLB does nothing to take advantage of that. MLB needs to fix the off-season problems for multiple reasons, fan interest being one of them. Imagine how many more jerseys they would have sold if Harper signed in November?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 31, 2019 16:12:52 GMT -5
Also, Harper didn't sign until the end of February, which kinda blows up the notion that the speed of the offseason particularly matters. Not really, because they could have sold more imo. In the MLB off-season, you have the holiday season where people line up to spend money. MLB does nothing to take advantage of that. MLB needs to fix the off-season problems for multiple reasons, fan interest being one of them. Imagine how many more jerseys they would have sold if Harper signed in November? Imagine how much less I would care. Maybe the Red Sox should just drastically change the roster every offseason for no reason other than to make you buy more jerseys. That's definitely something worth caring about. You know back when baseball teams could buy championships, I'd get excited about free agents. Now, I'm not dumb enough to because I watch baseball and pay attention. Relying on the stupidity of baseball fans isn't a sustainable financial model. Give Phillies fans another year or two and they'll be burning Harper jerseys.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 31, 2019 16:20:43 GMT -5
You know, a lot of us are going to have to realign our thinking. Does Netflix get dinged because they're stealing theater patrons? Because that's what MLBAM's best of class streaming service does, steal walk-in customers. The difference is that MLB owns both the "theaters" and the broadband eyeball venues as well. AtBat can push 60 million feeds simultaneously. I'd guess they can do that because every so often they have to. So let's all factor that in to the baseball is unpopular mantra, please.
|
|
|