Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 395 of 454 FirstFirst ... 295345385393394395396397405445 ... LastLast
Results 5,911 to 5,925 of 6799
  1. #5911
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I don’t think they allow you to buy a team anymore unless you want the same thing they do. In the impossible situation that you or I find ourselves with $10 billion they will not allow us to buy a mlb team. They only want people who will run teams the way they want teams run. That’s why Cuban never got a fair chance at the Cubs.
    Maybe I am not making my point clear. I do not think all owners want the same thing when it comes to guidelines. As an example, the Pirates, Royals, Orioles or any other lower revenue owners would want spending restrictions to come in at a lower level then a large market team. They would want more severe penalties for the spending teams. The large market teams such as the Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees, etc would rather the penalties be lower and the ceiling for spending be higher before penalties or paying a tax. They all have different interests.

  2. #5912
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,439
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Because they can. They are by far the largest market. Kenney should have known that and been able to get it done. But he is not very good at what he does, and this will cause a problem. I could have bet long ago this would come down to a tug of war and a fight with Comcast. Those little deals are basically nothing. In many cases deals are struck with providers at a price but the provider will put in the contract that any deal that is better than the one they have becomes there deal. SO, it is easy for u-verse, as an example to agree to a $6 per person charge full well knowing that if/when the deal gets made with Comcast, and Comcast agrees to only a $4 per person fee, U-Verse deal will go down. I do not think agreeing to other deals suggest in any way that Kenney is getting it done and Comcast is the holdout. It is all about Comcast and what they agree to. The others will follow along.
    Interesting take.

  3. #5913
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,439

  4. #5914
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,136

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Duplicate
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-12-2020 at 05:32 PM.

  5. #5915
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,136
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Maybe I am not making my point clear. I do not think all owners want the same thing when it comes to guidelines. As an example, the Pirates, Royals, Orioles or any other lower revenue owners would want spending restrictions to come in at a lower level then a large market team. They would want more severe penalties for the spending teams. The large market teams such as the Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees, etc would rather the penalties be lower and the ceiling for spending be higher before penalties or paying a tax. They all have different interests.
    I don’t think I agree. If they said starting in 2025 there’s a hard cap of $130 million, I believe the Ricketts and John Henry and The Steinbrenner kids would be thrilled. George Steinbrenner would have hated it, but there’s no more George Steinbrenner’s in the sport.

    I think owners disagree about how revenue is shared and how much revenue is shared. I doubt they disagree about a goal of spending less on players and keeping more for themselves.

  6. #5916
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,051
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    I’m confused on what a “championship season game” is. It says prior to September 1st...?

  7. #5917
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I don’t think I agree. If they said starting in 2025 there’s a hard cap of $130 million, I believe the Ricketts and John Henry and The Steinbrenner kids would be thrilled. George Steinbrenner would have hated it, but there’s no more George Steinbrenner’s in the sport.

    I think owners disagree about how revenue is shared and how much revenue is shared. I doubt they disagree about a goal of spending less on players and keeping more for themselves.
    This is one of those discussions that is not going to go anywhere. I guess I am not a cynical as you and thawv, or more naïve (depends how you want to spin it ). Maybe you are right, and the high revenue teams will not be excited to be able to spend more before being penalized. But I bet the FO of those teams will be happy to know they can spend more.
    I still think large market teams will be very happy to see a chance if it allows them to spend more without paying a tax or other penalties. But this is going nowhere and there is no way to prove either is right. So for now, no need to discuss further. Just my take, I guess (and bluegrass too-thx bluegrass)

  8. #5918
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by TooL D/R/T View Post
    I’m confused on what a “championship season game” is. It says prior to September 1st...?

    So I believe what it is saying is the roster will be a certain number from the start of the season until August 31st. Then on September 1st to the end of the regular season the roster can expand to 28 players. When they refer to championship season they are talking about the regular season. Prior to September 1st there is one roster limit, after it for the remainder of the championship season it goes to another limit. Then in the playoffs it reverts back to the roster pre September 1st.

  9. #5919
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,051
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    So I believe what it is saying is the roster will be a certain number from the start of the season until August 31st. Then on September 1st to the end of the regular season the roster can expand to 28 players. When they refer to championship season they are talking about the regular season. Prior to September 1st there is one roster limit, after it for the remainder of the championship season it goes to another limit. Then in the playoffs it reverts back to the roster pre September 1st.
    That makes sense. Thanks RCAL!

  10. #5920
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    This is one of those discussions that is not going to go anywhere. I guess I am not a cynical as you and thawv, or more naïve (depends how you want to spin it ). Maybe you are right, and the high revenue teams will not be excited to be able to spend more before being penalized. But I bet the FO of those teams will be happy to know they can spend more.
    I still think large market teams will be very happy to see a chance if it allows them to spend more without paying a tax or other penalties. But this is going nowhere and there is no way to prove either is right. So for now, no need to discuss further. Just my take, I guess (and bluegrass too-thx bluegrass)
    Adding on to this, large market teams can get more revenue by spending more. Teams do better in ratings and attendance when they are winning. For example, both the Red Sox and Cubs had poor TV ratings last year because of their poor performance.

    These large market teams can put gas in the tank by spending more money, and see a large return on that investment. The Orioles of the world cannot. They just don't get the same return if they go from a 65 win club to a 75 win club. And they don't have the financial power to go from a 75 win club to a 95 win club. They're stuck in suck land and don't have the same weapons as the larger market teams.

    So why don't the Cubs/Red Sox just spend money now and forget about the tax? Why don't they put the gas in the tank? Because the CBT drives down the return on that investment. It is literally a tax on investing in players and wins. I live in Chicago and would love to invest in real estate - but cannot because the taxes here eat up any profits you would make (they're insane - but that's another story). The CBT is the Chicago property tax equivalent in the MLB. And just like I want Lori Lightfoot to lower the property taxes here, so do the owners want to reduce the tax they feel when they pump gas into the economic engine of their team.

  11. #5921
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,439
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    So I believe what it is saying is the roster will be a certain number from the start of the season until August 31st. Then on September 1st to the end of the regular season the roster can expand to 28 players. When they refer to championship season they are talking about the regular season. Prior to September 1st there is one roster limit, after it for the remainder of the championship season it goes to another limit. Then in the playoffs it reverts back to the roster pre September 1st.
    Nailed it!

  12. #5922
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,136

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Adding on to this, large market teams can get more revenue by spending more. Teams do better in ratings and attendance when they are winning. For example, both the Red Sox and Cubs had poor TV ratings last year because of their poor performance.

    These large market teams can put gas in the tank by spending more money, and see a large return on that investment. The Orioles of the world cannot. They just don't get the same return if they go from a 65 win club to a 75 win club. And they don't have the financial power to go from a 75 win club to a 95 win club. They're stuck in suck land and don't have the same weapons as the larger market teams.

    So why don't the Cubs/Red Sox just spend money now and forget about the tax? Why don't they put the gas in the tank? Because the CBT drives down the return on that investment. It is literally a tax on investing in players and wins. I live in Chicago and would love to invest in real estate - but cannot because the taxes here eat up any profits you would make (they're insane - but that's another story). The CBT is the Chicago property tax equivalent in the MLB. And just like I want Lori Lightfoot to lower the property taxes here, so do the owners want to reduce the tax they feel when they pump gas into the economic engine of their team.
    I’d argue the CBT is more like property taxes in Indianapolis, but that owners pretend it’s like property taxes in Chicago.

    The Red Sox are probably a low 80s win team. If they kept Betts and Price they’d be a mid/upper 80s win team. The cost of those 5-7 wins was $40-50 million. Winning the extra 5-7 games almost certainly wouldn’t generate an extra $40-50 million. So the CBT is the excuse to take the more profitable option.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-12-2020 at 06:50 PM.

  13. #5923
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,136

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    This is one of those discussions that is not going to go anywhere. I guess I am not a cynical as you and thawv, or more naïve (depends how you want to spin it ). Maybe you are right, and the high revenue teams will not be excited to be able to spend more before being penalized. But I bet the FO of those teams will be happy to know they can spend more.
    I still think large market teams will be very happy to see a chance if it allows them to spend more without paying a tax or other penalties. But this is going nowhere and there is no way to prove either is right. So for now, no need to discuss further. Just my take, I guess (and bluegrass too-thx bluegrass)
    I am cynical about the intentions of owners. I believe they’ve created a system that should make us all deeply cynical or at least skeptical about their intentions. I think the new playoff format is only being pushed because it will disincentivize spending on players. The players should be very cynical about everything the owners propose.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-12-2020 at 06:51 PM.

  14. #5924
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I’d argue the CBT is more like property taxes in Indianapolis, but that owners pretend it’s like property taxes in Chicago.

    The Red Sox are probably a low 80s win team. If they kept Betts and Price they’d be a mid/upper 80s win team. The cost of those 5-7 wins was $40-50 million. Winning the extra 5-7 games almost certainly wouldn’t generate an extra $40-50 million. So the CBT is the excuse to take the more profitable option.
    Perhaps, but the owners don't like giving away money. Todd Ricketts tried to circumvent the Wilmette property tax system for what was likely less than $20,000 per year. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-taxes/144736/

    The CBT is a rich republican's worst nightmare. Take from those with money and give it to freeloading teams that also piss off the labor union that produces your product.

  15. #5925
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,136

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Perhaps, but the owners don't like giving away money. Todd Ricketts tried to circumvent the Wilmette property tax system for what was likely less than $20,000 per year. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-taxes/144736/

    The CBT is a rich republican's worst nightmare. Take from those with money and give it to freeloading teams that also piss off the labor union that produces your product.
    Many people also think of paying their taxes as “giving away money,” but that’s a whole other conversation. What Todd Ricketts is accused of doing is criminal and he should be prosecuted if it is true.

    It’s not that the CBT itself is prohibitive. It’s an excuse to not spend and to keep more money. I think that’s what they wanted when they set it up and it worked perfectly. Owners are in favor of anything that gives them incentive not to spend. So I don’t think that the big market owners secretly hate the CBT and are trying to sabotage it so players get a better deal in the next cba and then they can spend more without being taxed. I think they just like keeping more money. If they could extend this exact CBA for another 20 years, I think all 30 owners gladly sign it immediately.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-12-2020 at 07:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •