Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 398 of 454 FirstFirst ... 298348388396397398399400408448 ... LastLast
Results 5,956 to 5,970 of 6799
  1. #5956
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I am cynical about the intentions of owners. I believe theyíve 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.
    Maybe cynical is wrong. I get why all fans and players should be cynical. I am just suggesting that not all owners feel the same way about sharing their money. Not all owners would like the idea of having to pay taxes, lose draft picks, lose international money and possibly not be able to share in revenues other teams share in because they are considered a high revenue or higher salaried team. I, 100% agree that rules were put in place to stop owners from spending money. Or do give them an excuse not to spend. But, IMO, there are going to be many owners who will be happy if the salary structure is raised. As thawv said weeks ago, if the CBT was $250M he believed the Cubs would spend $250M. So do I. And I believe they would be happy to do so. I don' think they like spending $250M to have a payroll of $220M.

    But, really I want to understand your comment on the new playoff format. How does that create a system where is lessens the need for spending on players? I would think it would make teams spend more. More chances at the playoffs.

  2. #5957
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    587
    I doubt Braves would be looking to trade a SP with Hamels going down for some time. Or maybe that opens up a Q trade to ATL or bigger KB + Q trade.

  3. #5958
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    I thought the idea was the first round was 3 games all at the higher ranked teams home. The 3 winners then go on to play 2 series, with the team with the best record taking the spot of the 4th team. I believe this idea eliminates the 1 game play in.
    Correct. And if itís all at the sane site you can play tue-thurs and start all DS series by Saturday. It doesnít add much time to the postseason. Itís just dumb to let more low 80s win teams in.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 11:16 AM.

  4. #5959
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Correct. And if itís all at the sane site you can play tie-thurs and start all DS series by Saturday. It doesnít add much time to the postseason. Itís just dumb to let more low 80s win teams in.
    I didn't say whether I liked it or not. My question is how does it hinder teams spending money? I feel it would give more teams an incentive to try.

  5. #5960
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Maybe cynical is wrong. I get why all fans and players should be cynical. I am just suggesting that not all owners feel the same way about sharing their money. Not all owners would like the idea of having to pay taxes, lose draft picks, lose international money and possibly not be able to share in revenues other teams share in because they are considered a high revenue or higher salaried team. I, 100% agree that rules were put in place to stop owners from spending money. Or do give them an excuse not to spend. But, IMO, there are going to be many owners who will be happy if the salary structure is raised. As thawv said weeks ago, if the CBT was $250M he believed the Cubs would spend $250M. So do I. And I believe they would be happy to do so. I don' think they like spending $250M to have a payroll of $220M.

    But, really I want to understand your comment on the new playoff format. How does that create a system where is lessens the need for spending on players? I would think it would make teams spend more. More chances at the playoffs.
    https://twitter.com/fangraphs/status...440393218?s=21

    The short version is that it takes away incentive to win the division which makes it less meaningful to improve once you get to about 83-84 wins unless you can be the top team in the league. Thereís no significant difference between winning 84 and being WC 3 or winning 94 and being the 2nd best record in the league. An 80 win team could try to spend more to get to 83 and get in, but how much more will they spend when theyíd only have a 32% chance at a single home playoff game? It lowers the bar and flattens the odds more for everyone outside if the #1 seed. So if you canít be first it doesnít make sense to spend an extra $50 million to be 2nd instead of 6th.

    Regarding the top paragraph, I disagree. I donít think owners will be happy to spend $50 million more per year. I think if the CBT line was raised a few would spend more, because it would be impossible to justify not doing it after all this crying about the tax. But I donít think they want to do it. Raising the CBT line significantly will be a thing players fight for, not a thing owners fight for.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 12:45 PM.

  6. #5961
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    69,570
    That Astros presser was hilariously incompetent, embarrassing, tone deaf... take your pick.

  7. #5962
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    86,117
    Probably not in the majority, but I think the season should be shortened.

    #DingerSZN
    #AllenWatch
    End of Season Stats
    .542AVG/.562OBP/.889SLG/1.451OPS/21RBIs/3Dingers(1 grand slam)
    Selected to All-Conference Team
    Selected First Team All-District Team
    Selected First Team All-Region Team
    Verbal Commitment to State Fair Community College

  8. #5963
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    86,117
    Quote Originally Posted by DamnGoat View Post
    That Astros presser was hilariously incompetent, embarrassing, tone deaf... take your pick.
    Did you expect different? I thought it went exactly how I figured it would go.

    #DingerSZN
    #AllenWatch
    End of Season Stats
    .542AVG/.562OBP/.889SLG/1.451OPS/21RBIs/3Dingers(1 grand slam)
    Selected to All-Conference Team
    Selected First Team All-District Team
    Selected First Team All-Region Team
    Verbal Commitment to State Fair Community College

  9. #5964
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by DamnGoat View Post
    That Astros presser was hilariously incompetent, embarrassing, tone deaf... take your pick.
    Really embarrassing. Totally incompetent public relations. Amazing that they had all this time to prepare and came out with that.

  10. #5965
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Probably not in the majority, but I think the season should be shortened.
    I am not sure you are in the minority when talking about this idea with fans. I, for one, would agree with you. Then they would not have to decide the WS in football weather. I would be fine with 2 weeks taken out of the season. But I am sure that is not something the owners nor the players want.

  11. #5966
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    https://twitter.com/fangraphs/status...440393218?s=21

    The short version is that it takes away incentive to win the division which makes it less meaningful to improve once you get to about 83-84 wins unless you can be the top team in the league. Thereís no significant difference between winning 84 and being WC 3 or winning 94 and being the 2nd best record in the league. An 80 win team could try to spend more to get to 83 and get in, but how much more will they spend when theyíd only have a 32% chance at a single home playoff game? It lowers the bar and flattens the odds more for everyone outside if the #1 seed. So if you canít be first it doesnít make sense to spend an extra $50 million to be 2nd instead of 6th.

    Regarding the top paragraph, I disagree. I donít think owners will be happy to spend $50 million more per year. I think if the CBT line was raised theyíd do it, because it would be impossible to justify not doing it after all this crying about the tax. But I donít think they want to do it. Raising the CBT line significantly will be a thing players fight for, but a thing owners fight for.
    The thoughts on the playoff teams are a different way to think about it then I was thinking. I suppose that is a possibility. But I also think more teams in makes it more accessible for teams to try to get in. Trying to get in can result in spending more money. I also do think it matters being the 2nd best versus the 7th best. I think home field does matter. I realize this discussion is slanted to owners ONLY caring about making money. But I think even then an owner would want a better team because that better team might take him further in the playoffs, which in turn creates more money.

    As for the second part, we are never going to agree.

  12. #5967
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    The thoughts on the playoff teams are a different way to think about it then I was thinking. I suppose that is a possibility. But I also think more teams in makes it more accessible for teams to try to get in. Trying to get in can result in spending more money. I also do think it matters being the 2nd best versus the 7th best. I think home field does matter. I realize this discussion is slanted to owners ONLY caring about making money. But I think even then an owner would want a better team because that better team might take him further in the playoffs, which in turn creates more money.

    As for the second part, we are never going to agree.
    Are teams spending like crazy to compete for WC2 now? Think they will for WC4? Spending on players has decreased. We hear every trade deadline that it doesnít make sense to give up good prospects to maybe get the 2nd wild card. If this plan happens it wonít make sense to trade good prospects unless itíll make you the #1 seed. This makes it a lot worse for the 2 division winners who donít get the 1. If you have an 84 win team that will probably make the playoffs as a WC 3 or 4, how much more will you spend to win the division if the Dodgers look like a 103 win team? If the cost is $9 mil per win to acquire wins on average will you spend $54 million more to move from the road team in the 1st round best of 3 to maybe the home team, with no guarantee that you donít still end up with a WC and that your odds in that best of 3 are pretty close either way? I do not believe for a second that owners will do that.

    Yeah, if you are sticking to the conspiracy theory stuff that owners really want to spend more but they are not doing it to sabotage the next cba so the players get a better deal, we wonít agree.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 12:44 PM.

  13. #5968
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    22,718
    Quote Originally Posted by DamnGoat View Post
    That Astros presser was hilariously incompetent, embarrassing, tone deaf... take your pick.
    Complete and utter embarrassment.

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  14. #5969
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Shouldn't we have an on sale date for single game tickets by now?

    I know this is unrelated to anything being currently discussed. I won a dugout box bet with my Boston buddy on the Super Bowl for the Red Sox series, itching to collect.


  15. #5970
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Are teams spending like crazy to compete for WC2 now? Think they will for WC4? Spending on players has decreased. We hear every trade deadline that it doesnít make sense to give up good prospects to maybe get the 2nd wild card. If this plan happens it wonít make sense to trade good prospects unless itíll make you the #1 seed. This makes it a lot worse for the 2 division winners who donít get the 1. If you have an 84 win team that will probably make the playoffs as a WC 3 or 4, how much more will you spend to win the division if the Dodgers look like a 103 win team? If the cost is $9 mil per win to acquire wins on average will you spend $54 million more to move from the road team in the 1st round best of 3 to maybe the home team, with no guarantee that you donít still end up with a WC and that youíd odds in that best of 3 are pretty close either way? I do not believe for a second that owners will do that.

    Yeah, if you are sticking to the conspiracy theory stuff that owners really want to spend more but they are not doing it to sabotage the next cba so the players get a better deal, we wonít agree.
    While I am offended by your characterization of my thoughts, I honestly cannot believe you or anyone else cannot see that different owners have different agendas (besides making money). I honestly do not understand why you would not be able to see that large market teams would be happier if there were not as many penalties for spending, or if spending was raised before these penalties come in. Because of this, and, of course, my crazy conspiracy thinking ways, I am done discussing this. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Posting Permissions

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