Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 400 of 454 FirstFirst ... 300350390398399400401402410450 ... LastLast
Results 5,986 to 6,000 of 6799
  1. #5986
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Says who thawv? How do you establish if there are enough good players to have more teams? The game is ever changing. So what criteria do you use to make this statement? My guess is the league is filled with minor league talent that would be playing in the 70's. Just take a look at some of the teams and the rosters that we felt were good players back in the day and tell me honestly if they would play today.

    Your post sound like the angry old man WE are. The guy always looking to the past and suggesting it was better. But really look at the rosters and if you can tell me you think there was more talent then, I would disagree with you. As Stratos said there are more places then ever to unearth talent. It only stands to reason that means there are more players with the talent to be able to play major league baseball.
    I just see a lot of bad players on benches. The starters for the most part are good to go. And usually half the bench is good. But there are a lot of replacement level players getting a lot of AB's. I feel like adding 52 more players to the league is going to dilute it even more.

    Here's an example, using fWAR. This is the number of players with a 1 WAR or worse. Keep in mind that FG considers 1 and below a "scrub." I'm not a big fan of WAR, but I do believe it's a pretty good "snap shot" of who a player is. Most on here are big fans of it, so I'll use it for the sake of this discussion. I know it's not an exact science, but you see my point, and it's just something to kick around.

    PA's/"scrubs"/percent of "scrubs"

    600 PA's 4/5.7%
    500 PA's 21/15.3%
    400 PA's 46/22.2
    300 PA's 87/31.9%
    200 PA's 149/41.4%
    100 PA's 234/51.9%

    I'm not saying that every player on this list shouldn't be in the bigs. I'm just trying to point out how may "scrubs" (not my wording) are getting a pretty high percent of PA's. I think it could be good for the game, and the new cities, but it can't help but water down an already watered down league.

  2. #5987
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    587
    Do you guys like the new 3 batter min rule? I think I am in favor of it as it creates more in game strategy. What are you thoughts?

    I like the idea of lets say Schwarber is up with 2 outs and has KB and Javy behind him. Does the opposing team bring it a lefty to face him?

    Or lets say its the start of the 8th and we have Rizzo, KB, and then Schwarber up in a one run game... what are you going to do? In most cases, its best pitcher available, but I'm sure theres more to it than that.

    Final situation is where we are giving KB and Willy a day off and the lineup coming up is Heyward, Happ, and Descalso. Do you bring in the left to face them? or do you have a fear of KB and Willy facing your lefty because he has to face 3 batters? Again, I love the new strategy in the game.

  3. #5988
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Lol. Baiting?

    You guys: So I think thereís a small group of owners that really want the players to win the next CBA because thatíll allow them to spend more money on players and not pay taxes so they are helping the players do better in the next CBA by cutting player spending during this CBA.

    Me: Thatís a weird conspiracy theory. I donít agree.

    You guys: ďIím offended.Ē ďStop baiting.Ē



    Lol. Ok. And again, I didnít say ďcrazy.Ē I thought it, but Rcal wrote it.

    The issue between the Yankees and the Os is revenue sharing, not the lux tax. The Yankees will likely spend over 10 times as much on rev sharing than they will on lux tax and thatís as a repeat offender over the very top tier of the tax. If they are upset with the Os for not spending they should be much more upset about the 7 million+ they give to the Os (and every team) in revenue sharing than the 700k (200k last year) the oís might get for the Yankees lux tax penalty.
    Your right CP. Thank you for setting me straight.

  4. #5989
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,133

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Your right CP. Thank you for setting me straight.
    Youíre welcome rcal. Thanks for this insightful conversation.

  5. #5990
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    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 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.
    I think that the players should be fighting for a floor, more than a higher ceiling. Too many teams are pocketing the money they get from the large market teams.

    If a team receives profit sharing of 200 million, they shouldn't be allowed to have an 80 million dollar payroll. I understand that there are other expenses other than payroll, but it looks like they are just keeping the money for themselves instead of using it to be more competitive.

  6. #5991
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by BearDown1223 View Post
    Do you guys like the new 3 batter min rule? I think I am in favor of it as it creates more in game strategy. What are you thoughts?

    I like the idea of lets say Schwarber is up with 2 outs and has KB and Javy behind him. Does the opposing team bring it a lefty to face him?

    Or lets say its the start of the 8th and we have Rizzo, KB, and then Schwarber up in a one run game... what are you going to do? In most cases, its best pitcher available, but I'm sure theres more to it than that.

    Final situation is where we are giving KB and Willy a day off and the lineup coming up is Heyward, Happ, and Descalso. Do you bring in the left to face them? or do you have a fear of KB and Willy facing your lefty because he has to face 3 batters? Again, I love the new strategy in the game.
    It will definitely allow for more importance on hitter protection/ lineup construction.


    If it speeds games up some Iím all for it

  7. #5992
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,133
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    I think that the players should be fighting for a floor, more than a higher ceiling. Too many teams are pocketing the money they get from the large market teams.

    If a team receives profit sharing of 200 million, they shouldn't be allowed to have an 80 million dollar payroll. I understand that there are other expenses other than payroll, but it looks like they are just keeping the money for themselves instead of using it to be more competitive.
    I personally donít like a floor, just like I donít like a ceiling. I think it would be better to tie it to wins. If the Rays can build a 95 win team for $60 million I donít think they should be forced to spend $100 million on payroll because of a floor.

    I think the better approach is to go after the rev share money from teams who donít spend and who build crappy teams. If your team sucks and you arenít spending your rev sharing money, then you shouldnít be entitled to all that rev sharing money. Maybe a hybrid idea where you can be under the floor but if you donít win X number of games you lose x percentage of your rev sharing payout. If you are above the floor you are safe even if your team sucks.

  8. #5993
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Your right CP. Thank you for setting me straight.
    It's baiting to call someone crazy. It's entertaining to say it in the sense of "I was THINKING you're crazy, but I didn't type it" (until now, of course). And I'm not offended by it and find it entertaining. That doesn't mean it isn't baiting. It also doesn't mean I didn't laugh at the joke.

    As for the conspiracy theory comments, that's just plain nonsense. Nobody said the large market owners want the players to "win" the CBA (whatever that means). We're saying the large market teams are tired of footing the bill, for revenue sharing or CBT or any other measure that is vaguely inserted into the CBA for purposes of "parity" but that always amounts to the same teams staying at the top, just for a higher price. And that there will be three competing forces next CBA - the players, the large market teams, and the small market teams.

    But I guess I'll just adjust my tinfoil hat because I believe that rich owners don't like paying millions to small market owners that contribute little to the brand and revenue of one of the most profitable sports leagues in the world. Straight up flat-earther **** there.

  9. #5994
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    4,721
    Getting interesting..
    Bryant and a prospect for Arenado and $$$

    https://twitter.com/NBCSCubs/status/...759517185?s=19

  10. #5995
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,133

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    It's baiting to call someone crazy. It's entertaining to say it in the sense of "I was THINKING you're crazy, but I didn't type it" (until now, of course). And I'm not offended by it and find it entertaining. That doesn't mean it isn't baiting. It also doesn't mean I didn't laugh at the joke.

    As for the conspiracy theory comments, that's just plain nonsense. Nobody said the large market owners want the players to "win" the CBA (whatever that means). We're saying the large market teams are tired of footing the bill, for revenue sharing or CBT or any other measure that is vaguely inserted into the CBA for purposes of "parity" but that always amounts to the same teams staying at the top, just for a higher price. And that there will be three competing forces next CBA - the players, the large market teams, and the small market teams.

    But I guess I'll just adjust my tinfoil hat because I believe that rich owners don't like paying millions to small market owners that contribute little to the brand and revenue of one of the most profitable sports leagues in the world. Straight up flat-earther **** there.
    I didnít call him crazy. I thought his idea was crazy. Because it is. And I didnít even say the idea was crazy until he claimed I said it. Then I admitted I thought it, but I intentionally didnít write it. Itís not baiting at all. It wouldnít have been baiting even if I did write that it was a crazy idea. If we canít be critical of each others ideas then just shut the board down. Nobody insulted rcal or you. I think your conspiracy theory is unfounded. It would be baiting if I wrote that rcal is a crazy idiot, but I donít believe that at all and didnít write anything close to that. I just think his idea is pretty crazy.

    Itís 100% a conspiracy theory. ďWinningĒ a CBA means getting a better deal for your side. Obviously. If a subset of owners want the players to get a better deal and the owners to get a worse deal then theyíd be acting against the interests of the side they are on.

    Now you are trying to act like rev sharing and the CBT are interchangeable. Those are not the same things. Itís hard to have a serious conversation if you donít know the differences between rev sharing and what rcal and you suggested regarding owners abiding by the CBT to force a CBT change in the next cba that would benefit the players. Thatís the conspiracy nonsense.

    Revenue sharing is an issue between owners. The CBT is an issue between owners and players.

    Owners are absolutely frustrated by revenue sharing money being pocketed. Iíve seen zero evidence that thereís a group of owners that are pissed about the lux tax and who want to sabotage the lux tax system to help the players get a better deal next time so they can spend more money without minor penalties. Have you?

    Until thereís any evidence itís just a theory about a conspiracy, however you want to phrase it.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 02:33 PM.

  11. #5996
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,438
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    I personally donít like a floor, just like I donít like a ceiling. I think it would be better to tie it to wins. If the Rays can build a 95 win team for $60 million I donít think they should be forced to spend $100 million on payroll because of a floor.

    I think the better approach is to go after the rev share money from teams who donít spend and who build crappy teams. If your team sucks and you arenít spending your rev sharing money, then you shouldnít be entitled to all that rev sharing money. Maybe a hybrid idea where you can be under the floor but if you donít win X number of games you lose x percentage of your rev sharing payout. If you are above the floor you are safe even if your team sucks.
    I agree with this part. There could be some real problems if we tie penalties to wins though. But I don't have a better idea. I don't believe there can be a floor without two things. A hard cap, and full revenue sharing.

    Let's look at the Cubs during their rebuild.

    2010 142 million payroll/75 wins
    2011 141 million/71 wins
    2012 108 million/61 wins
    2013 101 million/66 wins
    2014 93 million/73 wins

    I get that they were stuck with old payroll they were trying to shed, but this is the type of problem that can be caused when it's tied to wins.

    How does a team prove that they're rebuilding? I really don't know the answer to to make teams spend the money they receive other than do something like you mentioned

    I'm sure lawyers will get creative in how to fix the problem of small market team continuing to freeload.

  12. #5997
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northwest Arkansas
    Posts
    69,581
    Odds of this Arenado thing happening? Better than 50%?

    At least if you're trading KB, getting a replacement like Arenado offsets a good chunk, if not most, of that loss.

  13. #5998
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    It's baiting to call someone crazy. It's entertaining to say it in the sense of "I was THINKING you're crazy, but I didn't type it" (until now, of course). And I'm not offended by it and find it entertaining. That doesn't mean it isn't baiting. It also doesn't mean I didn't laugh at the joke.

    As for the conspiracy theory comments, that's just plain nonsense. Nobody said the large market owners want the players to "win" the CBA (whatever that means). We're saying the large market teams are tired of footing the bill, for revenue sharing or CBT or any other measure that is vaguely inserted into the CBA for purposes of "parity" but that always amounts to the same teams staying at the top, just for a higher price. And that there will be three competing forces next CBA - the players, the large market teams, and the small market teams.

    But I guess I'll just adjust my tinfoil hat because I believe that rich owners don't like paying millions to small market owners that contribute little to the brand and revenue of one of the most profitable sports leagues in the world. Straight up flat-earther **** there.
    Just get out. Trust me, it is not worth it. There is no way to prove what we believe, nor is there a way to prove what we believe is wrong. But not worth the effort to chance certain people's minds.

  14. #5999
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,133
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    I agree with this part. There could be some real problems if we tie penalties to wins though. But I don't have a better idea. I don't believe there can be a floor without two things. A hard cap, and full revenue sharing.

    Let's look at the Cubs during their rebuild.

    2010 142 million payroll/75 wins
    2011 141 million/71 wins
    2012 108 million/61 wins
    2013 101 million/66 wins
    2014 93 million/73 wins

    I get that they were stuck with old payroll they were trying to shed, but this is the type of problem that can be caused when it's tied to wins.

    How does a team prove that they're rebuilding? I really don't know the answer to to make teams spend the money they receive other than do something like you mentioned

    I'm sure lawyers will get creative in how to fix the problem of small market team continuing to freeload.
    Iím sure there are better ideas than mine, but Iím not sure what you mean about the Cubs rebuild.

    Basically what Iím throwing out there is something like this:
    - Salary floor is $100 million (or whatever)
    - if you spend above the floor you are safe, you get all your rev sharing money.
    - if you spend under the floor and win over 75 games, you are safe, you get all your rev sharing money
    - if you win 65-75 games and are under the floor you get 90% (or whatever) of your rev sharing money
    - if you win less than 65 games and are under the floor you get 75% of your rev sharing money.

    Theyíd have to figure out smart percentages and thresholds, but basically allow teams to be cheap if they are good. If they suck and are pocketing rev share money, take some of the money back.

  15. #6000
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,133

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Just get out. Trust me, it is not worth it. There is no way to prove what we believe, nor is there a way to prove what we believe is wrong. But not worth the effort to chance certain people's minds.
    Now that is baiting.

    Do you see the difference here? Iím saying I disagree with this idea. Rcal is now just insulting me, as he did last week. Whatever. I donít care about baiting, but this is what it looks like.

Posting Permissions

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