Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 401 of 454 FirstFirst ... 301351391399400401402403411451 ... LastLast
Results 6,001 to 6,015 of 6799
  1. #6001
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    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.
    Quick question on this. Would a chance in the CBA affect different owners differently? Would raising the floor have an affect on some teams and not others? Might some owners not particularly like that sort of change? And other not care, at all? Would some owners not like spending tied to wins? Sounds like what CP is suggesting is if you are good at $60M you can keep the budget where it is, but if you suck you have to spend more. Wonder how happy a team that wins 69 games will be when they find out they cant share in the revenues because they didn't win enough games. Wonder if a deal like that would be something a current bad team wouldn't like right now. Oh, that's right, all the owns want the same thing, I forgot.

  2. #6002
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    27,035
    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.
    C'mon RCal you're better than this.

  3. #6003
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    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.
    Nobody said a subset of owners want a better deal for the players or are colluding with them to achieve the same result. rcal and I said a subset of the owners have different financial motivations and factors than another subset of owners. Paying a tax is a major factor for one of those subsets, but not the other. So is revenue sharing. You are correct that those factors are different. I won't speak for rcal, but my position is:

    1) We're going to have a three way war next CBA between the players, large market teams, and small market teams
    2) All three parties are setting the stage for that war now. Because doing otherwise would be incredibly short sighted from a business standpoint.

  4. #6004
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Quick question on this. Would a chance in the CBA affect different owners differently? Would raising the floor have an affect on some teams and not others? Might some owners not particularly like that sort of change? And other not care, at all? Would some owners not like spending tied to wins? Sounds like what CP is suggesting is if you are good at $60M you can keep the budget where it is, but if you suck you have to spend more. Wonder how happy a team that wins 69 games will be when they find out they cant share in the revenues because they didn't win enough games. Wonder if a deal like that would be something a current bad team wouldn't like right now. Oh, that's right, all the owns want the same thing, I forgot.
    Thats either a strawman argument or you also donít know the difference between rev sharing and the CBT.

    I never suggested the owners will WANT a system that ties rev sharing percentage payouts to wins. I said thatís an option that I think would fix the rev sharing conflict between owners while not forcing a salary floor like thaw recommended, and disincentivizing tanking. You also are badly misrepresenting the idea if you are saying a 69 win team ďcanít share in revenues,Ē because thatís not at all what I suggested.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 03:07 PM.

  5. #6005
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    C'mon RCal you're better than this.
    I don't see what's wrong with this. He's saying we made our point, so did CP, and we disagree but we're not going to change anyone's mind. Probably not a bad suggestion to be honest. It sure beats repeatedly clarifying our position when it is distorted at every turn.

  6. #6006
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Nobody said a subset of owners want a better deal for the players or are colluding with them to achieve the same result. rcal and I said a subset of the owners have different financial motivations and factors than another subset of owners. Paying a tax is a major factor for one of those subsets, but not the other. So is revenue sharing. You are correct that those factors are different. I won't speak for rcal, but my position is:

    1) We're going to have a three way war next CBA between the players, large market teams, and small market teams
    2) All three parties are setting the stage for that war now. Because doing otherwise would be incredibly short sighted from a business standpoint.
    Rcal has absolutely made this argument. Heís done it many times over at least the last 6 months. He has said that a group of owners are unhappy with the tax and that they are abiding by the tax in an effort to help the players get a better deal in the next CBA which in turn will allow them to spend more money on players in the next CBA without being taxed. If you disagree with him, you can take it up with him, but thatís what he has said many times.

    I think there are 2 totally different issues here.
    1. There is absolutely conflict between owners regarding rev sharing. But thatís an owner vs owner issue.
    2. Iíve seen no evidence that thereís conflict between owners regarding the CBT which allows them to universally spend less on players. The idea that a few owners are trying to sabotage this system by abiding by it is a conspiracy theory, and I think itís silly.
    Last edited by CP_414; 02-13-2020 at 03:01 PM.

  7. #6007
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,101
    Really don't wanna trade Bryant for Arenado but it's better than letting him walk in two years because its pretty obvious he wants Harper type contract. And Arenado is a beast.

  8. #6008
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by La_bibbers View Post
    C'mon RCal you're better than this.
    No I am not. And if you are being honest you know there is no way out of a discussion with CP. I respect him and think he is a very good poster. But he is going to get the last word. And unless you want to go on forever, you have to just stop. Because he is not going to. I see it is still going.

  9. #6009
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    No I am not. And if you are being honest you know there is no way out of a discussion with CP. I respect him and think he is a very good poster. But he is going to get the last word. And unless you want to go on forever, you have to just stop. Because he is not going to. I see it is still going.
    Still baiting.

    Yet Iíve said nothing about you rcal. Iíve only discussed your opinions.

    Itís a lot easier to insult a person than it is to support an idea.

  10. #6010
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,437
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    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.
    This sounds reasonable.

    My point was by tying it to wins, a team (Cubs) with 61 wins, but had a 108 million dollar payroll could be penalized. Now that you've added a dollar amount to the number of wins, it makes more sense.

    So as long as you spend "x" amount of money, you don't have to worry about wins. Makes sense.
    Last edited by thawv; 02-13-2020 at 03:33 PM.

  11. #6011
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    867
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Still baiting.

    Yet Iíve said nothing about you rcal. Iíve only discussed your opinions.

    Itís a lot easier to insult a person than it is to support an idea.
    Is it baiting or insulting a person (rather than supporting an idea) to point out that nobody on this forum wants to see this **** and if you want the last word (which you always do, that part isn't a lie) then just go ahead and have it, so we can move on to something else? Just trying to keep this from turning into the "rhetorical question" argument of 2018, a legendary if not nauseating four pages of PSD posts that will go down in history. On that note, I'll bow out and turn to the Arenado conversation which actually has some interesting and recent "news" associated with it.

  12. #6012
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,437
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Quick question on this. Would a chance in the CBA affect different owners differently? Would raising the floor have an affect on some teams and not others? Might some owners not particularly like that sort of change? And other not care, at all? Would some owners not like spending tied to wins? Sounds like what CP is suggesting is if you are good at $60M you can keep the budget where it is, but if you suck you have to spend more. Wonder how happy a team that wins 69 games will be when they find out they cant share in the revenues because they didn't win enough games. Wonder if a deal like that would be something a current bad team wouldn't like right now. Oh, that's right, all the owns want the same thing, I forgot.
    There's a lot of questions to be answered. What if a team is trying to win and they did a poor job of it? Or they had some injury issues? I now think what CP is saying is that maybe the two should be tied together. Not a minimum amount of wins on it's own.

    This is something that will certainly be discussed in the next CBA. I'm going to assume that there are going to be a ton of changes.

  13. #6013
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    11,131

    2019-20 Offseason Thread 2.0: Winter Meetings Edition

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrass View Post
    Is it baiting or insulting a person (rather than supporting an idea) to point out that nobody on this forum wants to see this **** and if you want the last word (which you always do, that part isn't a lie) then just go ahead and have it, so we can move on to something else? Just trying to keep this from turning into the "rhetorical question" argument of 2018, a legendary if not nauseating four pages of PSD posts that will go down in history. On that note, I'll bow out and turn to the Arenado conversation which actually has some interesting and recent "news" associated with it.
    Yes, itís baiting to insult a person rather than an idea. I havenít done that at all, yet you both have insulted me personally while whining that Im baiting you. Lol.

    You and I were having a conversation. You asked me questions. You gave your viewpoint. I answered and asked you questions and gave my viewpoint. Thatís a conversation, not ďgetting the last word.Ē

    This place has gone so far downhill. What a bummer.

  14. #6014
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    14,935
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    There's a lot of questions to be answered. What if a team is trying to win and they did a poor job of it? Or they had some injury issues? I now think what CP is saying is that maybe the two should be tied together. Not a minimum amount of wins on it's own.

    This is something that will certainly be discussed in the next CBA. I'm going to assume that there are going to be a ton of changes.
    Ok, how about an easy question. Does a change in the CBA affect all owners the same?
    OK, one more. Is it possible some owners will like a change more than another owner?

    That it. 2 questions.

  15. #6015
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    9,437
    Quote Originally Posted by rcal10 View Post
    Ok, how about an easy question. Does a change in the CBA affect all owners the same?
    OK, one more. Is it possible some owners will like a change more than another owner?

    That it. 2 questions.
    I would think that it would not be the same for all owners. Example. Cap of let's say 230 million will effect about 6 teams. A required spending will effect about 6 different teams.

    Absolutely to the second question.

    There's going to be a lot of changes that will effect each team differently. And some it may not effect at all

Posting Permissions

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