Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 278 of 314 FirstFirst ... 178228268276277278279280288 ... LastLast
Results 4,156 to 4,170 of 4701
  1. #4156
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,025
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    A cap is not the solution. Caps are designed to lower spending on players.

    To me, the solution is to increase revenue sharing but only on a condition of winning. Owners need to be financially incentivized to win. If you are a team that pays into revenue sharing then the more you win the lower percentage you pay into revenue sharing. If you are a team that received revenue sharing then the more you win the more you collect.

    If the Rays can win the AL on a $60 million payroll then good for them. If the pirates lose 110 games with a $40 million payroll they should collect less revenue sharing money than the Rays do. If the big market Cubs want to tank then they should pay a higher percentage into revenue sharing than the big market teams that donít tank.
    That's why they need a floor. Teams that spend 50 million are a huge part of the problem. Not having a minimum spending amount is more of a problem than having a ceiling. But that's just me.

  2. #4157
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    5,842
    Quote Originally Posted by TooL D/R/T View Post
    Just realized they took Marquee off Hulu. Not really sure how Iím gonna watch games this year cause Iím not paying hundreds of dollars for cable.
    The channel has been a disappointing nightmare.
    But atleast it gave the team a cash influx so they could afford to pay more players. Oh wait.

  3. #4158
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    That's why they need a floor. Teams that spend 50 million are a huge part of the problem. Not having a minimum spending amount is more of a problem than having a ceiling. But that's just me.
    Floors are problematic too. Teams **** with them. The NHL has a floor and teams like Phoenix routinely trade for players who are retired, injured (beyond playability ever again) because teams structure contracts to front load. They lower the AAV, so Phoenix "hits the floor" because they deal for players on high AAV but low cash outputs. No joke, the Coyotes once traded with the Flyers to acquire Chris Pronger, who hadn't suited up for a game 2+ years, and was already working a desk job for the league because he helped them get to the floor (high AAV but near null cash payout). It was a joke. The Pirates would 100% be trading for players like that. It hasn't solved the issue. Give a team a floor, they'll find ways to circumvent.

    I'm not very fond of the floor. Floors, as well, usually come with ceilings. Floors help players. Owners will demand a cap. You won't get it without it. So because of all of those, I'm pretty strictly anti "salary floor". Incentivize winning.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-11-2021 at 08:51 PM.

  4. #4159
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    12,722
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    That's why they need a floor. Teams that spend 50 million are a huge part of the problem. Not having a minimum spending amount is more of a problem than having a ceiling. But that's just me.
    Like 1908 said caps and floors donít really work. Make it most profitable to owners to win and theyíll all try to win. If they can be most profitable without winning then many wonít really care if they win or not.

  5. #4160
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    That's why they need a floor. Teams that spend 50 million are a huge part of the problem. Not having a minimum spending amount is more of a problem than having a ceiling. But that's just me.
    There should be both a cap and a floor with the floor being 1/2 the cap, say $100 mill floor and $200 mill cap.

  6. #4161
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevemil505 View Post
    There should be both a cap and a floor with the floor being 1/2 the cap, say $100 mill floor and $200 mill cap.
    Caps benefit owners and owners alone. ****. Caps.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  7. #4162
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,025
    I think the NFL's floor is 92% of the cap. It might be even higher. But they have a whole different animal they're dealing with as far as profit sharing.

  8. #4163
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Addison, IL
    Posts
    24,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    You post lots of blank posts, at least for me. I think these are links that don't show up for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by TooL D/R/T View Post
    I also canít see your posts. Can you tell us what you just posted?
    Basically itís a tweet from that guy who pretends to be the Director of Morale for the Cubs.

    The tweet says ďIve never changed my tune or said anything different abt being prepared for something major to go down, againĒ when the news came out saying the Mets were talking to the Cubs about KB.

    Tweets are showing fine on my end, so idk if itís a Tapatalk issue or website issue

    2016 World Series Champions!!!


  9. #4164
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,741
    Tweets work on tapatalk. They don't show on PSD proper on an internet browser right now.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  10. #4165
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    810
    So? Floors benefit only players! That's why you need both caps and floors And you can make them revenue neutral. Determine the average player payroll. Then set the cap at 125% of that average and set the floor at 75% of the average. Recalculate after each season.

  11. #4166
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevemil505 View Post
    So? Floors benefit only players! That's why you need both caps and floors And you can make them revenue neutral. Determine the average player payroll. Then set the cap at 125% of that average and set the floor at 75% of the average. Recalculate after each season.
    As I literally posted like 5 posts or so above, floors are equally as stupid. And always come with caps. Neither are good. Incentivize winning to owners. That's how you fix it.

    Add a floor and owners will exploit it as they do in every sport with a floor. Add a cap and the owners will have further reasom to not spend. Make teams have to win to gain benefits and they will fall over themselves to win. Players get paid. And the game will be better as this BS we see most of the NL Central will go away.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  12. #4167
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    A city in the United States.
    Posts
    5,763
    Derek Fisher was DFA'd by Toronto. Worth a flier, imo.
    Screw sabermetics.

  13. #4168
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,250
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    As I literally posted like 5 posts or so above, floors are equally as stupid. And always come with caps. Neither are good. Incentivize winning to owners. That's how you fix it.

    Add a floor and owners will exploit it as they do in every sport with a floor. Add a cap and the owners will have further reasom to not spend. Make teams have to win to gain benefits and they will fall over themselves to win. Players get paid. And the game will be better as this BS we see most of the NL Central will go away.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    There are always going to be winners and losers, and not all owners or ownership groups (or even fan bases for that matter) are equal

    That's why the profit sharing is what it is. The poorer owners are never going to agree to a system where they lose out on the ability to make easy profit even if they are uncompetitive. To require anything else, where the teams have to spend significant amounts of money and in order to make a higher profit margin would immediately lead to a reduction of the number of teams in the league because realistically only a certain number of them could spend enough to be competitive year in and year out for it to be worth it. Consequently, if the number of teams shrinks, the number of players that get to be professional baseball players also shrinks.
    Last edited by Crusader; 02-12-2021 at 03:50 AM.
    Ü

    "But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

    - Romans 8:25

  14. #4169
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,738
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    I'm not very fond of the floor. Floors, as well, usually come with ceilings. Floors help players. Owners will demand a cap. You won't get it without it. So because of all of those, I'm pretty strictly anti "salary floor". Incentivize winning.
    Agree. It's really about incentivizing winning, and disincentivizing losing. Right now there's an incentive to lose because of higher draft pics. But if you legit suck it makes it easier to get better.

    Imagine a system where every team had more of less the same amount of money to spend on things that make baseball teams win: payroll, signing bonuses, scouting, front office staff etc. The owners get to keep the rest.

    The incentive to win for owners would be that more winning means more butts in the seats, higher TV ad money, and selling more merch. The players unions makes this more complicated, they want the free market to drive up salaries. I'm still shocked the players ever agreed to a luxury tax because it certainly disincentivizes rich teams from going over.

  15. #4170
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    57,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader View Post
    There are always going to be winners and losers, and not all owners or ownership groups (or even fan bases for that matter) are equal

    That's why the profit sharing is what it is. The poorer owners are never going to agree to a system where they lose out on the ability to make easy profit even if they are uncompetitive. To require anything else, where the teams have to spend significant amounts of money and in order to make a higher profit margin would immediately lead to a reduction of the number of teams in the league because realistically only a certain number of them could spend enough to be competitive year in and year out for it to be worth it. Consequently, if the number of teams shrinks, the number of players that get to be professional baseball players also shrinks.
    It wouldn't have to do with "having" to spend more. It would have to do with "putting out the best team". You could win like the Rays, with a lot payroll. It has to do with incentivizing winning. There will always be winners and lovers, but if WINNING is what made you gain a larger share of profit revenue, owners would have reasons to spend. Its the best way to make teams give a **** and get rid of tanking. All of the other ways have resulted in owners skirting the rules.

    Draft lottery results in good teams getting the top pick. Doesnt stop teams from tanking (see, NHL and NBA). Salary floor? Doesn't stop teams from circumventing rules (see, NHL and NFL where contracts are written to cheat the system). Salary caps incentivize owners not to spend the max amount, contract restrictions (max contract in the NBA) does the same and limits the market.

    If you want owners to actually care about winning, winning needs to be the incentive. As long as losing, and not spending money gets you a better outcome than winning, you will get ******** like the leagues get right now, where teams don't even try.

    I know it won't happen, owners have too much power. But it's the best way to force it. I'm tired of watching the Cubs not give a ****. I have a very waining interest in watching thr Cubs at this juncture next year. And that will likely be for years. I'll pay attention to what's going on, but **** if I'm sitting down to take in a 9 inning game of an Alec Mills start very often, or watching an OF of Phil Ervin, Jake Marisnick and Hapl/Heyward take the field. Why? Ricketts don't give a **** about winning. He doesn't have to. He turns a massive profit when he sells the team so winning doesn't matter. Its pathetic. And its bad for baseball.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 02-12-2021 at 07:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

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