Baseball

[pdub]

All I'm saying is that, in addition to being a bad comparison to baseball structurally, the NFL isn't even really much better off competitively.

Winning a Super Bowl with a sub-HoF quarterback appears to be about as easy as winning a World Series with a sub-top-10 payroll.

The NBA example isn't helpful (to a Royals fan) either, as far as what things look like in a floor-and-cap environment.

For championships maybe not -- but the major point of this is getting lost.
The Celtics and the Chiefs built these teams ( I would prefer a harder cap in the NBA than the luxury tax option but at least the other teams are getting some money -- i'd argue that money should then however minimally force the floor cap to raise - i.e. you have to spend your luxury tax money on the roster ).

The Chiefs didn't buy championships. They didn't have a significant competitive advantage over anyone.

You put your 8 year old kid in a science fair.
He spends the week before building a wind turbine out of a plastic bottle and straws - never asks for your help - he kind of is a genius.
The next day Braeden Kenword ( fucking Kenwords ) comes in with a clearly pre-bought steam engine kit ( that you find out the next day cost over 500 dollars ). It's super cool.
He wins the science fair going away.
Just like he won last year with his pre-bought kit.

Compare this to your kid winning 3 years in a row with a strict max budget of 50 dollars because, well, your kid is actually creative and good at crafting/presenting at the science fair. Sure, other parents might be tired that your kid keeps winning but the playing field is even so they can't be upset.

You can be upset at Braeden Kenword.

[jfish26]

Having a quarterback like Mahomes is probably the biggest competitive advantage, of any kind, that there is in team sports. Bigger than money in baseball (or any other sport), bigger than homefield advantage or any coach in any sport. Certainly bigger than any other position in football or any position in any sport (which is part of what makes gigantic baseball spending highly inefficient).

You will say, correctly, that any team could have had Mahomes. All it would have had to do is pay more than the Chiefs did, to move into a place of drafting ahead of the Chiefs.

It is also true that any team in baseball could have Juan Soto this offseason. All it has to do is choose to pay more than his other suitors.

Choosing NOT to spend, is still a choice.

I fully, 100% agree with you that baseball would be healthier if there was more competitive balance.

I just won't agree that the right way - or even an effective way! - to achieve that balance is to make the owners richer.

[KUTradition]

Ohtani’s 50th HR ball just sold at auction for north of $3mil

obviously that’s a lot, but it seems to me like a lot even in the memorabilia world

[pdub]

You will say, correctly, that any team could have had Mahomes. All it would have had to do is pay more than the Chiefs did, to move into a place of drafting ahead of the Chiefs.

The difference being, if you pay more in the NFL, whether it is in salary cap like we are discussing, or, in this contrived example, draft picks, there are limited resources of those things.

MLB has draft picks like the NFL.
MLB doesn't have a salary cap like the NFL.

[pdub]

And also I don't entirely agree with your statement about Mahomes.

Patrick Mahomes playing for Adam Gase, Jamison Crowder and a washed up Leveon Bell on the Jets doesn't get you anywhere.

[jfish26]

You will say, correctly, that any team could have had Mahomes. All it would have had to do is pay more than the Chiefs did, to move into a place of drafting ahead of the Chiefs.

The difference being, if you pay more in the NFL, whether it is in salary cap like we are discussing, or, in this contrived example, draft picks, there are limited resources of those things.

MLB has draft picks like the NFL.
MLB doesn't have a salary cap like the NFL.

Isn't this even more of an indictment of owners, then, for choosing not to spend money? Since, for example, Juan Soto will cost your team only money?

That is, fundamentally, what I'm saying.

No one is forcing a person to buy (or hold) a baseball team. People choose to buy (or hold) them for all sorts of reasons, but generally it's because having them makes you a hell of a lot of money.

All I am saying is that, in an effort to balance things competitively, there are better (and more effective!) ways than to simply direct even MORE cash up to the owners.

[pdub]

Yes, we can blame the owners, of course, fuck ultra wealthy rich people in general.
But blaming the owners doesn't move the needle at all - it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't make baseball worth watching to me.

Similar to ultra wealthy trying to get out of paying taxes - we can complain about them all we want - but that doesn't solve the problem. Actionable rules do.

A cap neutralizes the advantage of big market teams.
Factual statement.

[Back2Lawrence]

As far as a ‘watch-factor’…many of the pace accelerating changes have been good ones, and make the game more enjoyable to watch.

[jfish26]

Yes, we can blame the owners, of course, fuck ultra wealthy rich people in general.
But blaming the owners doesn't move the needle at all - it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't make baseball worth watching to me.

Similar to ultra wealthy trying to get out of paying taxes - we can complain about them all we want - but that doesn't solve the problem. Actionable rules do.

A cap neutralizes the advantage of big market teams.
Factual statement.

Even if we are operating in a world in which we’ve let the owners off the hook, then “neutralizing” this advantage buffs other advantages big market teams have over smaller market teams.

Again, that is part of the fundamental issue here: I do not believe hard top and bottom constraints on spending will have the NFL effect. I think they’ll have the NBA effect.

And that is very bad for teams in markets like Kansas City, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St Louis.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Yes, we can blame the owners, of course, fuck ultra wealthy rich people in general.
But blaming the owners doesn't move the needle at all - it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't make baseball worth watching to me.

Similar to ultra wealthy trying to get out of paying taxes - we can complain about them all we want - but that doesn't solve the problem. Actionable rules do.

A cap neutralizes the advantage of big market teams.
Factual statement.

I'll preface this by saying I don't disagree with your sentiment, and I feel there are strong disadvantages to not having a cap.

MLB is a business. I have to assume owners and all (or at least most) involved in MLB make more $ off of big market teams than they do off of small market teams.
So from an owners and MLB perspective, do you feel their focus should be more about the bottom line or appeasing fans in (and of) smaller market teams?

When I get a chance (hopefully later today) I am going to read this and see if it offers any insight.
https://www.blessyouboys.com/2024/4/19/ ... re%20%2321.

[pdub]

Yes, we can blame the owners, of course, fuck ultra wealthy rich people in general.
But blaming the owners doesn't move the needle at all - it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't make baseball worth watching to me.

Similar to ultra wealthy trying to get out of paying taxes - we can complain about them all we want - but that doesn't solve the problem. Actionable rules do.

A cap neutralizes the advantage of big market teams.
Factual statement.

I'll preface this by saying I don't disagree with your sentiment, and I feel there are strong disadvantages to not having a cap.

MLB is a business. I have to assume owners and all (or at least most) involved in MLB make more $ off of big market teams than they do off of small market teams.
So from an owners and MLB perspective, do you feel their focus should be more about the bottom line or appeasing fans in (and of) smaller market teams?

When I get a chance (hopefully later today) I am going to read this and see if it offers any insight.
https://www.blessyouboys.com/2024/4/19/ ... re%20%2321.

I'm stating why I personally do not like the sport and why I personally don't find it fair, not how the sport should make the most money.

There are a lot of fans that also feel that way but certainly a lot of people live in LA and NYC so that for sure balances things out.

[jfish26]

It's not a straightforward question.

My general opinion is that these are businesses, and (generally!) they should be run as their owners see fit.

But that general opinion is tempered by how much taxpayer support these businesses get.

I also think that it should be the league's job to help steer the sport toward a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats, growing-the-pie direction.

And there is no question that stark competitive imbalance runs against those goals.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Yes, we can blame the owners, of course, fuck ultra wealthy rich people in general.
But blaming the owners doesn't move the needle at all - it doesn't solve the problem.
It doesn't make baseball worth watching to me.

Similar to ultra wealthy trying to get out of paying taxes - we can complain about them all we want - but that doesn't solve the problem. Actionable rules do.

A cap neutralizes the advantage of big market teams.
Factual statement.

I'll preface this by saying I don't disagree with your sentiment, and I feel there are strong disadvantages to not having a cap.

MLB is a business. I have to assume owners and all (or at least most) involved in MLB make more $ off of big market teams than they do off of small market teams.
So from an owners and MLB perspective, do you feel their focus should be more about the bottom line or appeasing fans in (and of) smaller market teams?

When I get a chance (hopefully later today) I am going to read this and see if it offers any insight.
https://www.blessyouboys.com/2024/4/19/ ... re%20%2321.

I'm stating why I personally do not like the sport and why I personally don't find it fair, not how the sport should make the most money.

There are a lot of fans that also feel that way but certainly a lot of people live in LA and NYC so that for sure balances things out.

Right, and I will say it again and again and again, I sincerely respect your feelings, and don't feel you are wrong for feeling the way you do.
I have my own feelings on the "fairness" and like most things in life and the world, I have very mixed feelings.
I'll say it again, what little knowledge I have on the subject, I am led to believe the owners are free to spend as little or as much as they choose to on their payrolls. That ranges from the Yankees and Mets and Phillies and Dodgers owners to the Rays, and Marlins, and Pirates and A's owners.
Is it right? Is it fair? Is it good or bad for Baseball? I can't give a definitive yes or no. Like all professional sports, I feel the system/s could use improvement, but can not be, nor will ever be, perfect.

[pdub]

Is it right?
Eh. It's baseball. So there is no 'right' I guess.
Is it fair?
No. It is not.
Is it good or bad for baseball?
Who knows. It's awful for me.

You're a Dodger fan. Of course you think it's fair.

[pdub]

Imagine, in addition to our fantastic coach and future HOF QB, in 2021 we didn't really have to worry about the injuries because we also were able to sign, as either starters or backups:

Derrick Henry, Amari Cooper, Jack Conklin and Brandon Schreff on offense.
Shaq Barrett ( sorry Tampa we have 3 times the budget as you - you're not chasing Mahomes in this one - he'll be chasing Brady ), Matt Judon, Justin Simmons and Kyle Van Noy on defense.

Seem fair?

[jfish26]

Is it right?
Eh. It's baseball. So there is no 'right' I guess.
Is it fair?
No. It is not.
Is it good or bad for baseball?
Who knows. It's awful for me.

You're a Dodger fan. Of course you think it's fair.

If that was directed at me - I'm not a Dodger fan. Haven't been in quite a long time.

[pdub]

You were a Dodgers fan when this website started.

[jfish26]

Imagine, in addition to our fantastic coach and future HOF QB, in 2021 we didn't really have to worry about the injuries because we also were able to sign, as either starters or backups:

Derrick Henry, Amari Cooper, Jack Conklin and Brandon Schreff on offense.
Shaq Barrett ( sorry Tampa we have 3 times the budget as you - you're not chasing Mahomes in this one - he'll be chasing Brady ), Matt Judon, Justin Simmons and Kyle Van Noy on defense.

Seem fair?

If the league rules are that the 31 other multibillionaire owners are free to compete against the Chiefs in bidding for these players...then yes, that would seem like fair behavior?

[jfish26]

You were a Dodgers fan when this website started.

Well, not this one.

I mean, I'm rooting for the Dodgers over the Yankees this week, team of my childhood etc.

But (and you will have to just take my word for it, although there are those around here who are connected with me on social media or even real life and can vouch for this) I pay little attention to, and feel very little emotional fanhood for, the Dodgers (but I very much do for the Royals).

[pdub]

Imagine, in addition to our fantastic coach and future HOF QB, in 2021 we didn't really have to worry about the injuries because we also were able to sign, as either starters or backups:

Derrick Henry, Amari Cooper, Jack Conklin and Brandon Schreff on offense.
Shaq Barrett ( sorry Tampa we have 3 times the budget as you - you're not chasing Mahomes in this one - he'll be chasing Brady ), Matt Judon, Justin Simmons and Kyle Van Noy on defense.

Seem fair?

If the league rules are that the 31 other multibillionaire owners are free to compete against the Chiefs in bidding for these players...then yes, that would seem like fair behavior?

I guess then you believe tax law is fair.
In fact, there should be a flat tax.

Just because you are ultra-wealthy does not mean that you will give back to the community.

The owners with larger revenues due to their market can spend more ( and do! ) because they can operate with less chance at loss.