4hzglory

Just now, 4hzglory said:

It was actually Harold.

Well I'm not sure.  It was the short stop and I thought Harold was playing Short based on the thread, but the MLB app says it's Willie

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

Already in midseason form

It was actually Harold.

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

MLB franchise valuations in millions:

Team	2011	2016	2021	16 vs '11	21 vs '11
New York Yankees	$   1,700	$   3,400	$   5,250	100%	209%
Boston Red Sox	$      912	$   2,300	$   3,570	152%	291%
Los Angeles Dodgers	$      800	$   2,500	$   3,465	213%	333%
Chicago Cubs	$      773	$   2,200	$   3,360	185%	335%
San Francisco Giants	$      563	$   2,250	$   3,175	300%	464%
New York Mets	$      747	$   1,650	$   2,450	121%	228%
St. Louis Cardinals	$      518	$   1,600	$   2,245	209%	333%
Philadelphia Phillies	$      609	$   1,240	$   2,050	104%	237%
LA Angels of Anaheim	$      554	$   1,340	$   2,025	142%	266%
Washington Nationals	$      417	$   1,300	$   1,925	212%	362%
Atlanta Braves	$      482	$   1,180	$   1,875	145%	289%
Houston Astros	$      474	$   1,100	$   1,870	132%	295%
Texas Rangers	$      561	$   1,230	$   1,785	119%	218%
Chicago White Sox	$      526	$   1,050	$   1,685	100%	220%
Toronto Blue Jays	$      337	$      900	$   1,675	167%	397%
Seattle Mariners	$      449	$   1,200	$   1,630	167%	263%
San Diego Padres	$      406	$      890	$   1,500	119%	269%
Baltimore Orioles	$      411	$   1,000	$   1,430	143%	248%
Minnesota Twins	$      490	$      910	$   1,325	86%	170%
Arizona Diamondbacks	$      396	$      925	$   1,320	134%	233%
Colorado Rockies	$      414	$      860	$   1,300	108%	214%
Pittsburgh Pirates	$      304	$      975	$   1,285	221%	323%
Detroit Tigers	$      385	$   1,150	$   1,260	199%	227%
Milwaukee Brewers	$      376	$      875	$   1,220	133%	224%
Cleveland Indians	$      353	$      800	$   1,160	127%	229%
Oakland Athletics	$      307	$      725	$   1,125	136%	266%
Cincinnati Reds	$      375	$      905	$   1,085	141%	189%
Kansas City Royals	$      351	$      865	$   1,060	146%	202%
Tampa Bay Rays	$      331	$      650	$   1,055	96%	219%
Florida Marlins	$      360	$      675	$      990	88%	175%

These valuations are freely available from Forbes.

No, these people are not losing money on their investment.

And considering the rate to "buy" an expansion team is $2 billion, that should mean every one of those teams is actually worth at least $2 billion

5 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

But wouldn't it also cause them to not allow 2 rookies to make the team in the same season? Greene wins ROY this season, extra picks. Torkelson wins ROY in 2023, extra picks. Hmmmmm

Or they finish 1st and 2nd and they get 2 picks 🤪

1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

Toledo.

I don't think it's as simple as this with the new CBA.  If they think they are close to ready, even if their stats in the spring don't show it, I think they will start them in Detroit.  If they struggle for a month, they will send them down.  The benefit of potentially getting extra draft picks sways things.  Add to that that they may not get the extra year of control even if they wait to bring them up, I think you will see teams err on the side of pushing a bit compared to before trying to get the extra control.

16 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Last I heard, GB was 41M over the cap. Maybe they had to shed salary, that would be a lot of contracts to re-structure. 😅😅

Supposedly they were willing to give Adams the same deal but he wanted to leave.  Be careful what you wish for.

Bey with 21 in the first.

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

I wonder why Watson didn't want to go to Cleveland?(well other than it being Cleveland) They got some nice pieces on defense including arguably the best pass rusher in football and on offense they just got Cooper and have a premium rb in Chubb. 

Also I believe the Browns have a fairly big fanbase throughout the country.

I think they are in much better shape and more attractive than the Saints and Falcons for sure and possibly the Panthers as well. 

They wouldn’t have had Chubb.  He was part of the trade package.  Chubb, Top corner Ward, 3 number 1s and a number 2.  It’s funny that there’s was the only trade package publicized and he didn’t pick them.

1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

If Atlanta trades for Watson, they would then assume Watson's $40 million cap hit right? Matt Ryan has a $40 million dead cap if traded before June 1st. That's $80 million in QBs. 

They would only assume Watson’s current $35 mil base salary.  They could restructure to a $1 mil base and $34 mil signing bonus which would spread the $34 mil over 3 years making his current hit at $12.33 mil (1 mil plus 11.33 mil from the bonus) that makes the next 2 years hit $11.33 mil higher but they can deal with it later.

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

Matt Ryan has a massive dead cap hit. I wonder how Atlanta plans to do this?

And the Saints are right at the cap.  It shows that you can get creative if you need to.  It pushes it back to later (which the Saints have done over and over) but it can be done.

1 minute ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Re-signing Boyle probably doesn't completely rule out taking a QB early, but it could be an indication that they are trending that direction. You don't pay $2.5M to a 3rd string QB.

$2.5 mil with incentives could be a $1 mil base if he doesn't play.

3 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Which means we don't need an OF'er right now. You've just confirmed my position.

There's no reason whatsoever to spend on any OF'er until the trade deadline, at the earliest.

The Tigers should first and foremost give time to Grossman-Greene-Baddoo-Hill-Daz-Reyes to see how they fare this season.

And the new cba definitely gives them incentive to have Greene and Torkelson on the roster day 1, so Greene is likely committed to consistent time.

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

cutting him NOW is beneficial to the player, right?  i read this as the lions doing flowers a solid.

if they dont designate him a post june 1 cut then his cap hit is split between this year and next year, if he is a post june 1 cut it all goes to next year.  right?  i could have that wrong.

if so, and theyre taking more of the cap hit this year, maybe it indicates the lions are going to spend more next year when flowers will be off the books and the peice for cutting goff is lower?  not sure.

If they don't designate him it actually means 100% of dead money is this year.  If they do post June 1, it is split between this year and next.  

Only thing about the post June 1 is they don't get the cap relief until then per HongBit's post

Just now, oblong said:

 

So does this mean the subcommittee was going against the rest of the players wishes prior to this?  At least a deal is done and we it is going to be a crazy month!

No more 7 inning double headers or runners on 2nd to start extra innings.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/mlb-mlbpa-reach-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I could understand the idea that if the academies are getting a cut now that might go away in a draft system and that could reduce the funds available for the instructional system, but if that's the issue why are Abreu and Guillen on the other side? Not arguing here, just trying to understand the issues a bit.

And the trainer quoted in the article (from MLB so take that with a grain of salt) is for the draft.

https://www.mlb.com/news/international-draft-cba-negotiations

So the aggregate bonus & for the 20 round international draft (600 players) is more than was spent on over 1000 players in the last period prior to the pandemic.  So the international prospects would actually get more $ overall.  No team could pass on a selection.  They expect $21-23 million more to be spent on international players with this system.

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

you'll still get paid and still get a bonus if you get drafted.

And from the initial reports, the first picks bonus was higher than any bonus received from this year's signing period.   They were set bonuses based on slot, but overall the bonuses to all drafted international players were for more $ than the $ paid to the same amount of players in the last international period.

12 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I think the media deals are where you attack this, along with a floor and ceiling.  I totally get that a minimum payroll doesn't always make the most sense for a team rebuilding (better to use assets towards development/ scouting/ coaches/ facilities/ etc) but a floor would make a ceiling more palatable for the players.  If you can attack the problem by saying: "Yeah, a salary cap will means players, as a whole will lose x-amount of dollars, but the floor means that players will gain y-amount of dollars and y > x, therefore net gains" it might be able to get passed.

Along with this, I would argue that media deals should be shared.  In a perfect world I'd say all media gets polled together and divided out... the logic I'd use is that no one is paying to watch the Yankee's go out and "practice" for 9 innings. They are going out to watch them play against another team. Without the other team the Yankees sell no tickets, get no eye-balls on TVs, etc.  That said I think a 100% sharing won't pass with the big market owners, so I'd say do a 50/50 split.  The team gets 50% of any local media deal, the other 50% goes into a pool.  The pool is split evenly among all teams.

That's still going to be a big blow to the big market owners, but I'd try to soften it by saying a hard cap will reduce your spending and prevent "arms races" between big market teams so even though you'll get less media money your spending will hopefully be lower.  Additionally the long term hope here is that the floor plus more media money for small market teams will help them get more competitive and, which means better media deals for them in the future, which means a bigger media cash pool which benefits all teams.

Like the revenue sharing and floor, hate the hard cap.  I'd rather see a lower soft cap with only financial penalties so an owner can choose to go over if they want and that tax gets spread to the other teams.  I really dislike the draft pick/international pool penalties.

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Interesting how you established "better for the owners" and "better for the overall good of the game" as being opposites.

I could also say the same of some of the gains made by the players.  I was responding specifically to Lee's post.  

3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think the pitch clock should be good for the game, but it's something owners wanted and not the players.  The owners don't do things for the "good of the game".  They do things to make money which may or may not end up being good for the game.  

Agree

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

There are quite a few changes being made from which the owners will benefit such as expanded playoffs and pitch clocks and the ability to make other rule changes quickly.  

You are definitely right on the expanded playoffs.  Some of the others can be debated if they are better for the owners or the overall good of the game

7 hours ago, oblong said:

They are the ones who locked them out and the reason we have no baseball right now.  There’s no reason they couldn’t have made them this offer 10 days ago.  They didn’t have to be drama queens.  Maybe they needed to see what Apple was going to do for them or Chris Ilitch’s coke supplier threatened to hold out.  

They locked them out because the players were rightfully prepared to strike.  The owner's would have been happy to play on the previous deal.  There are very few of these changes that are improvements to the owner's.  

8 hours ago, oblong said:

So the offer from MLB a few weeks ago on deadline day wasn’t final even though they said it was?

It was the final one before postponing any games.  They made that pretty clear at the time.