Jump to content

Longgone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,024

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Longgone

  1. Longgone
    I'd like to think you are better than that.
  2. Longgone
    There is a huge competitive disparity between clubs. This is a mechanism that reduces that disadvantage. It's a problem that some clubs can simply, vastly outbid other clubs, and this is a mechanism to reduce that advantage. Do you have any better ideas?
  3. Longgone
    Sure, and the bantomweight may get a few punches in, which illustrates how absurd the whole idea of a league with built in competitive disadvantage is. Competitive parity is the goal of every league.
  4. Longgone
    Tell me the truth, Lee. If you were starting a new league today from scratch, would you give a few teams an overwhelming competitive advantage and operational resources 10 to 20 times their competitors? That would be inane. You'd want every team to win or lose based on their skill and talent, not having the deck systemically stacked against you, no matter what you did. The idea that sometimes an underdog can rise up, doesn't make it fair competition in any way, and that's what makes a league viable, each team has the same opportunity and talent and skill wins, not your location or local tv deal.
  5. Longgone
    Sure, and it'd be fun to watch the heavyweight champ pummel a bantomweight amateur.
  6. Longgone
    I don't like expanded playoffs any more than Lee.
  7. Longgone
    There is no correlation between a huge disparity in competitive resources, and the number of teams making the playoffs. More teams making the playoffs, and that hasn't even been agreed upon, would not address any competitive resource imbalance. A few teams could still outbid and outspend everyone else for talent.
  8. Longgone
    Yes, it is. And the player's proposal is much worse than the status quo, and no ones giving an inch.
  9. Longgone
    Up until the pandemic years, players share of revenues stayed remarkably close to 50%. Players salaries have fallen the last few years, but so have revenues with the shortened season and limited attendance. I believe both sides would/should be happy to maintain it at that level, but predictably, have widely different views on the impact of various changes.
  10. Longgone
    And the CBT and revenue sharing have been in place, so your point?
  11. Longgone
    You've missed the point entirely. There would be a league of haves and have nots, who wants that? Having a shot at the playoffs would in no way address the resource disparity, it's a non sequitur.
  12. Longgone
    There would never be anything even remotely competitive when a few teams can just grossly outspend their rivals, not just for the best players, but scouts, infrastructure, etc. Baseball is not like other sports, where most revenues are shared, there is a huge disparity in resources which is attempted to be addressed with revenue sharing, the draft and the CBT. As long as this disparity exists, there needs to be some mechanisms like this. Does it inhibit salaries, sure, but it keeps them at a level where every team has a chance to be competitive, not just a few.
  13. Longgone
    When some teams have ten times the resources, or more, some mechanism is required.
  14. Longgone
    You can't call something legally negotiated collusion, it's more like anti monopoly/ competitive balance measures, which i do believe are necessary. On the other hand, no one is negotiating their existence, just how hard and how high the limits, which should be resolvable.
  15. Longgone
    Stop, without some type of deadline, they'd never settle. This puts the onus on both sides.
  16. Longgone
    Baseball players are risky.
  17. Longgone
    I believe prospects being overvalued or undervalued is cyclical.
  18. Longgone
    I wouldn’t have done a thing differently, except the prospects I traded for would all have panned out.
  19. Longgone
    You are such a cynic
  20. Longgone
    The second paragraph is fine, removes the doubt and temptation, although you are still reacting to perception, not any unidentifiable facts, which i believe is always misguided. the first paragraph is really admitting that you are being subjective, and that there is really no factual basis for it, just feelings and assumptions. That's not a good reason to change a fundamental component of talent distribution.
  21. Longgone
    You are saying keeping the lottery small won't disrupt the draft too much. Why disrupt it at all? Why draw the line at 8, why not 12, or 20? Where's the logical rationale? What if these exact same 8 teams were the only teams in the mlb, would you still say the differential in records and talent is negligible and there should be a lottery for draft order?
  22. Longgone
    There are varying levels of competence in mlb, of course there are. Teams are going to have varying budget constraints in the current environment. However, it it no secret that the Yankees and Dodgers excellence in scouting and player development year after year is in no small measure due to their huge revenue differential compared to other teams, and their ability to outbid and outspend other teams in those areas. Sure, a Tampa Bay has found some success, but is continually losing talent to deeper pockets. With revenues so lopsided, the draft is one way to maintain parity. Leave it alone. All teams want to win, all gms, scouting directors, owners, players, etc., want to win. The idea that some teams are just cheap, greedy, or just plain incompetent, and should be punished for it, is a fallacy, just frustration speaking. Baseball has some issues to address, but the draft isnt one of them, and a lottery isn't going to address any of them.
  23. Longgone
    That will come out in the wash, over time, as intended, if you don't screw things up with a lottery.
  24. Longgone
    You are allowing a better, more competitive team to draft ahead of a weaker team. That is not the purpose of a draft. And you are doing it for no productive reason. If you buy the premise that won/loss record is indicative of ability, then artificially altering that hierarchy is a corruption of intent.
  25. Longgone
    This seems like a non sequitur, the lottery doesn't address either incompetence or five straight years of losing. There are two facts: 1. Lotteries don't do anything to impact team behavior. 2. They unnecessarily distort the true function of a draft, which is to allow weaker to become more competitive, and create long term parity.
×
×
  • Create New...