Jump to content

chasfh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17,850

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

 Content Type 

Everything posted by chasfh

  1. chasfh
    There we go! Got you onto something else you'd rather talk about! 🤣 Anyhow, I said it's not communism, so, we both agree on that. 😁
  2. chasfh
    I believe there is a tie between this thinking and morality-based opposition to abortion: that women and girls who become pregnant after enjoying sex deserve the punishment of having to bear and raise a baby.
  3. chasfh
    Where is this simple math? I don't recall having seen it?
  4. chasfh
    Well, if anyone were starting a league today, it would be the USFL, where the league owns all the teams outright, have all the teams play in a single stadium despite the fiction of regional or city representation, and would compete for a second tier of players who would otherwise not have any opportunity to play professional football at all, and who would gladly do so for barely a living wage (average: $45,000/year) strictly for the chance to be noticed by the first-tier league so they can finally get good and paid. Otherwise, equality of resources to every team in order to compete neither can nor should be guaranteed. This isn't communism. But major league owners are not made up of consortia of guys who are like you or me. Even the "poorest" MLB owner has $400 million in personal net worth which, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean that is the sum of all resources he can control on behalf of the team. But even if that were the sum total of resources available to him, I don't think the game should unilaterally create an artificial obligation to hold itself back just so the few owners who have only two commas in their net worth can comfortably compete—most of whom aren't, anyway. If those owners can't keep up, they are certainly free to sell their stake in their MLB team to any one of the numerous concerns already lined up for the chance to get on that MLB gravy train themselves. Under-resourced businessmen getting run out of their business because they either can't or refuse to keep up? That's pure capitalism, baby.
  5. chasfh
    I don't see how competitive parity can be a huge issue for a league in which 24 of its 30 teams have made the playoffs since 2016. Raising the CBT won't materially affect the disparity. The disparity will be the same because teams will respond to the range the CBT creates. I simply reject any notion that suggests that raising the CBT will only cause three teams to spend right up to it, while the other 27 teams cry in the beer because they can't keep up. I believe they'll keep up at least enough to maintain the current level of payroll level deviation
  6. chasfh
    I didn't say it would be good for the league. However, since you're the one who made the explicit point that it would be either "not good" or "bad' for the league—three times by my count, just today—perhaps you can explain exactly how.
  7. chasfh
    With $10+ billion coming in to baseball owners annually through multiple sources attended to baseball, I don't see how a prediction of salary spiraling will be bad for the league. Maybe it shave a few bucks off a organization's topline. If so, then boo-hoo. If there's malfeasance, I would place it on the organizational level, because every team has the resources right now to spend more and be competitive.
  8. chasfh
    Yeah, China becoming friendlier with Russia is one thing I'm rather afraid of here.
  9. chasfh
    Yes, the point is having an interesting discussion on a sports forum board. There will always be disparity in payrolls; that's never going away, whether the CBT is at 180, 210, or 260. What Players are looking for is for greater comp across the board. That's why they want higher CBTs. Baseball wants to spend as little for players as they possibly can. That's why they want lower CBTs. Simple as it gets.
  10. chasfh
    I agree with everything in bold here.
  11. chasfh
    And no matter how many times you repeat that it isn't true, that isn't true. While the CBT number appears to serve as a restraint on the highest-spending teams in the technical, it helps keep the market lower because it defines the limit for how much a top-of-the-market team will pay for talent. It helps every other team by setting the market for them. Even the least-spending teams benefit from this. They want to keep the CBT low not because they're afraid it's going to make them lose—they're already comfortable with the losing. It's spending more for the losing that they're trying to avoid.
  12. chasfh
    I'm not an expert at football or basketball, but as far as baseball owners are concerned they, as with business owners, are responding to the incentives being offered. The revenue streams in baseball are so varied and lucrative that a team can choose to spend very little on talent, essentially choosing to punt on competing, and still make healthy profits and, as importantly, substantial capital appreciation. That's the thing that's constraining spending among so many teams: they don't have to spend or compete to make money. Is that unique to baseball versus football or basketball? Not sure. Not all 30 teams respond to those incentives in exactly the same way to not spend, since they're not automatons. The Yankees must spend because spending/competing/winning is their historical brand. Dodgers are motivated to spend because they want to dominate this era of the sport in a unique way. Mets want to spend because of their superfan owner. Those guys will spend around the cap, whether it's 210 or 260. But limited-window teams have to choose whether to compete by spending to get talent to keep up with the leaders in their division. They absolutely would like to compete, but they don't want to spend too much money to do so. That's why they want the smaller cap. That way, they can save money on competing, which suppresses free agent comp potential. And suppressing FA comp keeps the market lower for arb-eligible players as well, since high salaries set the overall market, and all that helps keep spending down even for the Pirates and Orioles when it's time for them to pony up for their arb-eligibles.
  13. chasfh
    The CBT as a soft cap doesn’t address competitive disparity—only overall spend. I don’t see how it is in a fan’s interest in competitive balance to keep spending down across the board. Richer teams have overtly worked to avoid going over the cap especially in recent seasons. It doesn’t necessarily follow that higher levels will necessarily create disparity, because that would require open-window playoff contenders to give up trying to compete with the three big spenders for talent, ceding all top talent only to them, in order to maintain payroll integrity or whatever Orwell would call it. If a team’s window opens up next year and they want to get that guy who will put them over the top, they either need to go get him and pay what the market dictates, or else risk not optimizing the window they’ve waited so long to open. And once they spend for those guys, that creates the baseline for eh other free agents in the market and, just as importantly, the arb-eligible players, whom all 30 teams eventually have to pay. That’s what teams want to avoid: having to pay for those boats lifted by the rising tide.
  14. chasfh
    And just because conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong doesn’t mean that once you refer to conventional wisdom in a debate, it’s automatically wrong. 😁
  15. chasfh
    Sure, teams will spend when they are competitive. What they want with as low a CBA as possible is for the entire compensation framework to be suppressed so that when they do have to spend, it will fall within a lower range, because they want it to be cheaper to compete.
  16. chasfh
    Players’ competitive balance argument is not rooted in CBT, because they don’t see it as the source of the imbalance. They see the CBT as suppressing salaries for those making more than the minimum, anyone who’s due for free agency or arb paychecks. Players see the environment that encourages flat out tanking as being the competitive problem: organizations that purposely field poor teams and yet are still profitable because of all the TV revenue, technology revenue, licensing and merchandising revenue, real estate development revenue, gambling revenue and revenue sharing. There’s no penalty for fielding bad team after bad team. The players are trying to change that through changes to the draft itself, changes to draft eligibility e.g. penalizing consecutive 90-loss season, changes in free agent compensation, and the like.
  17. chasfh
    It’s a vote for more revenue sharing only if all the teams spend the exact same amount if the CBT is 200 as they would if it’s 250. They don’t. They spend less. Why should the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets continually subsidize teams that would rather pocket money than spend on talent? CBT is widely accepted as being a de facto salary cap suppressing overall payrolls. It’s why the players want higher CBTs.
  18. chasfh
    If higher penalties are attached to this offer, it’s DOA. Looks like a setup.
  19. chasfh
    So, asking for a friend, mind you, but, just how does one obtain one of them there man-made working female robots?
  20. chasfh
    Also, if Ukraine were to give in to Russian demands now, which amounts to give us what we want and in exchange we'll stop overtly bombing you, which is a terrible bargain, the peace would be only temporary, because they'd surely simply regroup and came back harder next month or next year, whenever it would be. Also, in the meantime, covert efforts against Ukraine would be ramped up as well. The offer is a no win as it stands. In any event, I believe the point of the offer is to be on the record as being for peace. Not that it's fooling anybody, but maybe it's a necessary precondition to engage a certain patron for support (你好, 中华人民共和国).
  21. chasfh
    That's why I wish Biden had addressed the Russian people during SOTU.
  22. chasfh
  23. chasfh
    Wrong.
  24. chasfh
    Baseball wants far higher taxes for going over the CBT limit, a much smaller arb bonus pool than Players’ current $80MM, and for Players to get the hell out of the way when Baseball makes whatever rules changes it wants. Kind of like negotiating with a car dealer: sure, I’ll lower the price by $1,000, but I’m gonna give you $1,500 less for the trade-in.
  25. chasfh
×
×
  • Create New...