Will Tigers Pony up for Skubal

[Sports_Freak]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

he will if the new cba eliminates contracts longer than 6 years.

If owners try that, we may not have baseball after 2026 for a long time.

[buddha]

17 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

If owners try that, we may not have baseball after 2026 for a long time.

which is another incentive for skubal to sign long term with detroit...

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

unpopular opinon:  "super teams" like the dodgers drive interest in baseball.  it attracts new fans who like winners and it creates an enemy for everyone else to root against.

 

I think this is true, but in the NFL some of the teams that held that 'super' status have been GreenBay, Dallas (before the Tx economy exploded), Kansas City, New England. So while I agree with the idea that having era dominant teams that fans can get to get familiar with  is good for a league, I don't believe  it is necessarily true those have to be the perennially richest in a league or get there by poaching everyone else's players and that they therefore have to be the same teams for all time.

Also, super teams that drive interest do it even better when stars stay put, and the current system in baseball is an absolute team continuity destroyer. That's a semi-separate issue than the pure economics but inter-related.

Imagine if the basic agreement in the NFL had made it impossible for the Chiefs to keep Mahomes or NE to keep Brady

Edited 8 hours ago by gehringer_2

[buddha]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think this is true, but in the NFL some of the teams that held that 'super' status have been GreenBay, Dallas (before the Tx economy exploded), Kansas City, New England. So while I agree with the idea that having era dominant teams that fans can get to get familiar with  is good for a league, I don't believe  it is necessarily true those have to be the perennially richest in a league or get there by poaching everyone else's players and that they therefore have to be the same teams for all time.

Also, super teams that drive interest do it even better when stars stay put, and the current system in baseball is an absolute team continuity destroyer. That's a semi-separate issue than the pure economics but inter-related.

Imagine if the basic agreement in the NFL had made it impossible for the Chiefs to keep Mahomes or NE to keep Brady

the nfl agreement makes it much harder to keep star players than baseball.  baseball teams can simply pay their stars.  football has to keep them under a "cap".

[casimir]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

the nfl agreement makes it much harder to keep star players than baseball.  baseball teams can simply pay their stars.  football has to keep them under a "cap".

Why doesn’t the NFL call it a helmet?

[Shelton]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the nfl agreement makes it much harder to keep star players than baseball.  baseball teams can simply pay their stars.  football has to keep them under a "cap".

I’m not sure the NFL cap actually does anything 

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I’m not sure the NFL cap actually does anything 

In the NFL the cap helps mid level guys move but gives each team at least equal chance to keep their biggest stars. When teams are up against the cap well payed good players teams don't need badly are cut loose and go improve other teams that have more need at that position and so are willing to use more of their cap space on it so it drives parity.  In baseball half the teams can't compete economically to keep their stars so they end up the most mobile players and mostly to the same rich teams. Anti-parity.

Edited 4 hours ago by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the nfl agreement makes it much harder to keep star players than baseball.  baseball teams can simply pay their stars.  football has to keep them under a "cap".

I don't believe this is objectively true. The stars of the NFL are mostly the QBs and teams are very successful keeping their star QBs - at least until they are no longer wanted! It does make it harder to keep a lot of expensive players, but that's what drives parity. But any NFL team has an equal shot at signing their most important player, and that is not true in baseball.

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, casimir said:

Why doesn’t the NFL call it a helmet?

That's an interesting idea casimir...

But could you please keep that under your helmet?

I'm not certain the world is ready for this kind of thinking...