A Realistic View at 2022: Part I

[moonslav59]

MLB has not expanded since 1977 without the owners losing a collusion lawsuit. I hope they don't decide to dilute the talent base even further...

 

I hope they don't either, but it is a money-maker.

 

It would go to 32 not 36.

[moonslav59]

A $200K raise might just be pocket change to Max Scherzer, but the Jonathan Arauz's of the world will certainly appreciate it...

 

...and there are a hundred plus Arauzes.

[Nick]

Let's again cut to the chase.

 

The problem is not the spending of Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox. I will come back to them later.

 

The problem is teams that spend little but make enough profit to keep the money train going. Those are the teams that the union needs to address.

 

There has to be a minimum payroll total for these teams. If they won't spend minimum money on payroll, then the major league, ie other owners, must be willing to kick them out. Force a sale.

 

My guess is there are many wealthy individuals willing to own a baseball franchise. They would know the commitment money wise before buying a franchise.

 

You raise the payroll starting with lowest spending teams. Period.

 

Now if you are somehow able to tie each team's payroll to their revenue, you may end up with the Yankees being able to spend $300M. But is that good for baseball?

 

Absolutely not.

 

But if you are able to bring in a third team to New York with 90% owners' vote? Mets and the Yankees won't go for it but it sure would be good for baseball. A third team in New York can generate more money than bottom third of MLB teams I bet. Now that would be a game changer.

 

I ask you, what more can the Yankess, Dodgers and Red Sox give to the players?

Edited February 20, 2022 by Nick

[dgalehouse]

The small market teams simply cannot match the spending of the big market teams. And you can't realistically expect them to. A salary cap and floor could change that , but that's not going to happen. Luxury taxes and revenue sharing are just ploys to get around the absence of a cap. Can you force a small market owner to spend more when he does not generate nearly the revenue of the big markets? As it stands , it will always be difficult for some teams to compete with the big spenders. And , with a couple of exceptions , the less you spend , the weaker your team will be. And the weaker your team is , the less revenue you will generate. No way out of it without major changes. And the players are just as much an obstacle to change as are the owners. They all want more and more money. And they all talk about competitive balance. But those things do not go together. You can't have it both ways.

[Bellhorn04]

BTW, someone make $550K x 3 years is $1.65M. My plan, they make $$2.7M. That's a $2M gain and over a 100% raise.

 

Dreadful math.

[harmony]

Let's again cut to the chase.

 

The problem is not the spending of Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox. I will come back to them later.

 

The problem is teams that spend little but make enough profit to keep the money train going. Those are the teams that the union needs to address.

 

There has to be a minimum payroll total for these teams. If they won't spend minimum money on payroll, then the major league, ie other owners, must be willing to kick them out. Force a sale.

 

My guess is there are many wealthy individuals willing to own a baseball franchise. They would know the commitment money wise before buying a franchise.

Perhaps "many wealthy individuals [are] willing to own a baseball franchise" under the current structure but a payroll floor would likely increase expenses without a guaranteed corresponding increase in revenues.

 

The pool of potential buyers would almost certainly shrink.

Edited February 21, 2022 by harmony

[Bellhorn04]

BTW, someone make $550K x 3 years is $1.65M. My plan, they make $$2.7M. That's a $2M gain and over a 100% raise.

 

moon, nobody ever messes up 2 + 2 = 4. But you calculated 2 - 1 = 2. That's just about as bad.

[mvp 78]

moon, nobody ever messes up 2 + 2 = 4. But you calculated 2 - 1 = 2. That's just about as bad.

 

Everyone thinks they can count beans until the accountants show up.

[moonslav59]

I've been messing up math quite a bit lately. You guys seem to enjoy it.

 

Still, a $1.05M raise over 3 years combined is still about a 65% raise of $1.65M/3 years.

 

It's significant. I'm not sure why the players don't as for more than what they have on the min salary.

[Bellhorn04]

I've been messing up math quite a bit lately. You guys seem to enjoy it.

 

Still, a $1.05M raise over 3 years combined is still about a 65% raise of $1.65M/3 years.

 

It's significant. I'm not sure why the players don't as for more than what they have on the min salary.

 

Who gets a 65% raise from one union agreement to the next though?

 

Just not realistic.

[moonslav59]

Who gets a 65% raise from one union agreement to the next though?

 

Just not realistic.

 

It’s 65% over 3 years. I actually got that raise when part of a union. (I voted no.)

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Maybe not fodder for the "realistic" thread, but there's a story on the NESN site wondering if the Sox could be players for Jose Ramirez, if the Guards put him on the market.

 

These kind of debates often get scoffed at here, but are at least legitimately scoffable once a pro scribe writes about it.

 

It's better than discussing luxury taxes.

[notin]

Maybe not fodder for the "realistic" thread, but there's a story on the NESN site wondering if the Sox could be players for Jose Ramirez, if the Guards put him on the market.

 

These kind of debates often get scoffed at here, but are at least legitimately scoffable once a pro scribe writes about it.

 

It's better than discussing luxury taxes.

 

 

Per BTV, that would cost the Sox Verdugo and Yorke, with enough room for Boston to still sweeten the pot a little.

 

I like Verdugo, but I make that trade. It might be tough on the Guardians’ front office PR wise…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Per BTV, that would cost the Sox Verdugo and Yorke, with enough room for Boston to still sweeten the pot a little.

 

I like Verdugo, but I make that trade. It might be tough on the Guardians’ front office PR wise…

 

An expert in the article was saying Ramirez' great value (and contract) really just extends for the next two seasons, through his age 30. Obviously, if he starts to breaks down but still wants big bucks -- which he forfeited when he signed his last team-friendly contract -- then he becomes just another over-priced, over-the-hillish veteran ballplayer.

 

It's a hard call to get maybe only two great years in a swap for a guy like Yorke, whose bat could make him a Pedroia-type for a decade (as a middle infielder who can hit -- not field -- like Pedey, the steadiest second baseman in Boston the past half century at least).

 

But we'd all do that trade if Jose was the missing link to another ring...

[moonslav59]

We have a 3Bman. I guess we could move Devers to 1B, but I like Yorke, too much, I guess.

 

[Old Red]

We have a 3Bman. I guess we could move Devers to 1B, but I like Yorke, too much, I guess.

 

 

Maybe our 3Bman is on the block?

[moonslav59]

Maybe our 3Bman is on the block?

 

Seems weird to trade Devers then trade for a 3Bman, but who knows?

 

I'm just think we should concentrate on areas of higher need, first, or at least a position like SS, where we may be losing a star after 2022.

 

[Old Red]

Seems weird to trade Devers then trade for a 3Bman, but who knows?

 

I'm just think we should concentrate on areas of higher need, first, or at least a position like SS, where we may be losing a star after 2022.

 

 

If Devers was traded then wouldn’t you need a replacement? We’ve talked about this before that if the Red Sox don’t plan on shelling out the big bucks do you trade him now, or just let him walk out the door? Same with Bogey.

[moonslav59]

If Devers was traded then wouldn’t you need a replacement? We’ve talked about this before that if the Red Sox don’t plan on shelling out the big bucks do you trade him now, or just let him walk out the door? Same with Bogey.

 

Yes, if they know they won't be paying Devers, they could think of trading him, but will they pay Jose big money to keep him? (I think they both are FAs in 2 years, right?)

 

Bogey is different. He can be a FA after 2022.

[jad]

There is no better way (besides cancelling the season) to prove you don't give a f* about your fans than to get rid of popular players.

[moonslav59]

There is no better way (besides cancelling the season) to prove you don't give a f* about your fans than to get rid of popular players.

 

Yes, trading Nomar was the end of Sox Nation as we knew it.

[Old Red]

There is no better way (besides cancelling the season) to prove you don't give a f* about your fans than to get rid of popular players.

 

You mean like Mookie? The Red Sox survived without him, but because of the way baseball is today you have to pay them $300M+ to keep them, and so far the Red Sox haven’t ponied up money to keep either Bogey, or Raffy. Time will tell if they do, but I’m not counting on it.

[Old Red]

Yes, trading Nomar was the end of Sox Nation as we knew it.

 

How Fisk left town was not a good look either, but the Red Sox are still standing.

[Old Red]

There is no better way (besides cancelling the season) to prove you don't give a f* about your fans than to get rid of popular players.

 

The only reason you would get rid of them at this time would be that you don’t want to pay them, so you would have to take that up with JH.

[jad]

I DO love sports-teams owners, I do I do I do. I DO love owners, I do I do I do ...

[Bellhorn04]

I DO love sports-teams owners, I do I do I do. I DO love owners, I do I do I do ...

 

They're kind of a necessary evil, jad, if you want pro sports.

 

What beef can Red Sox fans really have with Henry?

 

If he had told fans before he bought the team that over the next 20 years, prices would go up, but the team would win 4 championships, how many Red Sox fans would have signed on for that?

 

Somewhere over 90 per cent, I'd say.

[moonslav59]

How Fisk left town was not a good look either, but the Red Sox are still standing.

 

That was one of the lowest points in my time as a Sox fan.

 

Not only did we lose a HOF catcher, we got nothing for him and ruined what little cred the team had with fans and possible future players wanting to come to Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

That was one of the lowest points in my time as a Sox fan.

 

Not only did we lose a HOF catcher, we got nothing for him and ruined what little cred the team had with fans and possible future players wanting to come to Boston.

 

1980-1985 was sheer hell for Sox fans.

[Old Red]

That was one of the lowest points in my time as a Sox fan.

 

Not only did we lose a HOF catcher, we got nothing for him and ruined what little cred the team had with fans and possible future players wanting to come to Boston.

 

Good ole Hay Wood Sullivan handled that mess.

[notin]

1980-1985 was sheer hell for Sox fans.

 

Team hovered around .500 and kept finishing near (but never at) the bottom of the AL East, but we did see a brighter future coming up with young players like Hurst, Clemens and Boggs…