sk7326

Actually ... from Keith Law's chat ...

A 1.353 WHIP is ... not good. That said, I would have had no problem signing him to a prove-it deal. San Francisco gives him a better chance to prove it though - it's a pretty forgiving place for a fly ball pitcher. The chance for a rotation spot was higher in SF too, which matters. If the Sox gave him the same deal but with some real questions about whether he'd crack the rotation, what can you do.

The Sox - if the Forbes numbers are a worthwhile indicator - are over 50%. The Yankees are at around 29%. These are choices. How the league can get to a leaguewide 50% will be the interesting thing - without more revenue sharing it will be hard. If you used a traditional salary cap, a floor number would still be about $140M which some teams would have trouble sustaining.

The Mariners had zero before the Paxton and Diaz sell-offs

Probably not. The only thing I think is certain is the Padres at #1.

I don't think he means (I hope!) hide from the IRS. But perhaps he means hiding profit from the Red Sox in some other part of Fenway's portfolio. (like Liverpool FC or whatever other entities the hold company owns) Now, in terms of the relevant point (getting more money to players and avoiding a strike in 2021), like the NBA or NFL, the players and teams have to come up with an auditable, mutually agreed on definition of "revenue" for determining what should be spent on major league players. I agree with skepticism of, say, Forbes' evaluation of team revenue, that it is possible that some of Steinbrenner's revenue from the Yankees might be reported on another one of his holdings. But that means that the players share might be even lower than the 44% I could calculate. Management needs to get ahead of this, because two more offseasons like this will not be good for player-owner relations (and thus, the probability of us watching people play major league baseball)0.

It varies but of course they do. They contract with their aramark/HMS/whomever (or local restaurants in some cases) to operate the facilities. Now, I am whether they pay said vendor a flat fee or get share profits is a case by case thing. But the teams definitely get revenue from the concessionaire.

Both Vazquez and Swihart will have some trade value, though the former has more as a single asset. Swihart has 2 years of control left and is a good change of scenery candidate. Vazquez is clearly at worst a low end starter, and in October showed evidence that he could be an above average one.

Yes - just pointing out that he (and Steinbrenner) are much further from the breakeven, let alone bankruptcy, level than they ever let on. These large market teams are very very profitable.

I think they will have enjoyed a team with a realistic shot at 90 wins more - which was possible. I do not blame them for the moves, but the system which incentivizes it.

We already are - we never stopped.

I don't know - I am looking forward to Law's annual report material next week.

Right - at the same time, given where the Yankees are ... it makes sense to do that! The marginal improvement Paxton could offer would be huge for them.

He spends a lot of the team's revenue on payroll - I have no problem ... I don't like him talking about limits since the limits are all artificial. HOWEVER, he has certainly not been a miser.

Right - the decision is RATIONAL ... but anti-entertainment

Holt - when healthy he is better at everything ... though Nunez is more capable of catching fire

1. Those are independent decisions. We know this because rebuilding teams are not lowering ticket prices in 100% correlation with how they slash payroll. Businesses want to maximize profit - so they will charge prices and pay labor in an effort to do that. Now sports teams are a little different since they are often vanity purchases for dudes who are already loaded, but the general principle holds. The team charges that $1000 because they can, period. 2. So - since the money is going into the baseball economy from us (and TV advertisers principally), the question is why is not spending money in free agency or whatever a bad thing? 2a. I like baseball. That means I like baseball players playing baseball games. If the players are getting a smaller cut than players in other major team sports - that makes them unhappy and increases the probability of some kind of labor stoppage. I don't like less baseball. Now, I don't think a strike is inevitable. But the owners have time to get out ahead of this and it would be very smart of them to do so. 2b. Transactions are cool! I think of ESPN having free agency specials for the NFL and NBA. The NFL in May - when nobody should be thinking about football - gets a weekend of serious coverage to itself because of the draft. The winter meetings were baseball's chance to market itself in the offseason. The current system is depressing that, which lowers year around interest in the game ... which is bad. 2c. Related to 2b. Talking about awesome players in the offseason is cool. Having franchise cornerstones be available in free agency makes baseball more fun to follow 12 months a year. The game already does a crappy job celebrating the current players and product (see how joyless the national broadcasters are!). This does not help. 2d. More teams should be trying to win - that is why we root for teams. Too few teams are doing that - while a five year rebuild is RATIONAL, this is an entertainment business, and that is not good entertainment.

A rabid fanbase, and a team that owns its own TV outlet. Really it's local media which is BIG "non-equalizer". The NFL can do its hard cap without much trouble because the largest revenue source is the TV deal, which is handled at the national level.

I am realistic about the draft - it will always be there. That's fine. The union does these league minimum deals for pragmatic reasons - they will always prioritize members over non-members. (guys who are not in the big leagues yet) But if you take the forbes team values (from last year, so we are underestimating) with the spotrac team payrolls, you get like 44% of the revenue going to the players, which is well below what other major sports have. (and that 44% is based on a revenue number which is almost certainly low) Among teams, the Yankees were 2nd to last (29%). Owners are not extending themselves at all on this front - and yes it is not good for the game. For me the current system would be improved just by spending more on players - and possibly getting rid of arbitration for some sort of restricted free agency.

Listen, I think the draft should be abolished - I am with you. But the union has always supported veterans over non-members (guys in the minors) so you'll get rookie control of some kind. But I could see a form of restricted free agency instead of arbitration. I could see something like the NBA - a soft salary cap where you can spend over the cap, but you pay tax and it is harder to make moves.

Arbitration works for its intended purpose - to keep salaries down. There is nothing that system of qualifying offers and restricted free agency could not do better. What the players will not agree to is a hard cap stars and scrubs system like the NFL has. But a deal where they get a larger cut of the pie is something they're going to get one way or another. The current numbers are not going to be tolerated. These are billion dollar franchises - nobody is going out of business. Quite the opposite.

This is all true - and yet with this "hiding of money", the best measured amount of revenue going to the talent is way less than in any of the other American sports. So there is a lot here the union has to sift through. Right now the current state of the offseason is a bad thing for the sport, and there are good reasons to fix that. On a previous comment - the best way to fix arbitration is to get rid of it entirely.

This ... big time free agents not signing hype worthy deals is bad for the sport. The winter meetings - the only real chance in the offseason for baseball to be near the front of the sports pages - becoming so news-less is bad for baseball. (think of the bump the NFL gets from that draft 4 months after the season has ended) Agents obviously have vested interest here - but yes, record revenues not flowing to the players is a problem (if nothing else for increasing the odds of a work stoppage).

That will obviously be negotiated - the giant digital rights deal money which has resulted in nothing meaningful for the players is not at all hidden

It shows that the behavior is probably less linked to the collapse than a team running out of pitchers