sk7326

I don't know. We'll see. Henry has tried pretty hard to put a winner out there. I don't see a ton of reasons that it won't continue to some degree or another.

It will help to the degree that currently the conditions which infect Machado/Harper will still infect Betts, who'll be two years older when he hits UFA status. If a dozen teams are not falling over themselves to sign 26 year old superstars, I don't know what to tell you. It's a deeply flawed system. Bradley I worry about less - I can see the Red Sox not getting into a bidding war there.

Owner happy owners are not spending money - stop the presses! Werner was a notorious cheapskate in San Diego - this is not revelatory.

It is up after 2021 ... the next CBA will make it easier to spend money because the current condition does not work for the players or the media partners frankly. Even if that means a significant increase in the minimum salaries. (which is quite overdue anyway) Again - any system where a 26 year old superstar is not having a dozen team falling over themselves to sign him is one that needs fixing.

Given the current issues with the CBA - I have serious doubts of the cliff condition every happening.

No team which has had the amazing fertility of our system the last few years has that sort of talent at the ready all the time ... it would be inefficient for everybody involved

That is fair. Really the question is whether Vazquez can get to something closer to his 2017 level. At least watching the postseason, he was putting together good at-bats, even if he did not always get good mileage from them. Swihart is still the ceiling guy of the three but at this point it might have to be better explored by some other team.

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.