moonslav59

Some small market teams have proven they can be pretty good for very long stretches without spending big, but some teams are poorly run and have stingy owners- a bad combo.

Yes, zero chance, but I think it would work well.

And each answer to those 3 new questions would generate 3 or more added questions. I'm not sure MLB should seek to totally even our revenue and profits across the board, but I do think making rules that allow smaller markets to compete, at times, is worthwhile. I also think some owners need to be incentivized to get out of this business and allow another owner to take over. It's the stingy, cheap owners that hurt the game more than the biggest spenders, IMO. Maybe we should add 4 expansion teams to MLB, but move the bottom two teams to AAA every year for 1 year, like some soccer league do. That would add some incentive to winning!

Red Sox Team with 4 or More Years of Team Control: SP: Sale, Houck, Whitlock, Seabold, Winckowski, Bello, Mata, Groome, Song, Crawford, T Ward, V Santos RP: Taylor, DHern, Sawamura, DavisValdez, Bazardo, Feltman, W. Gonzalez, C Murphy, B Walter, F German C: Wong, R Hernandez, Hickey, K Cottam 1B: Dalbec, Casas, Kavadas 2B: Yorke, Downs, Koss 3B: Bineleas, Jordan, Potts, SS: Mayer, Arauz, Hamilton, Bonaci, Lugo LF: Duran, T McDonough CF: Jimenez, Bleis RF: Rosario, C Rafaela, Decker

Red Sox sign to minor league deals... (both invited to ST'ing camp, if there ever is one.) https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/red-sox-sign-silvino-bracho-darin-gillies-to-minor-league-deals.html Silvino Bracho https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/brachsi01.shtml?utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=&utm_medium=referral Darin Gilles https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=gillie000dar&utm_campaign=Linker&utm_source=&utm_medium=referral

BTW, I'm all for an Int'l draft. I'm not sure it needs to be structured like they want, but I'm fine with it.

What about the benefits of creating a more level playing field by having the weaker teams drafts first? Baseball is not like the NBA, where the top few picks do much better than the top picks in baseball, plus, a lottery system can lessen the chances of tanking. BTW, what is Pittsburgh "tanking" for? Are the planning a rebuild like the Astros did to eventually spend big and try to win it all? There are many more examples of teams like Pitt than HOU.

They have spent the same or less while getting these infusions of revenue. I guess one could argue they used the funds to improve player development or the fan experience in other ways, but where's the proof of that?

In 2004, the numbers looked like this: $183M Yanks $125M BOS 8 teams $81M to $101M (LAA, NYM, PHI, CC, LAD, ATL, SF, SEA) 5 teams $65M to $75M (STL, HOU, AZ, CWS, COL) 6 teams $50M to $60M (OAK, TX, SD, MN, BAL, TOR) 5 teams $40M to $47M (KCR, DET, MON, CIN, FL) 4 teams $28M to 36M (CLE, PIT, TBR, MIL) The bottom 4 teams combined didn't outspend #1, then, either.

According to stevetheump.com, here's what teams spent, last year: 1 over $192M (LAD @ $235M) 8 teams $160-191M (NYY, BOS, LAA, PHI, SDP, HOU, NYM, WSH) 4 teams $135-150M (CC, TOR, STL, ATL) 4 teams $117-128M (SFG, CWS, MN, CIN) 1 team $90-117M (COL) 5 teams $80-90M (AZ, KCR, MIL, TX, DET) 3 teams $60-75M (OAK, SEA, TBR) 4 teams under $50M (MIA, CLE, BAL, PIT)

They should stop piddling around with the Lux Tax and demand a floor limit. There are only 4-6 teams that would be affected by a floor of about $50-60M. That's about the same that are affected by the Lux Tax Limit & Taxes. Only 5-6 teams would have to increase spending, significantly if the floor was $70M. Only 7 teams spent under $80M, last year. Setting it at $80M only needs 16 owners to say yes. (IMO, the floor could be set at $70M and go up $6M a year for 5 years, ending at $100M when the deal expires.) That would likely bring more money to the players than raising the lux limit to the levels they seek, and it would bring more balance and competitiveness to the game the owners claim is losing just that.

Yes, the cheap owners would be against the floor limit and the spenders against the top limits.

The worst part is the "poorer clubs" don't spend the revenue sharing and tax benefits on player salary. It goes straight to their wallets. This is why I think establishing a floor on player spending by team would be the best step for all concerned- in terms of making the league more competitive and balanced. Then, raise the floor significantly, every year. If a "poorer owner," and I use the world cautiously, can't make enough profit, he can sell the team at an obscene profit and let someone else have a go at it.

Maybe both. It only restricts spending on 4-8 teams a year, and I'm not sure it slowed the Dodgers down all that much.

More than a few teams share in the spreading out of those taxes collected, but yes, it's not all that much.

So, ST'ing games are cancelled until March 18th. A big area of disagreement seems to be the Luxury Tax with a wide gap between the last offers from both sides. It's easy to say, "spilt the difference," but that is not always as easy as it looks. The players want: $238M in '22 $244M in '23 $250M in '24 $256M in '25 $263M in '26 MLB wants: $220 M in '22 $220M in '23 $220M in '24 $224M in '25 $230M in '26 Keeping up with just inflation, the amount would need to be $225M according to one article I read. Here is one perspective: https://www.knbr.com/2022/03/02/mlbs-competitive-balance-tax-proposal-was-even-worse-than-we-thought/ MLB’s offer was so detached from reality, so disingenuous and insincere, Rob Manfred had no choice but to lie about it in his press conference announcing canceled games. “I think it’s important to look at the pattern of increases in the CBT thresholds in the last several agreements,” Manfred said. “I think the proposal we made is right in line with the agreements we’ve made in the past.” Manfred was answering a question about why the CBT threshold hasn’t risen in reflection of the league’s revenue, or even in relation to general inflation. But even humoring him and limiting the conversation to previous collective bargaining agreements, Manfred’s defense still holds as much water as Scottsdale desert sand. In the first eight years of the CBA, the luxury tax threshold increased by 52%, according to Baseball America Editor-in-Chief JJ Cooper. Over the past two CBAs, from 2012 on, it’s increased just 18%. And going from $210 million to $220 million is just a 5% raise. And to answer the question Manfred fielded for him: in the last 10 years, the dollar has increased by a cumulative price of approximately 22% by inflation. If the CBT mirrored MLB revenue from 2003 to 2019, the CBT would approach $300 million, according to The Score’s Travis Sawchik. I know the owners want to also radically increase the tax percentages for going over the limit and by more and more for going over y $20M or $40M, but could a compromise be to nearly give the players the cutoff they want as the second tier of the tax, but with the first tier taxes being relatively low but still substantial? Something like this: 2022 $220-$235M: 15% tax $235-250M: 50% tax $250M+: 90% tax 2023 $222-$235M: 20% tax $235-250M: 50% tax $250M+: 90% tax 2024 $224-$240M: 20% tax $240-255M: 50% tax $255M+: 90% tax 2025 $230-245M: 25% tax $245-260M: 66% tax $260M+: 100% tax 2026 $235-250M: 35% tax $250-265M: 70% tax $265M+: 100% tax The owners might never agree to this, but maybe something like this could bridge the gap: tax the gap minimally, then raise the tax rate significantly.

Indeed, and technically, they should not be included in the bottom line of Red Sox revenue, but yes, the owners make more and more money as a direct result of owning the team, venue and or cable TV company (and more.)

#37 Bradley Blalock: https://www.soxprospects.com/players/blalock-bradley.htm Potential up-and-down swingman type. Ceiling of a back-end starter. Shows confidence and pitches with some swagger on the mound. Velocity has already ticked up and could continue to do so. Development of secondary pitches and command will be key for him to reach his potential. There is a question of whether his delivery will play in the rotation given it has some effort. Likely will rely on his fastball/slider combination at higher levels unless he makes improvements with his other pitches. Those two pitches could play in a bullpen role if development necessities a move. Turned 21 last Christmas. ___________________________ #36 Shane Drohan: https://www.soxprospects.com/players/drohan-shane.htm Potential emergency swingman type. Ceiling of a back-end starter. Athletic left-hander who will show a three-pitch mix, but needs to develop physically and add velocity. Has more upside remaining than a typical college draftee. Has the type of athleticism you look for in a pitcher. Has shown a general feel for pitching and a repeatable delivery. Fastball command needs improvement and he needs to continue to refine his secondaries. Turned 23 in January.

Updated Scouting Report... #11 Wilkelman Gonzalez: https://www.soxprospects.com/players/gonzalez-wilkelman.htm Great arm with a wide range of potential outcomes. Ceiling of a solid mid-rotation starter, but size and delivery could push him to the bullpen potentially. Great arm strength with a lot of development remaining. Fastball and changeup show the most potential right now. Breaking balls and command and control need work. Still learning how to pitch, but is not as raw as some comparable arms age-wise in the system. He turns 20 in the end of March.

To me, it's not so much about failure to report as it is about separate entities that make the owners money that is not under the team's finances. The NESN- Fenway Group is a good example. While the Sox are not the only thing NESN broadcasts, it's clearly their number one money maker, and it is essentially owned by the group that owns the Sox, The money they make off NESN does not and really should not count as Red Sox revenue or profits, but it is a way the Sox owners make money off the Sox without it being counted as revenue. I'm not sure if the Sox also have a separate concessions and merchandizing company handling that aspect of revenue generated by the team, but I think several teams do. That money would not be on any revenue ledger of teams that make it its own company. These are the types of examples I'm talking about, but I also would not be surprised if owners do some book cooking, as well. That, however, was not what I meant by "hidden revenue and profits." (And "hidden" is not really a good word choice, since much is out in the open, but it's just not counted at MLB revenue by teams, or am I wrong?

Yes, they'd lose a lot of money, but they'd still make way more than most teams due to getting half for games played at home and in BOS/NYY. In a way, it seems fair that both teams should share the revenue of the games they play in, but teams that draw more fans would lose a lot under this scheme, and maybe lose some incentive to win and be viewable.

Stunning.

Since two teams are playing on the field, how about splitting gate and TV revenue 50-50 for each game between the two teams. The Yanks would still make more, because they split 81 games of near top paying revenue, but the "poor market teams" also get some big paydays when they travel to NY and LA.

My point was about how "inclusive" is the Forbes report? I doubt it counts profits from the cable company owned by the same owner, even though the revenue is tied directly to the team shown on the network. Those numbers may or may not be public record or speculative.

Wrong forum