Changes to the Game

[dtgold88]

I don’t know the actual numbers, but I think, conceptually, the Tribe would get 70% of the income from the Tribe broadcast and 30% of the Dodger broadcast (and vice versa, of course). I have no idea if the 70/30 split is anywhere near accurate, I am just using those numbers to demonstrate the idea). But why should the Guardians get half of the $$ generated by people in LA watching the game? That makes no sense.

Because if the Tribe (or the opponent) does not play there is no game for anyone to watch? NFL teams are not paid extra based on number of people in the city.

 

[dtgold88]

And the players are setting their prices. Ohtani and Yamamoto both told all the teams that this was the contract they were signing, who wanted in on it. Reportedly, multiple teams said OK to both, but Ohtani and Yamamoto both chose the Dodgers. It is hard to blame the dodgers for over spending when the contracts they gave out were not gross over-spends.

Tucker’s contract looks stupid. And they bought Freeman when they really didn’t have a need at 1B. But at least as far as Ohtani and Yamamoto are concerned, it is hard to blame the doggies.

Agree with this....and while I have ripped the Tribe being cheap there are a couple things I'd mention. First, it's not like I would expect them to spend like NY or LA under current rules. But in a contending window they cannot keep up with Milwaukee, MN, Detroit, etc? Hell, they are nearly $15 mil below Miami and even further below TB. That's shameful.

Second, I also don't mind they wont pass out crazy megadeals, especially to SPs. If JRam wanted one of those 12 year, $400 mil deals and team said no I would not blame them....as long as the money was spent on others.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yes. I have gone in to this in depth for years.

i can totally understand why an individual does not like the rule... but i dont think i can understand why one thinks it is bad for baseball...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Agree with this....and while I have ripped the Tribe being cheap there are a couple things I'd mention. First, it's not like I would expect them to spend like NY or LA under current rules. But in a contending window they cannot keep up with Milwaukee, MN, Detroit, etc? Hell, they are nearly $15 mil below Miami and even further below TB. That's shameful.

Second, I also don't mind they wont pass out crazy megadeals, especially to SPs. If JRam wanted one of those 12 year, $400 mil deals and team said no I would not blame them....as long as the money was spent on others.

but that is the problem with ceilings and floors... the crazy money only goes to the stars... the average players need to take a discount just so a team can remain in budget...

if there was a way to pay players based on their actual results on the field... i would be all in for that... but i absolutely agree with the players for not wanting a ceiling... it absolutely hurts everyone...

 

[dtgold88]

but that is the problem with ceilings and floors... the crazy money only goes to the stars... the average players need to take a discount just so a team can remain in budget...

if there was a way to pay players based on their actual results on the field... i would be all in for that... but i absolutely agree with the players for not wanting a ceiling... it absolutely hurts everyone...

sure I can agree not wanting a cap but IF owners could decide they want one bad enough (like better leagues like the NFL and NBA) then force it on them however long it took.

Problem is likely certain owners do not want one.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

sure I can agree not wanting a cap but IF owners could decide they want one bad enough (like better leagues like the NFL and NBA) then force it on them however long it took.

Problem is likely certain owners do not want one.

i am not sure if i would call the NBA a better league that MLB... basketball as a sport may be more popular than baseball right now... but the NBA might be more broken than the MLB...

 

[dtgold88]

i am not sure if i would call the NBA a better league that MLB...

I would.......But each has their positives and negatives and, sure, some is personal preference.

 

[calsnowskier]

Because if the Tribe (or the opponent) does not play there is no game for anyone to watch? NFL teams are not paid extra based on number of people in the city.

So the Generals should be paid the same as the Globetrotters?

The Tribe has their own broadcast that they get the bulk of. The Dodgers get the bulk of THEIR broadcast. Why should the tribe get paid for the infrastructure that the dodgers have built with their fan base?

 

[dtgold88]

So the Generals should be paid the same as the Globetrotters?

The Tribe has their own broadcast that they get the bulk of. The Dodgers get the bulk of THEIR broadcast. Why should the tribe get paid for the infrastructure that the dodgers have built with their fan base?

what would a platform pay the Dodgers if they had no team to play? Why does the far more successful NFL somehow allow this to happen?

and comparing the Tribe to the Generals? do you follow baseball outside of CA?

 

[calsnowskier]

what would a platform pay the Dodgers if they had no team to play? Why does the far more successful NFL somehow allow this to happen?

and comparing the Tribe to the Generals? do you follow baseball outside of CA?

The NFL is a completely different model from the MLB. The MLB is MUCH more regional than the NFL. And 10x more games is the basis of that.

You are saying that the Tribe should get 1/2 of the $$ generated by the dodgers’ broadcasts, even though 95% of their viewers are there for the dodgers. How is that different from the Generals?

 

[msgkings322]

why not just have a mercy rule then?? i actually like the current rule where if you are up or down by a certain amount then a position player is allowed to pitch(dont know the exact rule)... its gimmicky... but seems like players have fun doing it, and anything that brings fun into the game is a good thing...

Yeah I'm not sure what the downside of position players pitching is. It's harmless fun.

 

[msgkings322]

IMO a cap


to each their own on rules they like and dislike... but do you think the universal DH was the wrong decision for baseball to make???

I do. I prefer having 2 different rules in each league for the DH, more quirky variety is baseball's hook: different ballparks, different rules (those are done now), no clock, etc.

But I understand why they changed it and it's not a big deal to me either way

 

[dtgold88]

The NFL is a completely different model from the MLB. The MLB is MUCH more regional than the NFL. And 10x more games is the basis of that.

You are saying that the Tribe should get 1/2 of the $$ generated by the dodgers’ broadcasts, even though 95% of their viewers are there for the dodgers. How is that different from the Generals?

Not sure if it should be half but should be a lot more than they are getting (if they get anything?). No Tribe (or opponent), no game.

If you cannot see how the Tribe should not be compared to the Generals that seems more of a you problem....seriously, do you just not follow MLB? If you don't that's cool. It's kind of a boring sport so I get it.

 

[calsnowskier]

People who see the Globetrotters are not there to see the Generals. But there wouldn’t be a Globetrotters game without the Generals.

People who watch the doggie broadcast are watching because of the doggies. People who watch the Guardians broadcast are watching because of the Guardians. The dogs should should get the bulk of the $$ generated from THEIR broadcast of the doggie/Tribe game while the Tribe should get the bulk of the $$ generated from THEIR broadcast.

I heard rumors (never had it confirmed, so I don’t know how accurate this is) that the Spanks used to get the bulk of BOTH broadcasts of all games they were involved in. That is BS, and if true, was a travesty. But that isn’t how it works now (as far as I know)

 

[dtgold88]

People who see the Globetrotters are not there to see the Generals. But there wouldn’t be a Globetrotters game without the Generals.

People who watch the doggie broadcast are watching because of the doggies. People who watch the Guardians broadcast are watching because of the Guardians. The dogs should should get the bulk of the $$ generated from THEIR broadcast of the doggie/Tribe game while the Tribe should get the bulk of the $$ generated from THEIR broadcast.

I heard rumors (never had it confirmed, so I don’t know how accurate this is) that the Spanks used to get the bulk of BOTH broadcasts of all games they were involved in. That is BS, and if true, was a travesty. But that isn’t how it works now (as far as I know)

As I said it's totally different. Generals are there to lose and be a foil. The Tribe is kind of good (even took 2 of 3 from the Dodgers recently). We are also talking about broadcasting rights paid to a team in a league of 30 teams.

You really think it's a good analogy? Having said all this main issue was the Tribe comparison to the Generals, I guess. If we were talking the Pirates.........

 

[MilkSpiller22]

part of the problem is that the dodgers make so much more money than the rest of baseball that when you look at the whole sport, baseball profits... but there are still some teams that lose money...

and for most teams that are losing money, it is not necessarily even their fault...

and just because you lose money doesnt mean you should get more from the teams that pay luxury tax...

 

[dtgold88]

part of the problem is that the dodgers make so much more money than the rest of baseball that when you look at the whole sport, baseball profits... but there are still some teams that lose money...

and for most teams that are losing money, it is not necessarily even their fault...

and just because you lose money doesnt mean you should get more from the teams that pay luxury tax...

Think I agree with this. Only say "think" as I'm confident there are years my team could spend far more money and would not lose money (Covid times might be a different story)....and agree being cheap should not entitle them to get money from those who pay the tax because they try hard to win.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Think I agree with this. Only say "think" as I'm confident there are years my team could spend far more money and would not lose money (Covid times might be a different story)....and agree being cheap should not entitle them to get money from those who pay the tax because they try hard to win.

problem gets doubled though, because just becasue a team has more money to spend on players, and is willing to pay, doesnt stop the big market teams to just pay more....

i do like the idea of the luxury tax over a cap... but for teams that make so much money that dont care how much they pay, because success will just make them even more money... there needs to be a way to equalize this SOMEHOW.... because it seems like smaller market teams have to overpay players just to grace themselves to play there... i guess thats true for all sports, but it is just worse in baseball when there is no limit to what they can be paid...

i do have a solution for players salaries... but i know that it will never be adopted...

 

[dtgold88]

problem gets doubled though, because just becasue a team has more money to spend on players, and is willing to pay, doesnt stop the big market teams to just pay more....

i do like the idea of the luxury tax over a cap... but for teams that make so much money that dont care how much they pay, because success will just make them even more money... there needs to be a way to equalize this SOMEHOW.... because it seems like smaller market teams have to overpay players just to grace themselves to play there... i guess thats true for all sports, but it is just worse in baseball when there is no limit to what they can be paid...

i do have a solution for players salaries... but i know that it will never be adopted...

agree with all of this other than one part....the notion in baseball smaller market teams need to overpay to bring in players (or keep them) and thinking this is worse in baseball. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. IF a team is willing to pay a player will go where the money is. Might be different for an Asian player as seems CA might be the best area for those guys.

But IF my team is willing to pay guys I have little doubt even in Cleveland we could get them to come or to stay. Now having said that as I've said in recent past I don't mind we avoid megadeals like those in the 12-13 year and $400 mil+ range.

 

[calsnowskier]

problem gets doubled though, because just becasue a team has more money to spend on players, and is willing to pay, doesnt stop the big market teams to just pay more....

i do like the idea of the luxury tax over a cap... but for teams that make so much money that dont care how much they pay, because success will just make them even more money... there needs to be a way to equalize this SOMEHOW.... because it seems like smaller market teams have to overpay players just to grace themselves to play there... i guess thats true for all sports, but it is just worse in baseball when there is no limit to what they can be paid...

i do have a solution for players salaries... but i know that it will never be adopted...

I think tying the penalties to draft picks is the way to go (on top of a “tax”, of course).

For example, if you exceed the first benchmark, your first pick is dropped 15 spots in the next draft. If you do it a second year, your first 2 picks are dropped 20 spots. If you exceed the 2nd benchmark, then you lose your first pick entirely and the 2nd pick is dropped 15 spots instead. Something like that.

As for smaller market teams having trouble attracting the big names, I don’t know there is a way to fix that. A big name in LA or NY will have many more marketing opportunities than a big name in Cleveland or Tampa or Minneapolis. There is no way to get around that.