Is baseball broken?

[trojanfan12]

i understand there is no set path... that is not what i am talking about...

i do think we only need 2 minor league levels... any more is just allowing to hide players...


i do think increasing the importance of the draft would help a lot... it would also make it more important to scout better...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Scouting better is already more important. Some teams are just better at it. What a lot of folks forget about (not saying you have) is that what a team puts into their minor league system is just about as important as what they put into the major league team. In fact, when the Dodgers current ownership took over, the 1st thing they did was start building up the minor league system.

That has paid huge dividends for them.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Scouting better is already more important. Some teams are just better at it. What a lot of folks forget about (not saying you have) is that what a team puts into their minor league system is just about as important as what they put into the major league team. In fact, when the Dodgers current ownership took over, the 1st thing they did was start building up the minor league system.

That has paid huge dividends for them.

i am not saying fixing the minor leagues is the only thing needed... you are right... right now rich get richer and poor get poorer... but you need to actually give the poorer teams a way to rebuild... farm system is always going to be the ideal way to rebuild... but rebuilding teams still need more of an incentive to compete as well...

I am just pointing out one problem i see... Minor leagues/international players/draft... should be fixed so you at least know what else you need to fix...

 

[calsnowskier]

Huge difference in spending $100M and $350M. A floor helps a bit, teams can’t spend nothing but they will still do there best to spend the absolute minimum. You put in some kind of ceiling, luxury and hard cap. It will force the HUGE spenders to limit their spending bc of hard tax considerations but it will entice the “poverty” teams to spend more bc they have some sort of chance to compete

I am 100% in favor of a floor. That goes hand in hand with my statement that teams are CHOOSING not to spend.

And I agree that spending 100M is different from spending 350M. But I already said that there is a difference between the dogs and spanks, and everyone else.

 

[calsnowskier]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Scouting better is already more important. Some teams are just better at it. What a lot of folks forget about (not saying you have) is that what a team puts into their minor league system is just about as important as what they put into the major league team. In fact, when the Dodgers current ownership took over, the 1st thing they did was start building up the minor league system.

That has paid huge dividends for them.

Skill and a properly structured organization is part of the competitive environment that SHOULD separate the haves and the have nots. As much as it pains my soul to say this, the doggies are an incredibly well run organization. And they have been for generations (with a short bad period around McCort).

But they are able to cash in on advantages that other teams simply do not have access to, and THAT is the concerning part to me. Outbidding other teams is frustrating, but any team can do that (within reason). But not every team can offer elbow rubbing with Hollywood superstars while offering beautiful homes and perfect weather and global marketing opportunities.

 

[trojanfan12]

i am not saying fixing the minor leagues is the only thing needed... you are right... right now rich get richer and poor get poorer... but you need to actually give the poorer teams a way to rebuild...

Perhaps you can explain how "the poor get poorer"?

Is the Cubs making a $500 million profit and only spending $165 million in salary the poor getting poorer?

As I pointed out earlier, the Padres have historically been one of the "poor" teams...now they're suddenly spending a lot of money trying to compete with the Dodgers...Did they win the state lottery, or did they have the money all along and just recently decided to start spending?

The people who own these teams are billionaires...how are they getting "poorer"?

If the owner can't spend, then they either don't need to be owning a team or they should sell parts of the team to other billionaires so they can pool their resources. The Dodgers are actually owned by an ownership group who all work together to make sure they have the money for what they want to do.

 

[trojanfan12]

Skill and a properly structured organization is part of the competitive environment that SHOULD separate the haves and the have nots. As much as it pains my soul to say this, the doggies are an incredibly well run organization. And they have been for generations (with a short bad period around McCort).

But they are able to cash in on advantages that other teams simply do not have access to, and THAT is the concerning part to me. Outbidding other teams is frustrating, but any team can do that (within reason). But not every team can offer elbow rubbing with Hollywood superstars while offering beautiful homes and perfect weather and global marketing opportunities.

What's that they say?..."Location, location, location". lol

Not sure what can be done about that. But the Dodgers shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[shopson67]

All the hand-wringing about the Dodgers' spending this offseason is silly. It's just Sasaki jealousy. He's not even making much, as a posting free agent he only gets a standard rookie contract with the only variable being the signing bonus (which comes out of the team's international money). Dodgers made trades to be able to give him a $6.5M signing bonus, others offered more. His signing isn't about money, just the lure of the franchise currently and playing with other Japanese players.

We all know the complaining isn't about Tanner Scott and Kirby Yates. Before these moves, the Dodgers weren't even the top payroll (Phillies) and not far ahead of the Yankees and Mets. Approximately half the league is spending $150M+, which probably should be the floor (and is approximately the average as well). $150M being the average means there are teams just as problematic that aren't spending any money. Miami being at $43M should be relegatable.

 

[calsnowskier]

What's that they say?..."Location, location, location". lol

Not sure what can be done about that. But the Dodgers shouldn't be punished for it.

Absolutely. But if non-skill aspects dictate have/havenot, than that leads to serious problems at the core of the industry.

And why I support the concept of a more complicated “cap” that treats homegrown players differently than mercenaries. The Warriors should not be punished for having Klay, Dray and Steph on the roster. They were all drafted. But adding KD should be difficult. Trading for Wiggins should be difficult (but not AS difficult as signing KD).

The dogs should be rewarded for Smith. They found the diamond in the rough in the draft. They should be “punished”, slightly, for Betts. But they should be limited in how many Snells, Ohtanis, Freemans etc they can add.

I ROUGHLY spelled out my thoughts a few days back (the details can be worked out, just look at the general idea). Home grown players salaries should not count toward a cap. Traded for players should count partially towards the cap. FAs should count entirely towards the cap. This still encourages and rewards teams that are able to develop amateur players. If a team is able to flip those prospects for other team’s players, they should pay a premium, but not get hammered. FA should be treated like mercy and should be curtailed heavily.

 

[shopson67]

Skill and a properly structured organization is part of the competitive environment that SHOULD separate the haves and the have nots. As much as it pains my soul to say this, the doggies are an incredibly well run organization. And they have been for generations (with a short bad period around McCort).

But they are able to cash in on advantages that other teams simply do not have access to, and THAT is the concerning part to me. Outbidding other teams is frustrating, but any team can do that (within reason). But not every team can offer elbow rubbing with Hollywood superstars while offering beautiful homes and perfect weather and global marketing opportunities.

Miami has weather and beautiful people too, yet they're spending $43M and Tampa is at $60M. Florida and Texas teams can flaunt tax advantages.

Oakland/Vegas is spending $54M, despite California weather and the eventual? move to Vegas.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Perhaps you can explain how "the poor get poorer"?

Is the Cubs making a $500 million profit and only spending $165 million in salary the poor getting poorer?

As I pointed out earlier, the Padres have historically been one of the "poor" teams...now they're suddenly spending a lot of money trying to compete with the Dodgers...Did they win the state lottery, or did they have the money all along and just recently decided to start spending?

The people who own these teams are billionaires...how are they getting "poorer"?

If the owner can't spend, then they either don't need to be owning a team or they should sell parts of the team to other billionaires so they can pool their resources. The Dodgers are actually owned by an ownership group who all work together to make sure they have the money for what they want to do.

i didnt mean financially poor.... i meant it simply that wealthy owners who dont compete, will do things counterproductive to their teams success... which will allow successful teams to do things that they really shouldnt... we see terrible trades all the time that are terrible for the baseball team, but not bad for the business...

 

[trojanfan12]

(with a short bad period around McCort).

McCourt is the reason that Dodgers fans got a reputation for being thugs. In an effort to save money, he cut way back on security. So fans that would have been removed from the stadium at any other time, were often never even given a warning because there wasn't enough security. He also cut way back on the amount of lighting in the parking lot.

When my kids were younger, we would go to several games a year, but during the McCourt era, we stopped going because of the behavior of some fans.

After the McCourts sold the team, stuff started coming out that showed things were even worse than anyone knew.

 

[calsnowskier]

All the hand-wringing about the Dodgers' spending this offseason is silly. It's just Sasaki jealousy. He's not even making much, as a posting free agent he only gets a standard rookie contract with the only variable being the signing bonus (which comes out of the team's international money). Dodgers made trades to be able to give him a $6.5M signing bonus, others offered more. His signing isn't about money, just the lure of the franchise currently and playing with other Japanese players.

We all know the complaining isn't about Tanner Scott and Kirby Yates. Before these moves, the Dodgers weren't even the top payroll (Phillies) and not far ahead of the Yankees and Mets. Approximately half the league is spending $150M+, which probably should be the floor (and is approximately the average as well). $150M being the average means there are teams just as problematic that aren't spending any money. Miami being at $43M should be relegatable.

I don’t think too many complain about Yamamoto or Sasaki. At least not that they are a CAUSE of the problem. They are both more SYMPTOMS of the problem. Ohtani is also somewhat of a symptom since he wrote his own contract and all teams basically said “sure, we will do that”, but he signed with the dogs because of the global marketing opportunity that LA is able to provide that no other team (except the spanks) can offer. At that point, the dogs have become a gravitational pull to all superstars, and the doggies can afford a superstar at every position.

 

[shopson67]

Absolutely. But if non-skill aspects dictate have/havenot, than that leads to serious problems at the core of the industry.

And why I support the concept of a more complicated “cap” that treats homegrown players differently than mercenaries. The Warriors should not be punished for having Klay, Dray and Steph on the roster. They were all drafted. But adding KD should be difficult. Trading for Wiggins should be difficult (but not AS difficult as signing KD).

The dogs should be rewarded for Smith. They found the diamond in the rough in the draft. They should be “punished”, slightly, for Betts. But they should be limited in how many Snells, Ohtanis, Freemans etc they can add.

I ROUGHLY spelled out my thoughts a few days back (the details can be worked out, just look at the general idea). Home grown players salaries should not count toward a cap. Traded for players should count partially towards the cap. FAs should count entirely towards the cap. This still encourages and rewards teams that are able to develop amateur players. If a team is able to flip those prospects for other team’s players, they should pay a premium, but not get hammered. FA should be treated like mercy and should be curtailed heavily.

I don't think your plan really works though. So many teams are built through trading those prospects for proven players. In your plan, that is discouraged by cap limitations. I don't think all the clauses are necessary, just establish a cap/floor with increasing penalties the further you are out of alignment. Penalizing draft picks, international money, limiting trade ability and accelerating luxury tax fines (like the NBA) will work.

The minor leagues more or less make a hard cap unlikely due to the salary movement back and forth, but I think an NBA style plan would work. NFL plan shouldn't even exist for the NFL, but the NFLPA is so weak they can't even get salaries guaranteed.

 

[calsnowskier]

Miami has weather and beautiful people too, yet they're spending $43M and Tampa is at $60M. Florida and Texas teams can flaunt tax advantages.

Oakland/Vegas is spending $54M, despite California weather and the eventual? move to Vegas.

Exactly. Competitive malpractice. We agree.

But Miami does not have a baseball culture. Maybe it CAN if there is an ownership group that wants to build it, but they would be competing with the spanks for their fanbase.

 

[shopson67]

Exactly. Competitive malpractice. We agree.

But Miami does not have a baseball culture. Maybe it CAN if there is an ownership group that wants to build it, but they would be competing with the spanks for their fanbase.

The Cuban/Latino culture along should really bring a baseball culture with it. Continually selling off all your assets as soon as they bear fruit is not going to earn a fanbase.

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't think your plan really works though. So many teams are built through trading those prospects for proven players. In your plan, that is discouraged by cap limitations. I don't think all the clauses are necessary, just establish a cap/floor with increasing penalties the further you are out of alignment. Penalizing draft picks, international money, limiting trade ability and accelerating luxury tax fines (like the NBA) will work.

The minor leagues more or less make a hard cap unlikely due to the salary movement back and forth, but I think an NBA style plan would work. NFL plan shouldn't even exist for the NFL, but the NFLPA is so weak they can't even get salaries guaranteed.

If a team has a cap-incentive to keep their own players, then that would ALSO create a disincentive for teams to acquire other team’s players. And it rewards teams for drafting well.

Treating a FA equal to a home grown player is the core of the problem, imho.

 

[calsnowskier]

The Cuban/Latino culture along should really bring a baseball culture with it. Continually selling off all your assets as soon as they bear fruit is not going to earn a fanbase.

American sports just isn’t a thing in Miami. I lived in Miami in the mid-‘90s. The Dolphins owned the market, but that was just an NFL thing. The Panthers, Heat and Marlins had no base fanbase and were trying to convert Yankee, Ranger and Knick fans (the few that existed). Sure today is 30 years later, but Miami was, is, and will be for the foreseeable future, “Manhattan South”.

 

[trojanfan12]

Absolutely. But if non-skill aspects dictate have/havenot, than that leads to serious problems at the core of the industry.

And why I support the concept of a more complicated “cap” that treats homegrown players differently than mercenaries. The Warriors should not be punished for having Klay, Dray and Steph on the roster. They were all drafted. But adding KD should be difficult. Trading for Wiggins should be difficult (but not AS difficult as signing KD).

The dogs should be rewarded for Smith. They found the diamond in the rough in the draft. They should be “punished”, slightly, for Betts. But they should be limited in how many Snells, Ohtanis, Freemans etc they can add.

I ROUGHLY spelled out my thoughts a few days back (the details can be worked out, just look at the general idea). Home grown players salaries should not count toward a cap. Traded for players should count partially towards the cap. FAs should count entirely towards the cap. This still encourages and rewards teams that are able to develop amateur players. If a team is able to flip those prospects for other team’s players, they should pay a premium, but not get hammered. FA should be treated like mercy and should be curtailed heavily.

I wouldn't be opposed to that...in fact, I have posted a similar idea on the NBA boards re: the NBA salary cap.

If the idea is for the "poor teams" to be able to keep their best players so they can compete, then don't force teams into having to decide who they're going to keep a few years down the line when it's time to re-sign them. That way, if the player leaves, it's because it was his choice, not because the team couldn't afford him under the cap.

I don't know about a teams drafted players not counting at all against the cap, but it should be considerably less than a player they traded for or one they signed as an FA.

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't know about a teams drafted players not counting at all against the cap, but it should be considerably less than a player they traded for or one they signed as an FA.

that is a detail I am not concerned with at this point. I am really just talking about having different tiers for the cap. A tier 1 player would have the smallest cap hit. A tier 5 player would have the most detrimental cap hit. I quickly described what 3 of those tiers could look like. Feel free to propose your own tier definitions. And let’s have the talk about the actual cap hit within each tier.

But at this point, I just want to loosely talk about the EXISTENCE of these different tier levels.

 

[trojanfan12]

that is a detail I am not concerned with at this point. I am really just talking about having different tiers for the cap. A tier 1 player would have the smallest cap hit. A tier 5 player would have the most detrimental cap hit. I quickly described what 3 of those tiers could look like. Feel free to propose your own tier definitions. And let’s have the talk about the actual cap hit within each tier.

But at this point, I just want to loosely talk about the EXISTENCE of these different tier levels.

Not sure you'd need more than 4 tiers:

Tier 1. Players the team drafted and developed: no or relatively small cap hit (10%-20%).

Tier 2. Players the team traded for: 50% cap hit.

Tier 3. Relatively unknown/no star level players that the team signed and developed. 75% cap hit I can't remember if he was traded for or was an FA, but someone like Max Muncy or Justin Turner with the Dodgers.

Tier 4. Star level FA's: 100% cap hit. Guys like Ohtani.

Another question would be, how do you treat international FA's? Guys like Yamamoto and Sasaki...stars in the Japanese league but have zero MLB experience? Maybe that would be the 5th tier?