OT: MLB Thread XLV

[East Coast Bias]

A-Rod has never, ever been able to read the room. He's an ex-player trying to impress owners because he wants to be one. In the midst of a pandemic where the players and owners just got into a bloody fight, which will continue for the near feature as each side tries to saddle the other with the losses. He deserves whatever scorn comes his way. If he wasn't trying to become an owner and trying to become the inside the clubhouse type analyst, he would be railing against owners.

 

[nyr2k2]

not that he ever had a real chance it sounds like J-Rod is out as potential buyers and its now down to Cohen vs Harris/Blitzer

Thank god, not surprising but still. That group was just a bunch of rich people pooling their money because they thought it would be fun to own a team. And then they 'd find out, oh cool we own a team! Oh shit, it takes more money to successfully run the team? And they'd be out a couple years later while the Mets spent like they were the Athletics. And group of rich people can pool their money and make a run at buying a franchise, but unless you involve the mega-rich, you can't really own AND finance the successful operation of a team (especially in a major market).

Cohen is a shitty dude but whatever, so are so many people like him. Tough to get into that position without doing shitty things along the way. But, he's rich as f*** and, doesn't even have to make an entirely full bid since he owns 8%, and he's a Mets fan to boot. He's exactly the person you'd want to own the team because he can buy it all by himself and finance it all by himself.

 

[nyr2k2]

A-Rod has never, ever been able to read the room. He's an ex-player trying to impress owners because he wants to be one. In the midst of a pandemic where the players and owners just got into a bloody fight, which will continue for the near feature as each side tries to saddle the other with the losses. He deserves whatever scorn comes his way. If he wasn't trying to become an owner and trying to become the inside the clubhouse type analyst, he would be railing against owners.

I don't even care that he's now a proponent of fundamentally changing baseball's operating modeal. It's just funny. When he's signing then-unheard-of contracts, he wasn't like, "I am so grateful to have this opportunity, however I am sad that due to the problems that exist within our financial system, only a very small handful of teams can afford me." f*** no, he just takes the money and runs. He didn't give a shit back then. Not at all. Only when he wants to curry favor with owners that he knows probably would otherwise reject him is he a proponent of changing the way baseball's model works.

As to the comment earlier about the MLBPA blocking the Boston deal--A-Rod and Boston were going to restructure the deal to reduce its value. He wasn't doing that out of the goodness of is heart. He wanted to win and thought that was his best opportunity. Like always with him, it was "f*** everyone else, I'm doing me!" because of that were allowed to happen it would set a precedent moving forward that players could be asked to and consent to salary reductions, which would be a terrible leverage tool for front offices trying to move other players. The MLBPA wants nothing to do with that kind of arrangement as it's the first step towards eliminating guaranteed contracts and moving to an incentivized contract system like the NFL with only partial guarantees (and of course, a cap).

He supports whatever helps A-Rod.

 

[sbjnyc]

As to the comment earlier about the MLBPA blocking the Boston deal--A-Rod and Boston were going to restructure the deal to reduce its value. He wasn't doing that out of the goodness of is heart. He wanted to win and thought that was his best opportunity. Like always with him, it was "f*** everyone else, I'm doing me!" because of that were allowed to happen it would set a precedent moving forward that players could be asked to and consent to salary reductions, which would be a terrible leverage tool for front offices trying to move other players. The MLBPA wants nothing to do with that kind of arrangement as it's the first step towards eliminating guaranteed contracts and moving to an incentivized contract system like the NFL with only partial guarantees (and of course, a cap).

So in other words, he tries to get the most money he can - he's a bad guy. He tries to get less for a chance to win - he's a bad guy. Meanwhile we expect players on the rangers to take hometown discounts because we all know that'll result in lower ticket prices...

 

[SA16]

So what was A-Rod supposed to do back then? His agent negotiated him a huge deal because he was the best player in the league. Should he have said no, $252M is too much, I'll do it for $152M with the Rangers contract? Then when he tried to get into a better situation to win (which I thought is what we want to players to do?) he agreed to take less money to do so and his union didn't let him. So he just loses in every scenario?

He is right. There should be revenue sharing and there should be a cap. It's stupid that you can have teams like BOS/NYY/CHC/LAD spend over 200M and then teams like OAK/CWS/MIA/BAL/PIT/TB spend under 100M. That does not make for a competitive league. You have the occasional one year wonder (Marlins and then they tear it down) and TB who somehow is always there but in general the disparity is ridiculous and saying those teams should get richer owners or be willing to spend more and lose money is not realistic. There is a luxury tax but it's so absurdly high and the tax so low that it is not really relevant.

 

[nyr2k2]

So in other words, he tries to get the most money he can - he's a bad guy. He tries to get less for a chance to win - he's a bad guy. Meanwhile we expect players on the rangers to take hometown discounts because we all know that'll result in lower ticket prices...

I never said he was a bad guy for maximizing his earnings in baseball. I specifically said that's his right. It's what almost every player can do and will try to do. The problem with him "taking less" for a chance to win was that he was trying to agree to something that was specifically prohibited by the CBA and would have had a potentially negative impact on everyone else and would have weakened the framework that the PA had worked for decades to protect. THAT was selfish and it is also why the PA vetoed it. It affected much more than just him. But even if you forgive that--the fact that he retires and then suggests essentially blowing up the labor agreement he himself benefited from so much at the expense of guys who are still playing, to me, is bullshit. You can say it's just business, and that's fine, but to me it's scummy. I don't even think he actually cares one iota about how baseball structures their collective agreement; I think he's just saying things t try to appeal to owners that he knows don't like him.

As to your last sentence--I do not expect anyone to take a hometown discount ever for any team I root for, and anyone who thinks that players taking a home town discount will lead to "lower ticket prices" is painfully naive to the way professional franchises operate. So...not sure what your point is, there.

 

[sbjnyc]

I never said he was a bad guy for maximizing his earnings in baseball. I specifically said that's his right. It's what almost every player can do and will try to do. The problem with him "taking less" for a chance to win was that he was trying to agree to something that was specifically prohibited by the CBA and would have had a potentially negative impact on everyone else and would have weakened the framework that the PA had worked for decades to protect. THAT was selfish and it is also why the PA vetoed it. It affected much more than just him. But even if you forgive that--the fact that he retires and then suggests essentially blowing up the labor agreement he himself benefited from so much at the expense of guys who are still playing, to me, is bullshit. You can say it's just business, and that's fine, but to me it's scummy. I don't even think he actually cares one iota about how baseball structures their collective agreement; I think he's just saying things t try to appeal to owners that he knows don't like him.

As to your last sentence--I do not expect anyone to take a hometown discount ever for any team I root for, and anyone who thinks that players taking a home town discount will lead to "lower ticket prices" is painfully naive to the way professional franchises operate. So...not sure what your point is, there.

Or he could say he wants to be like Derek Jeter and buy a team that he can't make payroll for, trade away all the good players for a bag of pucks, and live off baseball welfare. I'm sure every team's fan base would love an owner that says those things instead. Curt Schilling essentially said what A-rod did - that a league that pays him $20 million/year was stupid but it would be even more stupid if he said no. I really have no idea what you think A-rod should have done as a player other than sign the contract his agent negotiated for him.

 

[nyr2k2]

Or he could say he wants to be like Derek Jeter and buy a team that he can't make payroll for, trade away all the good players for a bag of pucks, and live off baseball welfare. I'm sure every team's fan base would love an owner that says those things instead. Curt Schilling essentially said what A-rod did - that a league that pays him $20 million/year was stupid but it would be even more stupid if he said no. I really have no idea what you think A-rod should have done as a player other than sign the contract his agent negotiated for him.

I didn't suggest he should have done anything different as a player (other than not agree to reduce his contract, which erodes a primary pillar of the MLBPA's leverage platform). I'm just contrasting taking full advantage of the system as a player--and even trying to do things as a player that he couldn't have done and would have hurt other players--with his "positions" now. That's it.

And as I said to the other person, I don't really have anything else to say about it as I don't think I can be any more clear.

And yeah Jeter also sucks and if I were one of Florida's seven fans I'd be livid.

 

[East Coast Bias]

So what was A-Rod supposed to do back then? His agent negotiated him a huge deal because he was the best player in the league. Should he have said no, $252M is too much, I'll do it for $152M with the Rangers contract? Then when he tried to get into a better situation to win (which I thought is what we want to players to do?) he agreed to take less money to do so and his union didn't let him. So he just loses in every scenario?

He is right. There should be revenue sharing and there should be a cap. It's stupid that you can have teams like BOS/NYY/CHC/LAD spend over 200M and then teams like OAK/CWS/MIA/BAL/PIT/TB spend under 100M. That does not make for a competitive league. You have the occasional one year wonder (Marlins and then they tear it down) and TB who somehow is always there but in general the disparity is ridiculous and saying those teams should get richer owners or be willing to spend more and lose money is not realistic. There is a luxury tax but it's so absurdly high and the tax so low that it is not really relevant.

This is not at all how it went down. He had offers from every good team back then. He took what was universally reported as the largest deal by FAR from Texas. Which is his right. But he's not a victim because Texas offered him more than the Mets/Yankees/Red Sox. In fact he had the pick of basically any team he wanted. That would absolutely not be the case in a cap world. In fact the cap would just squeeze the suitors to a smaller amount, maybe in a place he doesn't even want to go.

If you need a refesher, read this

Rangers, A-Rod stunned baseball 15 years ago

Lastly - Baseball has had 13 different World Series winners in the last 20 years. 13! It's by far the most competitive sport we have. That's down to the structure in when players become free agents which makes scouting and development far more important than free agency.

 

[nyr2k2]

So what was A-Rod supposed to do back then? His agent negotiated him a huge deal because he was the best player in the league. Should he have said no, $252M is too much, I'll do it for $152M with the Rangers contract? Then when he tried to get into a better situation to win (which I thought is what we want to players to do?) he agreed to take less money to do so and his union didn't let him. So he just loses in every scenario?

He is right. There should be revenue sharing and there should be a cap. It's stupid that you can have teams like BOS/NYY/CHC/LAD spend over 200M and then teams like OAK/CWS/MIA/BAL/PIT/TB spend under 100M. That does not make for a competitive league. You have the occasional one year wonder (Marlins and then they tear it down) and TB who somehow is always there but in general the disparity is ridiculous and saying those teams should get richer owners or be willing to spend more and lose money is not realistic. There is a luxury tax but it's so absurdly high and the tax so low that it is not really relevant.

I addressed this and will do so now but not again because its getting tiring. He got his money in a system that is favorable to players. He was thrilled, and rightfully so. Everything that the PA had fought for beginning with Marvin Miller had paid off for him in allowing him to be offered that kind of money in free agency. Good for him. No problems with him getting it--and he had no problem with the system that allowed him to get it. None! The system worked as it should for him. But now that he's out of the game, that same system is a problem. It's a problem because he wants to own a team and he doesn't want to have to end up paying a Bryce Harper or Nolan Arenado or a Cole or Machado or whatever (because he can't afford it). So now, that very system that I reaped the benefits of, must be changed or else! Nah, f*** that. He's just being an opportunist.

Baseball has had 13 champions in the past 20 years. The NFL has seven. The NBA has had eight. The NHL has had 13. Every league has teams that don't spend enough money and perennial powers that are always up against the cap. Can you make some tweaks to the system? Sure. Do you need to make radical changes? Will those radical changes actually change anything? I would posit that no, no they won't. And A-Rod--f***ing A-Rod--the fact that he proposes 50/50 revenue sharing and then people say mean things to him causing him to walk it back to "I didn't say salary cap, I just want people to work together!" makes it even more abundantly clear that he has no idea what the f*** he's actually talking about, and that again he just wants people to like him.

f*** that guy. I'm done with him and this.

 

[sbjnyc]

This is not at all how it went down. He had offers from every good team back then. He took what was universally reported as the largest deal by FAR from Texas. Which is his right. But he's not a victim because Texas offered him more than the Mets/Yankees/Red Sox. In fact he had the pick of basically any team he wanted. That would absolutely not be the case in a cap world. In fact the cap would just squeeze the suitors to a smaller amount, maybe in a place he doesn't even want to go.

If you need a refesher, read this

Rangers, A-Rod stunned baseball 15 years ago

Lastly - Baseball has had 13 different World Series winners in the last 20 years. 13! It's by far the most competitive sport we have. That's down to the structure in when players become free agents which makes scouting and development far more important than free agency.

If QBs had TJS as often as pitchers the NFL would be a lot more competitive as well.

 

[East Coast Bias]

If QBs had TJS as often as pitchers the NFL would be a lot more competitive as well.

I disagree. the NFL is the sport that coaching matters the most IMO.

Baseball is nowhere near as technical and strategic as football.

 

[nyr2k2]

I disagree. the NFL is the sport that coaching matters the most IMO.

Baseball is nowhere near as technical and strategic as football.

Correct. Even as a Mets fan, I like Joe Torre, but Joe Torre was not Bill Belicheck. Particularly in the AL (until now...) without the double switch.

In the NFL you generally have things you're generally good at as a team, but you create new schemes and implement new plays and packages for different opponents on a weekly basis. In baseball, hitters read up on pitchers and vice versa, go over the data, but that's not even on the managers. Managers can look at more advanced data than ever when making pitching changes or shifting the infield, but even then, half of the guys in baseball don't even "believe" in that "that stuff."

 

[sbjnyc]

I disagree. the NFL is the sport that coaching matters the most IMO.

Baseball is nowhere near as technical and strategic as football.

There are a lot of bad coaches who won superbowls because of their star QB. Andy Reid is a good coach but never won a superbowl until he had Patrick Mahomes. How many superbowls does Bill Belichick win without Tom Brady? You can go back 20+ years and find coaches who didn't need QBs to win consistently - Parcells comes to mind - but it was a completely different game. The league is now so passing friendly that without a good QB you can have the best coaching staff and still not be a winner with a roster like the jets.

And we were talking about salary caps. My comment was more about how little is invested in backup QBs even though most analysts suggest backup QB is the 2nd most important position on the team.

 

[East Coast Bias]

There are a lot of bad coaches who won superbowls because of their star QB. Andy Reid is a good coach but never won a superbowl until he had Patrick Mahomes. How many superbowls does Bill Belichick win without Tom Brady? You can go back 20+ years and find coaches who didn't need QBs to win consistently - Parcells comes to mind - but it was a completely different game. The league is now so passing friendly that without a good QB you can have the best coaching staff and still not be a winner with a roster like the jets.

And we were talking about salary caps. My comment was more about how little is invested in backup QBs even though most analysts suggest backup QB is the 2nd most important position on the team.

I honestly don't know what salary cap has to do with this either? I thought you were just comparing why one sport seems to be dominated by dynasties more than another?

I don't think MLB is competitive because there's no cap. I'm just saying there isn't a need for a cap to increase competitiveness. Any argument from owners and prospective owners about a cap isn't about competitiveness when nearly half the league won a WS since 2000. It's just about suppressing salaries, which is why players got upset with A-Rod.

 

[SA16]

This is not at all how it went down. He had offers from every good team back then. He took what was universally reported as the largest deal by FAR from Texas. Which is his right. But he's not a victim because Texas offered him more than the Mets/Yankees/Red Sox. In fact he had the pick of basically any team he wanted. That would absolutely not be the case in a cap world. In fact the cap would just squeeze the suitors to a smaller amount, maybe in a place he doesn't even want to go.

If you need a refesher, read this

Rangers, A-Rod stunned baseball 15 years ago

Lastly - Baseball has had 13 different World Series winners in the last 20 years. 13! It's by far the most competitive sport we have. That's down to the structure in when players become free agents which makes scouting and development far more important than free agency.

He was a Scott Boras client and Scott Boras client's almost always take the highest offer and he heavily advises them to do so. In a cap world that would be different. It would be like Panarin and the Rangers where he had similar offers from the Rangers, Islanders, and some other teams. Sure the Islanders was more but it was in the ballpark. Texas offer to ARod could have easily been 50M+ more (this doesn't say numbers others offered). In a cap world he would just get offered near the max from everyone (as happens in the NBA) and choose which team he likes best.

The reason baseball has so many different WS winners is because there is a huge amount of variance involved in the playoffs and legitimately anyone can win in a short series but you have some teams who have no chance at even getting there in the first place. This is also the case for the NHL which also has 13 SC champions the last 20 years (STL,WSH,PIT,CHI,LAK,BOS,DET,ANA,CAR,TB,NJ,COL,DAL). You would be better at looking at number of teams to make the playoffs or something like this since that is less prone to the randomness of winning a championship (obviously needing to account for differing number of playoff teams in each leagues).

 

[sbjnyc]

I honestly don't know what salary cap has to do with this either? I thought you were just comparing why one sport seems to be dominated by dynasties more than another?

If your key player who is on a big contract (say Panarin) misses the season then even if you have salary cap relief you can't replace him. But the Yankees lost a ton of key players last season and still won 103 games. Good NFL teams can have depth at key positions but few or none have depth at QB. Other than the Eagles and the Giants 30 years ago I can't think of any teams that won a superbowl with a backup QB (not counting Brady).

I don't think MLB is competitive because there's no cap. I'm just saying there isn't a need for a cap to increase competitiveness. Any argument from owners and prospective owners about a cap isn't about competitiveness when nearly half the league won a WS since 2000. It's just about suppressing salaries, which is why players got upset with A-Rod.

And is MLB really more competitive than NFL? You use the number of champs over 20 years but instead lets look at playoff turnover.

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD][/TD]
[TD]MLB[/TD][TD]NFL[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]2019[/TD][TD]5/10[/TD][TD]5/12[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]2018[/TD][TD]4/10[/TD][TD]8/12[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]2017[/TD][TD]5/10[/TD][TD]8/12[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]2016[/TD][TD]5/10[/TD][TD]8/12[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

NFL 60% playoff turnover over past 4 years
MLB 48% playoff turnover over past 4 years.

It would take time to do this for 20 years (tbh I'm not 100% sure on NFL accuracy) but I suspect it would be similar.

 

[East Coast Bias]

He was a Scott Boras client and Scott Boras client's almost always take the highest offer and he heavily advises them to do so. In a cap world that would be different. It would be like Panarin and the Rangers where he had similar offers from the Rangers, Islanders, and some other teams. Sure the Islanders was more but it was in the ballpark. Texas offer to ARod could have easily been 50M+ more (this doesn't say numbers others offered). In a cap world he would just get offered near the max from everyone (as happens in the NBA) and choose which team he likes best.

The reason baseball has so many different WS winners is because there is a huge amount of variance involved in the playoffs and legitimately anyone can win in a short series but you have some teams who have no chance at even getting there in the first place. This is also the case for the NHL which also has 13 SC champions the last 20 years (STL,WSH,PIT,CHI,LAK,BOS,DET,ANA,CAR,TB,NJ,COL,DAL). You would be better at looking at number of teams to make the playoffs or something like this since that is less prone to the randomness of winning a championship (obviously needing to account for differing number of playoff teams in each leagues).

To this and @sbjnyc 's point. It's fair to debate what parity means. But I wouldn't say any of these leagues are leaps and bounds "more fair" than each other? Would you agree? That's what A-Rod is implying with a cap. He's implying the league slipped bc of no salary cap and not having competition. Do you really need to implement a salary cap to increase competitiveness? It's already nearly on par with other sports. He also cites the NBA repeatedly in popularity. That league is the polar opposite and has been proven to be MORE popular when dynastys reign.

I can see your points. My reaction is more towards A-Rod being the one carrying this message.

 

[nyr2k2]

To this and @sbjnyc 's point. It's fair to debate what parity means. But I wouldn't say any of these leagues are leaps and bounds "more fair" than each other? Would you agree? That's what A-Rod is implying with a cap. He's implying the league slipped bc of no salary cap and not having competition. Do you really need to implement a salary cap to increase competitiveness? It's already nearly on par with other sports. He also cites the NBA repeatedly in popularity. That league is the polar opposite and has been proven to be MORE popular when dynastys reign.

I can see your points. My reaction is more towards A-Rod being the one carrying this message.

Yeah, that's what it is. This is just an A-Rod thing. We can argue about the virtues of a hard cap, luxury tax, revenue sharing, whatever, all day long. It's just that it's coming from A-Rod, a guy with no principles whatsoever. He just wanted to curry favor with owners, knowing there's a good chance that his bid could be blocked by those owners as he's not exactly Mr. Popular. And then he's challenged and backs down and goes back to his "unity" and "Make Baseball Great Again!" non-message. It's just so stupid. He has no idea what he's talking about. It's just word soup. I would have actually respected him more had he come out with his 50/50 revenue sharing proposal and then when criticized, doubled-down with some salient points about why that was the best model. But no.

 

[Machinehead]

When there's runners on base and Stanton comes up

 

[Crease]

 

[RangerBlues]

There are a lot of bad coaches who won superbowls because of their star QB. Andy Reid is a good coach but never won a superbowl until he had Patrick Mahomes. How many superbowls does Bill Belichick win without Tom Brady? You can go back 20+ years and find coaches who didn't need QBs to win consistently - Parcells comes to mind - but it was a completely different game. The league is now so passing friendly that without a good QB you can have the best coaching staff and still not be a winner with a roster like the jets.

And we were talking about salary caps. My comment was more about how little is invested in backup QBs even though most analysts suggest backup QB is the 2nd most important position on the team.

NFL1!-5
1: QB
2: QB
3: LT
4: Offensive toy
5: any breathing human who can get the QB at the lowest $$$

 

[RangerBlues]

The only cutout id like to see behind a Yankee home plate is Marlins Man
LOL!

 

[Machinehead]

Here we go already

 

[East Coast Bias]

Here we go already

here we gone, amirite

I’d read a behind the scenes expose on Jed Lowries knee someday.