"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

[Jocephus]

[TheoSqua]

I think a salary floor is in order. Teams will be taxed if they don't have a payroll above, say $75mil.

[MrCrowesGarden]

I think a salary floor is in order. Teams will be taxed if they don't have a payroll above, say $75mil.

The argument that will follow that one is predictable though. Teams will argue they're being forced to "overpay" for players they don't feel are worth it.

[TheoSqua]

I think a salary floor is in order. Teams will be taxed if they don't have a payroll above, say $75mil.

The argument that will follow that one is predictable though. Teams will argue they're being forced to "overpay" for players they don't feel are worth it.

And that has been a solid baseball tradition for 20 years now. Baseball either has to continue overpaying 30 year old players or they need to restructure the way entry level contracts work.

If owners don't want lots of labor battles then they have to concede 45-50% of income to the players. In the past that's gone to the older players, but the trend seems to be not paying them because they're not worth it (which is a valid argument). But that means smaller payrolls, which means the players get less of the pie. Unless owners think the players will cave and be OK with being paid 10-20% less than the other major leagues, something is gonna have to give.

[MrCrowesGarden]

It's also owners have prioritized making profits over winning now more than ever. Cost controlled players is a good way to do that. The Marlins and Rays now have a combined payroll less than the Mets, who are pretty middle of the pack. The A's payroll is lower than it was in 2004.

If the owners can't find a way to be competitive with the ridiculous revenue streams available to them, maybe they shouldn't be in baseball.

[Popeye_Card]

Has anyone ever plotted average WAR by age vs. average salary? I would like to see that graph.

[heyzeus]

The success of the Cubs and Astros has been a boon to the owners. Now, there is a model to hold up to the fans to get buy-in for going cheap. Now, teams can cut costs and lose games with impunity, present it as savvy rebuilding, and get buy-in from fans.

If they reboot the movie "Major League," the owner won't be trying to tank in order to move the team, she'll be tanking in order to stockpile draft picks and prospects. Oh, and she'll be presented as the heroine, not the villain.

[thrill]

Yeah, the "model" is one thing, but the reality is that the Cubs going cheap is a misnomer. They stockpiled assets, signed free agents that they knew they could flip at the deadline for prospects, and most importantly poured money into facilities (their spring training complex is incredible), scouting, and cranked up their international presence. They accompanied that investment with a transparent PR agenda that helped their fans buy in with the rebuild because they weren't being cheap.

That reality isn't going to stop bad owners from holding them up to sell their fans though, you're right.

[MrCrowesGarden]

The success of the Cubs and Astros has been a boon to the owners. Now, there is a model to hold up to the fans to get buy-in for going cheap. Now, teams can cut costs and lose games with impunity, present it as savvy rebuilding, and get buy-in from fans.

If they reboot the movie "Major League," the owner won't be trying to tank in order to move the team, she'll be tanking in order to stockpile draft picks and prospects. Oh, and she'll be presented as the heroine, not the villain.

True story-- the alternate ending to the movie was close to that. And the audience hated it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_ ... nding.html

[MrCrowesGarden]