GatewayRedbirds.com

Posted: **February 21 18, 10:31 am**

Sounds like Adderall or Vyvanse

Posted: **February 21 18, 12:57 pm**

Carlos Gomez to the Rays on a one-year deal.

Posted: **February 21 18, 1:28 pm**

MrCrowesGarden wrote:
TheoSqua wrote: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.

The argument that a salary floor might force you to pay players who aren't worth it (e.g. the Ty Wigginton signings of the world) is probably true in a WAR to $ equation.

The easy adjustment would be to pay MiLB callups closer to what they're worth and adjust the league minimum to a higher baseline. Shorten the length of team control so they have to be paid "real" FA contracts sooner...and voilà. Now a salary floor is "worth" it.

The fun thing is, no one would go for this on either side of the CBA negotiating table. Owners don't want to have to pay MiLB callups more, or shorten their control, or pay a salary floor. And MLB veterans clearly don't want more money going to amateurs, international pickups and/or MiLB callups.

So it's never happening.

Posted: **February 21 18, 1:40 pm**

I can at least understand why veterans who've been underpaid on the front half of their careers would now want to be compensated on the back half.

I'm not saying that the system isn't broken, but I understand why they feel how they feel.

Posted: **February 21 18, 1:46 pm**

MrCrowesGarden wrote:I can at least understand why veterans who've been underpaid on the front half of their careers would now want to be compensated on the back half.

I'm not saying that the system isn't broken, but I understand why they feel how they feel.

Sure, I get how they feel, but that's why the players are in this cycle of seemingly lesser and lesser deals.

No group of "current" vets for the past like three decades has ever decided to willingly take a cut in their own finances to make the game better for future players. Not only that, but they've constantly been trying to figure out ways to actually take money from amateurs, international players and league callups. And they've been so effective at taking money making opportunities away from those players, it's now cheaper and better value (in a WAR for $ equation) to play the people getting screwed by the vets.

So until a group of vets takes a cut, and stops trying to screw the rest of the labor process, the future vets are going to keep getting screwed. And because of that, we're never getting a salary floor, so owners can keep getting stupidly cheap labor. It's a vicious cycle, and it's been perpetrated by almost everyone in baseball.

Posted: **February 21 18, 1:53 pm**

Of course it's much easier to be willing to take a cut in your own finances if you've already been compensated. The MLBPA deserves its criticism for this, but ownership may just have to take it upon themselves (yeah, right) to proactively pay players better unless they want labor strife to be the story of their sport.

Posted: **February 21 18, 2:56 pm**

Baseball Guy: Any ideas where the last few 1B/DH types will land? Morrison seems like a bargain-to-be, and Duda has always hit and should help someone. Lind and Reynolds can be major league impact guys too.

Jeff Sullivan: This is exactly why no one wanted to pay too much for Corey Dickerson, incidentally

Jeff Sullivan: I could’ve sworn that Morrison would end up in Kansas City, like he said he wanted. I’m shocked that didn’t happen immediately after Hosmer came off the board

Jeff Sullivan: I think someone ends up DHing for the White Sox. Not hard to see someone going to the Rockies to buy more time for McMahon. I also don’t want to rule the Rays out, now that they have a little bit of wiggle room

Posted: **February 21 18, 3:30 pm**

heyzeus wrote: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.

I know you're joking, but sadly we are at a point when many fans actually praise teams for tanking. I hate tanking because it lets some major league teams charge big league prices for minor-league baseball. The fans lose when teams are allowed to tank, and this year promises to be among the worst tanking seasons ever. You can argue that a third of the teams in baseball are tanking, and that's a damn shame.
by jortiz 3:28 PM

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.
by mozeliaks off-kilter bow tie 3:26 PM

Posted: **February 21 18, 3:37 pm**

heyzeus wrote: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.

How long is this "goodwill" with fans going to last? Two teams in total-tank mode is very different than what we have today. I would guess that it is easier to build super-teams like the Cubs and Astros when there's just two of you doing it. But when 10 teams are trying to do the same thing, it seems more difficult and more risky. It's probably going to blow up on more than a few teams.

Posted: **February 21 18, 3:45 pm**

Hoot45 wrote:
heyzeus wrote: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.
How long is this "goodwill" with fans going to last? Two teams in total-tank mode is very different than what we have today. I would guess that it is easier to build super-teams like the Cubs and Astros when there's just two of you doing it. But when 10 teams are trying to do the same thing, it seems more difficult and more risky. It's probably going to blow up on more than a few teams.

And at that point, what's really the benefit? You're probably just delaying your competition window by a few years.

GatewayRedbirds.com

"not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread

Re: "not worthy of its own thread" offseason thread