Non-Cub Playoff Megathread Chit-Chat

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

This is exactly what I've done.  Plus isn't there an F'uped version of St. Louis style pizza?  Or is it some disgusting sandwich?

St. Louis pizza is gross. It uses provel cheese. Blech. 

[Outshined_One]

52 minutes ago, soccer10k said:

Force the cheap teams to spend and they’ll be more likely to keep good young players rather than trading them after 3-4 years so they don’t lose them for nothing in free agency.

I disagree with this assessment.  Young players are going to want long term contracts at high dollar amounts (like they do now), and salary floors are not going to compel cheap teams into committing to those sorts of deals because those teams will claim they are unable to absorb the dead money if those players don't pan out.

I think the more likely outcome of a hard floor is you'll see veteran salaries increase substantially on short term deals to help cheap teams meet the floor requirements.

[soccer10k]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

The only way a salary cap and a floor will increase pay for players is if the MLB drops it's Anti-Trust protections like the NFL and have open and public revenue. The Dodgers are already finding ways to shirk and skirt sharing revenue from their broadcast stream. The Cubs can claim "biblical losses" because they hide gameday revenue and classify things on and off the books for their benefit. All teams do this. 

Here's the rub: as long as the Anti-Trust is in place, anything would be an utter sham set by owners. And if you think owners are suggesting they lose this, or that they're trying to implement a floor/cap that would in any way be fair or benefit players, I have a bridge to sell you.

Beyond that there is study after study that suggest MLB does not have a parity problem compared to other sports. If you're worried about the Dodgers, let me introduce you to the Patriots and the Chiefs. Or the Florida Panthers. The OKC Thunder. All sports have hegemons. But in total parity, the MLB is just fine compared to others with a cap and a floor. 

As Bertz said, the Dodgers spending *so* much more is probably a bit of an issue. But there are ways to solve that beyond lazy caps and floors the owners want.

If you curb spending for the top few teams (LA, NYM, NYY, Phi and Tor were all over $300M) but you make 10-12 teams spend more (I see 14 teams under $200M, just to pick a round number) how exactly would that not increase overall money going to the players?

Comparing MLB to the NFL (where a star QB can by themselves make a team relevant) or the NBA (only 5 players on the court at a time so one guy can have an outsized impact) is dumb and irrelevant. One player can only do so much due to the nature of baseball, as the Angles proved with Trout.

The Patriots won because they had arguably the greatest coach and greatest QB for 20 years. The Chiefs as well. OKC is great because they made one incredibly good trade and have drafted really well (Chet was their only top-5 pick). Those teams didn’t win because they outspent everyone (and doing so with both legal and not legal means that other teams can’t or won’t do), so it’s not remotely the same thing.

[soccer10k]

41 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I disagree with this assessment.  Young players are going to want long term contracts at high dollar amounts (like they do now), and salary floors are not going to compel cheap teams into committing to those sorts of deals because those teams will claim they are unable to absorb the dead money if those players don't pan out.

I think the more likely outcome of a hard floor is you'll see veteran salaries increase substantially on short term deals to help cheap teams meet the floor requirements.

In reality it would probably do both. Some teams would absolutely extend younger players while others wouldn’t. And veteran players would also make more money as well as teams make sure they reach the floor.

[mul21]

45 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I disagree with this assessment.  Young players are going to want long term contracts at high dollar amounts (like they do now), and salary floors are not going to compel cheap teams into committing to those sorts of deals because those teams will claim they are unable to absorb the dead money if those players don't pan out.

I think the more likely outcome of a hard floor is you'll see veteran salaries increase substantially on short term deals to help cheap teams meet the floor requirements.

Apparently you missed all the long term contracts the Brewers signed their young players to before they ever played an MLB game.

[Rcal10]

2 minutes ago, soccer10k said:

And veteran players would also make more money as well as teams make sure they reach the floor.

Right. This is an unintended consequence of a floor that wouldn’t upset me. Of course the unintended consequence of this situation is a higher spending team won’t be able to add a cheap bat (let’s use Conforto as an example) because a team trying to get to the floor might offer him $13M so they can reach the floor. So🤷

[Irrelevant Dude]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I'm a little late, but yes, Milwaukee is a great city. The Brewers are a well-run organization, and I don't dislike them at all.  They deserve to be in the WS and I hope they win.

I'm with you on most of that.  There is a lot of Brewers hate going around, but I certainly don't hate them like I do the Cardinals.  Is it annoying that they repeatedly finish ahead of the Cubs?  Sure.  But they are a good team with a good front office and manager, and they have some likeable players.  I find it hard to root against them.  With that said, I'm still rooting for Cleveland.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, Soul said:

There's nothing but the arch, and it's better seen as you pass by on the freeway. If you exit the freeway you are in National Lampoon's Vacation.

As much as I hate to defend STL in any way, this is a bridge too far.  I wouldn't recommend living there, but it's a terrific city to visit, especially if you have kids.  The zoo, science center, and City Museum are all fantastic places to visit, there's a ton of great food that doesn't get the publicity the terrible stuff does (pizza, gooey butter cake, toasted ravioli), and you're not going to find a city with better beer anywhere.  There are probably 5 breweries in STL that make what would be the best beer in just about any other major metro area.  

[Rcal10]

5 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I'm with you on most of that.  There is a lot of Brewers hate going around, but I certainly don't hate them like I do the Cardinals.  Is it annoying that they repeatedly finish ahead of the Cubs?  Sure.  But they are a good team with a good front office and manager, and they have some likeable players.  I find it hard to root against them.  With that said, I'm still rooting for Cleveland.

They have a few unlikeable players as well. Yelich and Mis come to mind. Uribe and Contreras not far behind. But, I agree I don’t have as much issue with them as the cardinals. 

[muntjack]

I cannot dislike Mis.  I would absolutely love him if he were a Cub.  He's the PCA of pitching.  

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, muntjack said:

I cannot dislike Mis.  I would absolutely love him if he were a Cub.  He's the PCA of pitching.  

He is a bit of a jackass. More so than PCA. But you like who you like. Works for me. I look forward to the day he throws his last pitch before the inevitable TJ surgery. 
Keep in mind, I am not wishing injury on him. I am just saying when the inevitable happens I won’t be sad. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Rcal10

[Stratos]

15 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

He is a bit of a jackass. More so than PCA. But you like who you like. Works for me. I look forward to the day he throws his last pitch before the inevitable TJ surgery. 
Keep in mind, I am not wishing injury on him. I am just saying when the inevitable happens I won’t be sad. 

I'm finding it extremely difficult not to wish arm injuries on the Brewers hurlers

[BigSlick]

Went to a wedding a few years ago in St. Louis, the overwhelming feeling I got from there is it's depressing. There's nobody around the downtown, there is not much of any kind of nightlife, the only cool thing there is the City Museum (coincidentally, where the wedding was held), and that's about it. 

Sadly true of a great many midwestern cities. 

[gflore34]

1 minute ago, Stratos said:

I'm finding it extremely difficult not to wish arm injuries on the Brewers hurlers

Wish or not they'll probably happen, appears to be the curse of or high cost of high velocity.

[mul21]

11 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Went to a wedding a few years ago in St. Louis, the overwhelming feeling I got from there is it's depressing. There's nobody around the downtown, there is not much of any kind of nightlife, the only cool thing there is the City Museum (coincidentally, where the wedding was held), and that's about it. 

Sadly true of a great many midwestern cities. 

There's plenty of nightlife, it's just scattered throughout the city instead of concentrated downtown.  This is also very much due to Covid, not that downtown STL was some crazy exciting place before that, but it's completely dead now outside of Ballpark Village.

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, soccer10k said:

If you curb spending for the top few teams (LA, NYM, NYY, Phi and Tor were all over $300M) but you make 10-12 teams spend more (I see 14 teams under $200M, just to pick a round number) how exactly would that not increase overall money going to the players?

Comparing MLB to the NFL (where a star QB can by themselves make a team relevant) or the NBA (only 5 players on the court at a time so one guy can have an outsized impact) is dumb and irrelevant. One player can only do so much due to the nature of baseball, as the Angles proved with Trout.

The Patriots won because they had arguably the greatest coach and greatest QB for 20 years. The Chiefs as well. OKC is great because they made one incredibly good trade and have drafted really well (Chet was their only top-5 pick). Those teams didn’t win because they outspent everyone (and doing so with both legal and not legal means that other teams can’t or won’t do), so it’s not remotely the same thing.

I think we have to work from a very simple premise: neither side is doing anything altruistic or out of the goodness of their heart. When we can accept that, we can likely accept that any cap and floor concept proposed by the owners is not going to be paying players more. The only way that is going to happen is with outside forces and open, public knowledge of what revenues are there. The only way we can get open books is by dropping their anti-trust laws, laws that none of the other sports have, that also have a cap/floor. The reason an NFL salary cap works is that it is percentage based, and revenue streams are clear.

If there is no loss of anti-trust, and to be very clear the MLB ownership has not proposed that in any shape or form, than any salary cap and floor in any discussion will not result in players making more money. How much money those teams actually make would be impossible to determine. Teams would hide things and cook books because they wouldn't be required to share their information. 

I can accept the cap/floor argument if the anti-trust is gone and they do it like the NFL. Open books, and a fair percentage split is fine. But anything short of that is not going to help players and we should know that. The numbers we throw around don't interest me much; they're just random hypotheticals made up by people looking for fairness. The owners are not looking for fairness; they are looking for profits.

I also don't trust teams to not circumvent them. NHL teams have for 15+ years traded players who are effectively retired to make their "salary floor". They cooked weird long contracts  (like signing 37 year olds to nine year deals) to spread out LT while front loading the actual pay. It allowed them to dump the cap number on a small market who then would reap the benefit of the "floor" while paying them the actual salary of "league minimum" while they stayed at home, effectively retired for half a decade. MLB teams will find a loop hole. They are already doing that with revenue sharing and where that money goes; both on the top end (Dodgers) and the bottom end (Pirates).

Beyond that, the number of players a roster in a particular sport has is immaterial and we're moving goal posts. The point is that the salary cap has not created any more or less parity in those sports. It hasn't stopped a "clear best team". That is sports. 

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I think we have to work from a very simple premise: neither side is doing anything altruistic or out of the goodness of their heart. When we can accept that, we can likely accept that any cap and floor concept proposed by the owners is not going to be paying players more. The only way that is going to happen is with outside forces and open, public knowledge of what revenues are there. The only way we can get open books is by dropping their anti-trust laws, laws that none of the other sports have, that also have a cap/floor. The reason an NFL salary cap works is that it is percentage based, and revenue streams are clear.

If there is no loss of anti-trust, and to be very clear the MLB ownership has not proposed that in any shape or form, than any salary cap and floor in any discussion will not result in players making more money. How much money those teams actually make would be impossible to determine. Teams would hide things and cook books because they wouldn't be required to share their information. 

I can accept the cap/floor argument if the anti-trust is gone and they do it like the NFL. Open books, and a fair percentage split is fine. But anything short of that is not going to help players and we should know that. The numbers we throw around don't interest me much; they're just random hypotheticals made up by people looking for fairness. The owners are not looking for fairness; they are looking for profits.

I also don't trust teams to not circumvent them. NHL teams have for 15+ years traded players who are effectively retired to make their "salary floor". They cooked weird long contracts  (like signing 37 year olds to nine year deals) to spread out LT while front loading the actual pay. It allowed them to dump the cap number on a small market who then would reap the benefit of the "floor" while paying them the actual salary of "league minimum" while they stayed at home, effectively retired for half a decade. MLB teams will find a loop hole. They are already doing that with revenue sharing and where that money goes; both on the top end (Dodgers) and the bottom end (Pirates).

Beyond that, the number of players a roster in a particular sport has is immaterial and we're moving goal posts. The point is that the salary cap has not created any more or less parity in those sports. It hasn't stopped a "clear best team". That is sports. 

I agree a cap is not a good idea. But this system sucks as well. And as a Cubs fan I really hate it because we have an an owner who won’t take advantage of the only advantage a large market team has, spending money. And, in an effort to level the playing field a little more I believe more will be given to small market teams and bigger penalties will be in play for bigger spending teams. Which would hurt the Cubs even more. IMO no matter what ends up as a new CBA the Cubs will be worse off because of it and every team in the division will benefit more from it. Which sucks. Which is why, from a Cubs fan perspective only, I wouldn’t mind a ceiling/floor structure with all teams sharing revenues and all teams playing by the same rules. Again, strictly speaking from the POV as a Cubs fan. Anything else will be worse for the Cubs as long as Ricketts is the owner. They will spend, but not top end dollars like they should. 

[Jason Ross]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I agree a cap is not a good idea. But this system sucks as well. And as a Cubs fan I really hate it because we have an an owner who won’t take advantage of the only advantage a large market team has, spending money. And, in an effort to level the playing field a little more I believe more will be given to small market teams and bigger penalties will be in play for bigger spending teams. Which would hurt the Cubs even more. IMO no matter what ends up as a new CBA the Cubs will be worse off because of it and every team in the division will benefit more from it. Which sucks. Which is why, from a Cubs fan perspective only, I wouldn’t mind a ceiling/floor structure with all teams sharing revenues and all teams playing by the same rules. Again, strictly speaking from the POV as a Cubs fan. Anything else will be worse for the Cubs as long as Ricketts is the owner. They will spend, but not top end dollars like they should. 

Yeah Ricketts sucks. I think all of the owners suck, to be fair, in one way or another. The Dodgers spend money but did so in what looks like a way that hides revenues. The Pirates steal revenue sharing. The Cubs don't act like a big market. And they all exploit kids in IFA. 

[Derwood]

4 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

The reason an NFL salary cap works is that it is percentage based, and revenue streams are clear.

 

That, and all team games are on national TV, and they split those TV deals equally. The Dodgers have no incentive to share their TV deal with KC or Cincinnati

[Rcal10]

11 minutes ago, Derwood said:

That, and all team games are on national TV, and they split those TV deals equally. The Dodgers have no incentive to share their TV deal with KC or Cincinnati

I agree. Which is why a salary cap can’t work. All teams have to share all revenues. And that isn’t happening. Which, again, is why I don’t believe 23 owners want this anyway. 

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Beyond that, the number of players a roster in a particular sport has is immaterial and we're moving goal posts. The point is that the salary cap has not created any more or less parity in those sports. It hasn't stopped a "clear best team". That is sports. 

Parity shouldn't mean there's never a clear best franchise or dynasty, parity should mean every franchise has a roughly equal or fair chance to become a dynasty if the franchise is consistently operated really well.

So the question is if the Cubs and Brewers both operated with the same level of competence would both teams have the same level of success over the longterm or not?

We've seen both the Dodgers and Brewers operate with a very high level of competence and thus far the Dodgers have more rings and 100 more wins over the last 10 years (since 2017) while being in a tougher division (which mattered more with the unbalanced schedule). 

I also doubt highly that the correlation between winning% and revenue is similar in the MLB as the other 3 major sports.

 

[Brian707]

7 hours ago, Soul said:

There's nothing but the arch, and it's better seen as you pass by on the freeway. If you exit the freeway you are in National Lampoon's Vacation.

 

[Derwood]

I've been to St. Louis twice, and it was like 120 degrees both times. Nothing but baking asphalt and no shade anywhere

[Gjfificifjdej]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah Ricketts sucks. I think all of the owners suck, to be fair, in one way or another. The Dodgers spend money but did so in what looks like a way that hides revenues. The Pirates steal revenue sharing. The Cubs don't act like a big market. And they all exploit kids in IFA. 

The owners suck, the players are also 1%ers largely who would spit on any of us as peasants, and the current system is unfair and also sucks. All I want is a league where everyone plays by the same rules, part of that is getting rid of the small markets special treatment, part of that is every team being allowed to spend as much as they want on any aspect of their franchise, roster payroll included in my opinion. 

[Rcal10]

13 minutes ago, Derwood said:

I've been to St. Louis twice, and it was like 120 degrees both times. Nothing but baking asphalt and no shade anywhere

I used to live in the Chicago area and had in laws in mountain home, Arkansas. St,l is roughly the halfway point. I admit, every time I drive past the arch on 55, I did so with my middle finger up. But the other thing is, twice we actually stopped in St. Louis on the way back from Mountain Home to have a day in the city. Both times the city sucked. It was dead. I am talking downtown. Nothing happening. One time we went to the Italian area for dinner. I would say, at best, it was okay. Low energy and the food was just ok. One other time we stayed downtown and went to a tapas place((Bar Celona). I will admit, that was very good. But each time we got to St.L early enough to enjoy the city, if there was something to enjoy. There wasn’t. We probably made that trip 10 times, there and back. After our second visit to that hell hole city we never stopped again.