Non-Cub Playoff Megathread Chit-Chat

[Rcal10]

4 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

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. 

I agree with this. I don’t know how they get to this, but this is what I want. One rule for all teams. Period. If you don’t spend you don’t get help and if you fall behind, you fall benind. 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

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. 

What we don't really know is how each individual owner feels about potential CBA changes since high end low revenue teams will have differing views and interests on some things. 

I don't even know how the owners decide amongst themselves what policies to push for.  Do they just have a vote amongst all 30 and majority rules?  There's no way they all agree on every issue.

The players seem to solve it by just everyone voting on the CBA proposals (not sure what % of votes are needed among players to approve it)

[Andy]

21 hours ago, soccer10k said:

The last 8 World Series champions all ranked in the top 10 for payroll. Last one who didn't was Houston in 2017 because they tanked for a few years and had a ton of cheap players.

We have 3 small markets left in the playoffs and every one of them has been sustainably winning at remarkable levels for a decade or more, levels the pro-cap people are literally telling us are impossible while it is happening.

If that doesn't count because all that matters is who wins the title, guess what, MLB has had more unique champions since 1990 than any of the salary capped leagues. And actually, it isn't even particularly close.

There's no version of this where pro-cap people aren't wrong.

Edited yesterday at 02:04 AM by Andy

[Rcal10]

5 hours ago, Stratos said:

What we don't really know is how each individual owner feels about potential CBA changes since high end low revenue teams will have differing views and interests on some things. 

I don't even know how the owners decide amongst themselves what policies to push for.  Do they just have a vote amongst all 30 and majority rules?  There's no way they all agree on every issue.

The players seem to solve it by just everyone voting on the CBA proposals (not sure what % of votes are needed among players to approve it)

Any vote needs 23 owners to approve anything. 

[soccer10k]

12 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. 

When we're talking about how a sport functions, how many players and how much some of those players can affect a game or a season absolutely matters. I'm not moving the goal posts. You're the one who compared the Dodgers to the Patriots and Chiefs.

If you have peak LeBron James and you try in any way, there's a pretty high floor to how good your team will be (assuming health of course). If you have peak Tom Brady, the same holds true. Like can you imagine either of those players making the playoffs once over an 8 year peak? Over 17 seasons, Brady won 12+ games 13 times. The other four he won 10, 11, 11 and got hurt one year. LeBron was a lock for 50+ wins for a decade plus. Meanwhile Mike Trout won 90+ games once.

So in football, if you luck into Patrick Mahomes, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, you're a dynasty in the making. In the NBA, if you luck into Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or LeBron James, you're a dynasty in the making. But in baseball if you luck into Mike Trout, well, not so much. Because you can't just let Mike Trout take 40% of the PA's. Or you can't let a pitcher face 40% of the batters every game. The sports are fundamentally different, which is why it's wrong to compare them.

 

[soccer10k]

As for the upcoming World Series, my response to anyone who makes a comment about the inevitable low ratings:

i love that we've already got one team in there that's never won and the AL representative either hasn't won a WS or hasn't won in almost 80 years. If I'm home, I'm watching every game. As opposed to Yankees-Dodgers in 2024, which I didn't watch a minute of.

[Brian707]

People in LA don't even watch the Dodgers.  I think the ratings won't suffer as much as people think

[Soul]

12 hours ago, Andy said:

We have 3 small markets left in the playoffs and every one of them has been sustainably winning at remarkable levels for a decade or more, levels the pro-cap people are literally telling us are impossible while it is happening.

If that doesn't count because all that matters is who wins the title, guess what, MLB has had more unique champions since 1990 than any of the salary capped leagues. And actually, it isn't even particularly close.

There's no version of this where pro-cap people aren't wrong.

The version is wanting a common financial framework for a league of franchises that are equals. That’s separate from an analysis of who is winning, and it’s an entirely reasonable ask.

[gflore34]

I'd rather it be the Guardians who end their WS drought however, I think it's going to be the Brewers.  Clearly the best team and I do not believe it's close. 

Even though painful, I look upon the Brewers winning the WS as good outcome for the Cubs.  Good in the sense that their efforts are going to take a toll, the over use of some of their relievers will eventually show up in the coming seasons.  I know, I know, the argument of their farm system making any breakdowns irrelevant,  I refuse to believe in the myth of the Brewers having 10 Uribe's and 10 Asby's ready to step in, they may have one or two.  But they sure as sh*t don't have an endless source of top relievers.

[Gjfificifjdej]

2 hours ago, Soul said:

The version is wanting a common financial framework for a league of franchises that are equals. That’s separate from an analysis of who is winning, and it’s an entirely reasonable ask.

In what world is asking for all the teams in MLB to be on the same spending levels remotely reasonable in any way whatsoever? Why should the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs etc be limited because smaller markets exist? Thats absolutely disgusting. 

[Rcal10]

17 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

In what world is asking for all the teams in MLB to be on the same spending levels remotely reasonable in any way whatsoever? Why should the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs etc be limited because smaller markets exist? Thats absolutely disgusting. 

Why is it disgusting? And would you think that way if you were a fan of a smaller market team. It will never happen. I get that. But I don’t agree that it would so disgusting if evey team has the same revenues and the rules were the same for every team it won’t happen because owner won’t agree to open books and so a complete share of revenues. And I understand why the large markets wouldn’t be good with the idea. But it would be the fairest way of competing. Figure out a minimum teams have to spend based on league total revenues and all teams have to be at least at that level. Teams can spend as much as they want above the minimum. 

[Gjfificifjdej]

1 hour ago, Rcal10 said:

Why is it disgusting? And would you think that way if you were a fan of a smaller market team. It will never happen. I get that. But I don’t agree that it would so disgusting if evey team has the same revenues and the rules were the same for every team it won’t happen because owner won’t agree to open books and so a complete share of revenues. And I understand why the large markets wouldn’t be good with the idea. But it would be the fairest way of competing. Figure out a minimum teams have to spend based on league total revenues and all teams have to be at least at that level. Teams can spend as much as they want above the minimum. 

Higher revenue teams have earned that advantage, I don’t see a reason why teams like Pittsburgh deserve the same opportunities as teams like the Yankees, they don’t do anything to warrant that. 

[Soul]

2 hours ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

In what world is asking for all the teams in MLB to be on the same spending levels remotely reasonable in any way whatsoever? Why should the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs etc be limited because smaller markets exist? Thats absolutely disgusting. 

Huh? No it’s not disgusting. Article 1 of the MLB constitution states that all clubs are entitled to the same benefits and provisions. Article 5 establishes that each club has an equal vote.

These are 30 equal members of a league. There is not an equal distribution of wealth. That is true. I don’t know if there ever will be. But it is reasonable to ask for that. It’s not disgusting any way.

[Gjfificifjdej]

17 minutes ago, Soul said:

Huh? No it’s not disgusting. Article 1 of the MLB constitution states that all clubs are entitled to the same benefits and provisions. Article 5 establishes that each club has an equal vote.

These are 30 equal members of a league. There is not an equal distribution of wealth. That is true. I don’t know if there ever will be. But it is reasonable to ask for that. It’s not disgusting any way.

I don’t see how either of those articles are relevant wrt a salary cap, allowing every franchise the ability to fully wield its resources is crucial to maintaining that equality. 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

Higher revenue teams have earned that advantage, I don’t see a reason why teams like Pittsburgh deserve the same opportunities as teams like the Yankees, they don’t do anything to warrant that. 

What have the Yankees did to “earn” the ability to spend more money? Be in NY? Why shouldn’t Pittsburgh get the same opportunity as the Yankees? Because their market is small? If every team shared in revenues I don’t see how that would be disgusting or unfair. It absolutely isn’t going to happen. I know that. But calling it disgusting just seems like  a strange take for me. 

[Soul]

10 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

What have the Yankees did to “earn” the ability to spend more money? Be in NY? Why shouldn’t Pittsburgh get the same opportunity as the Yankees? Because their market is small? If every team shared in revenues I don’t see how that would be disgusting or unfair. It absolutely isn’t going to happen. I know that. But calling it disgusting just seems like  a strange take for me. 

Yeah, the truth is there isn’t going to be total equality regardless of market. The real question is what, if anything, can or should be done to make it more equal whether that’s cap/floor, TV revenue share, or whatever else. I just don’t think it’s inherently wrong to ask for some kind of common framework. That wouldn’t necessarily mean total equality.

[Gjfificifjdej]

18 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

What have the Yankees did to “earn” the ability to spend more money? Be in NY? Why shouldn’t Pittsburgh get the same opportunity as the Yankees? Because their market is small? If every team shared in revenues I don’t see how that would be disgusting or unfair. It absolutely isn’t going to happen. I know that. But calling it disgusting just seems like  a strange take for me. 

You actually hit it on the head exactly, small markets franchises don’t generate equal revenue, they don’t deserve to spend at the same level as the big markets. I would also argue that from a purely entertainment perspective, sports are better with underdogs, and I don’t want a world where baseball doesn’t have that anymore. Theres nothing impressive about, as an example, the Brewers winning the NLCS over the Dodgers in a salary cap environment, the resource disparity made it compelling to a wider swath of people. Part of pro sports fandom is civic/regional pride, a salary cap is basically saying “our city can’t compete with yours so we need help” instead of finding other ways to win ala Tampa Bay or the money ball A’s. 

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

You actually hit it on the head exactly, small markets franchises don’t generate equal revenue, they don’t deserve to spend at the same level as the big markets. I would also argue that from a purely entertainment perspective, sports are better with underdogs, and I don’t want a world where baseball doesn’t have that anymore. Theres nothing impressive about, as an example, the Brewers winning the NLCS over the Dodgers in a salary cap environment, the resource disparity made it compelling to a wider swath of people. Part of pro sports fandom is civic/regional pride, a salary cap is basically saying “our city can’t compete with yours so we need help” instead of finding other ways to win ala Tampa Bay or the money ball A’s. 

But if you were a fan of a lower market team that always has to lose players because they can’t pay them you might not like that underdog label all the time. All 30 teams make up the league. Why is it unreasonable or “disgusting” that all share the same revenues? Why should teams play with different rules? Even if they did all share equal revenues there would be underdogs. A team that is bad for a long time suddenly has a good year and goes against a team that has been good for years. There are still going to be franchises that are good more often than others. All sharing revenues would do is take spending more money out of the equation as to why they are better. Frankly, as a Cubs fan, I don’t particularly like the rest of the division playing by different rules than they play with. 

[Gjfificifjdej]

2 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

But if you were a fan of a lower market team that always has to lose players because they can’t pay them you might not like that underdog label all the time. All 30 teams make up the league. Why is it unreasonable or “disgusting” that all share the same revenues? Why should teams play with different rules? Even if they did all share equal revenues there would be underdogs. A team that is bad for a long time suddenly has a good year and goes against a team that has been good for years. There are still going to be franchises that are good more often than others. All sharing revenues would do is take spending more money out of the equation as to why they are better. Frankly, as a Cubs fan, I don’t particularly like the rest of the division playing by different rules than they play with. 

Having no salary cap is playing by the same rules, every team gets to spend as much as they can. 

[Rcal10]

3 minutes ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

Having no salary cap is playing by the same rules, every team gets to spend as much as they can. 

Im not for a salary cap. I am against teams playing with different rules. But in order to do that they have to share revenues to get teams at least close to the same amount of money to spend. Then no rewards to teams who don’t spend. No penalties for teams that spend. I don’t care about a cap, but if they did share revenues there has to be a floor. Teams can’t get away with spending as little as some spend.

[Irrelevant Dude]

3 hours ago, Gjfificifjdej said:

Having no salary cap is playing by the same rules, every team gets to spend as much as they can. 

They literally are not playing by the same rules, with small market teams getting extra compensation that large market teams don't get.  Essentially, MLB is telling large market teams they HAVE to spend more to maintain an even playing field.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I find this Rays team to be annoying.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

The Brewers could vacation in Cancun before this series is over

[javy knows my name]

Just saw Caminero had 0 hr and 1 rbi going into this game lol

[NorthsideAvenger]

2 hours ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

I find this Rays team to be annoying.

Good. Fight annoyance with annoyance.