tfarks

Brilliant.

Time for the Marlins to go the hell away

Cubs need Darvish and Fielder. And Soler.

Think its time for the Rangers to up their offer for Garza.

Rangers must be feeling the heat.

Ugh, that's a longer wait than I was hoping for.

I don't know anything about the Angels team but wouldn't they just have Morales DH?

I wanna be at Dan Lozono's party after Pujols signs that contract.

Good move.

Quade the unwanted leper.

Castro recognition

New York pressure, man. It's worth like 4 extra WAR. 3.9 + 4 = MVP/Cy Young

I have a feeling that Hanie won't suck. Bears of all teams know how to win with subpar QB play. Just gotta hold on to a WC spot.

I've passed advanced calculus classes and I still suck at algebra

Damn

Well that all depends on what "business" you had to take care of.

He was also wearing 1 white sock and 1 black sock.

It's a non-story.

I read that as a joke.

Well, thank God for that.

Sounds good. Yeah. That's intriguing and I'm certainly happy to hear it. Though I haven't paid much attention to how much Darvish will cost. Nothing can preclude getting Fielder or Pujols though.

This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility. A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen. I'd rather increase the tax instead of a hard limit. And I brought up the 12-team thing because you've brought it up multiple times, so it was seeming like you were serious. And sure, spread the revenue around; it's just not going to significantly change the makeup of which teams are typically competitive. A hard limit would cause a blip along those lines, but not as much as you seem to be hoping. Most of those teams are just too poorly run and big-name players will simply want to get away from them. A hard limit that's 30 million over the cap is not a big deal. It just stops someone like New York from getting to spend 70 million more than another team. This actually helps other big market teams. When they have Paul/Anthony/Stoudemire next year it will be difficult for them to keep adding to that. That helps other big market teams, like the Bulls. And you can't definitively say what that increase in revenue sharing would do. It hasn't been done yet. If small-market teams can start going 15 million into the luxury tax then the makeup of their team is entirely different. I don't think there's legions of incompetent management out there that couldn't do better with more money. Team plays better, big-name player doesn't want to run away anymore.

This reply does not fit with what I just wrote. Keep the 30 teams, spread the money around. The 12 team thing was in jest, it was never remotely a possibility. A hard cap doesn't have to happen. Floor or not. They just need to amend the soft cap enough so that it resembles certain aspects from a hard cap. I believe I read that revenue sharing might increase by triple. That's the type of thing that needs to happen. A total spending limit, so a team like the Heat can't can't go too far into the MLE tax. That needs to happen.

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players. I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress. And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem. Because most of those teams are still going to be crappily run and, most importantly, they're still small-market teams that a majority of big-market players want to flee from. A more strict cap doesn't necessarily change that. A strict cap doesn't necessarily change that, and it's something that I don't think will actually happen. But changes to the soft cap need to be made that will help small-market teams. The teams that are poorly run personnel wise won't be able to complain about money, only their own incompetence. Spending limits on top spending teams. Massive revenue sharing. The bottom line of the new BRI will help teams on the bubble already. If there's gonna be a tiered luxury tax system, the poorer teams should be able to financially support themselves going into the luxury tax as well to keep a star player. Or a certain core together. I know I heard talk of a super tax. But they don't really need to go that far if they just share some money with the 12 teams or whoever who need it. Big teams still win, but the little guys get a better shot. I think that's change for the better. No one needs to be handed a title, but they should be placed in an economic system that works.

What you're proposing isn't going to drastically change that. At best you're talking about one of them maybe sneaking in to the finals (and probably losing) and then vanishing for years to come. Caps aren't going to protect those teams from being badly run and bungling the one advantage they have (draft strength) are put them in a big market that is actually appealing to big-name players. I don't get it? If they sneak into the Finals why would they vanish? The teams that aren't attractive free-agent destinations have to be competitive to attract players. A team that sniffs the Finals can build upon that, not immediately regress. And yeah what I'm proposing is probably off in numerous areas, but I'm no expert. I just see a problem.