Just to go back to the thread's first post. Elias is a straight shooter? The man can say 500+ words and essentially say nothing. But I do agree he's risk averse and I have the feeling that caution/hesitation will cause us to lose out on some needed free agents.
If there's going to be revenue sharing then there should be a mechanism for making sure that shared revenue is applied to on-field improvement instead of substituting for other revenues that are simply pocketed.
I don't have the solution, but until it's figured out, revenue sharing is nothing more than a sham and the only question is to what degree for each receiving team. If used as intended, I think there would be discernable benefits to the have-not teams, but I seriously question if the benefit would ever live up to expectations.
I am very skeptical that greater competetive balance is going to come from adding complexity. I'm also waiting to hear more and louder cries of pain and outrage from the have-nots. The silence is deafening if you tune out the fans.
Where have you expressed a lack of confidence? In the post I quoted. You are worried that "... whatever reasoning [that] led to getting Rogers will replicate itself in other bad trades", and furthermore "The cost of the trade is less important than the return on the trade, and one worries that trades with equal non-success will happen". One might, but not everyone. Your worries are your business, but if you were only talking about this trade there wouldn't be a need to project a still undetermined negative outcome on the future.
If you don't think Elias is up for the job going forward, then why not just say it? And if you don't then maybe don't throw shade all dressed up as "worries".
I’m not overreacting. I’m pointing out the craziness (to put it nicely) to even mentioning the idea of trading him. Zippy chance of it happening. Just because you throw out an idea to trade him in a poor deal doesn’t mean it’s realistic that he’s on the table. It’s just not happening…at least not for anyone that is rumored to be available.
Maybe there is someone somewhere on some team that the Os would trade him for but i would guess that player(s) isn’t actually available.
A 100-200 mil a year revenue share is a pittance given the revenues. If there were no other teams, Dodgers would be out too.
i just think there needs to be stronger disincentives for mega market teams as to their monoppolistic acquisition behaviors or ultimately other teams and overall growth of MLB will feel it more and more
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.