Who is to blame if there is not MLB baseball in 2020?

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

Players like to be winners.  You could have the best players all in one team. I am sure you could find the best two catchers playing 81 games each happily if it comes with an annual World Series ring. Same with starters pitching every sixth game. 

Please provide a list of the mid-career All Star players who signed with good teams to sit the bench behind better All Stars.

[eddie83]

10 minutes ago, atomic said:

How is he worth $37 million a year as the Angels have won zero playoff games with him on the team. They are a bad team with or without Trout. 

It’s his fault the Angels have failed to put a better team around him? 

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

It’s his fault the Angels have failed to put a better team around him? 

Do not engage.  It's a terrible take.

[eddie83]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Do not engage.  It's a terrible take.

I haven’t been on here much lately. Trying to play catch up.

[DrungoHazewood]

21 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm pretty sure the metrics show that Trout is worth what he makes.  Better posters than myself can find the stats for who's overpaid/who's underpaid.  

You have to set some ground rules, like all of this is in the context of the current CBA and related free agency rules.  In that context a win in free agency costs about $9M (correct me if I'm off by a million or two).  Trout is an 8- or 9-win player, meaning that he's worth waaaay more than his salary by those methods.  That sets aside the larger debate of what "worth" means in the context of entertainment and entertainers who makes $10s of millions of dollars a year.

And it doesn't address @atomic's alternate universe where you get to arbitrarily set goalposts based on whatever pops into your head, regardless of the Angels' revenues and their dependence on Mike Trout.  Apparently everyone on every sub-.500 team, like Trout, Ernie Banks or Cal Ripken, is worth... I don't know... $1.50 or something.  Despite the team bringing in $250M a year.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, atomic said:

How is he worth $37 million a year as the Angels have won zero playoff games with him on the team. They are a bad team with or without Trout. 

Actually, that's a great point.  Excellent point.  What you're saying is that it's insane to pay players a lot of money to be on a bad team.  So what they should do is build talent internally though cheap sources, and not waste a single unnecessary dime on major league salaries until the point where the young talent base is ready to compete.  Sure you'll lose a lot of games in the rebuilding years, but I could get on board with this if it meant a good shot at self-sustaining success.  I don't know why someone didn't think of that before.

[Philip]

51 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm pretty sure the metrics show that Trout is worth what he makes.  Better posters than myself can find the stats for who's overpaid/who's underpaid.  

The metrics themselves are flawed, because they say “this performance is worth this much” 

“This” needs to be redefined.  Otherwise the imbalance is going to lead to pricing measures that will ruin the sport. If Trout gets 30 million a year, Manny gets 20 million a year, mediocre players get 5 million a year, and the price always goes up, at what point will   The people who pay for the product decide they’re not going to pay any more because the return isn’t worth the investment? It could be argued that that’s already happening. How many people have decided they’d rather stay at home and watch on TV then pay $10 for a hotdog and $20 for parking and $100 for a ticket? 

Is undeniable, but it’s not just that. Instead of fighting over 30 million versus 35 million, we need to expand baseball, we need to buy land and devote it to baseball parks, we need outreach. Two kids with a basketball and a net can play basketball on 14 x 14 patch of concrete. Two kids with two gloves and one bar can buy catch, but they need more room. Baseball needs space and a lot of kids who might play can’t because they don’t have access to any of that space.

The biggest problem about this entire stupid fight is that the argument is between people who have already made it and there is no consideration of the people that have not made it yet. The “potential“ players need protection as well, and yet as we have discussed, the minor leaguers are completely ignored.

So, no, Mike Trout is not worth $30 million. Nobody is.

 

maybe Eric Nadel...

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

The metrics themselves are flawed, because they say “this performance is worth this much” 

“This” needs to be redefined.  Otherwise the imbalance is going to lead to pricing measures that will ruin the sport. If Trout gets 30 million a year, Manny gets 20 million a year, mediocre players get 5 million a year, and the price always goes up, at what point will   The people who pay for the product decide they’re not going to pay any more because the return isn’t worth the investment? It could be argued that that’s already happening. How many people have decided they’d rather stay at home and watch on TV then pay $10 for a hotdog and $20 for parking and $100 for a ticket? 

Is undeniable, but it’s not just that. Instead of fighting over 30 million versus 35 million, we need to expand baseball, we need to buy land and devote it to baseball parks, we need outreach. Two kids with a basketball and a net can play basketball on 14 x 14 patch of concrete. Two kids with two gloves and one bar can buy catch, but they need more room. Baseball needs space and a lot of kids who might play can’t because they don’t have access to any of that space.

The biggest problem about this entire stupid fight is that the argument is between people who have already made it and there is no consideration of the people that have not made it yet. The “potential“ players need protection as well, and yet as we have discussed, the minor leaguers are completely ignored.

So, no, Mike Trout is not worth $30 million. Nobody is.

 

maybe Eric Nadel...

This looks to be slightly dated but the prices are probably pretty close.

https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/628/beer-hot-dog-and-ticket-prices-at-major-league-baseball-parks.html

Quote

Cheapest Baseball Parks for Hot Dogs

• Baltimore Orioles (Oriole Park at Camden Yards): $1.50
• New York Yankees (Yankee Stadium): $3
• Pittsburgh Pirates (PNC Park): $3.50
• Philadelphia Phillies (Citizens Bank Park): $4
• Cleveland Indians (Progressive Field): $4

Most Expensive Baseball Parks for Hot Dogs

• Washington Nationals (Nationals Park): $5.50
• Kansas City Royals (Kauffman Stadium): $5.75
• Seattle Mariners (T-Mobile Park): $6
• San Francisco Giants (Oracle Park): $6.25
• New York Mets (Citi Field): $6.50

As you can see no one is charging anything close to 10 bucks for a traditional hotdog.

Maybe if the O's cut their exorbitant hotdog prices more fans would come to the games?

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

The metrics themselves are flawed, because they say “this performance is worth this much” 

“This” needs to be redefined.  Otherwise the imbalance is going to lead to pricing measures that will ruin the sport. If Trout gets 30 million a year, Manny gets 20 million a year, mediocre players get 5 million a year, and the price always goes up, at what point will   The people who pay for the product decide they’re not going to pay any more because the return isn’t worth the investment? It could be argued that that’s already happening. How many people have decided they’d rather stay at home and watch on TV then pay $10 for a hotdog and $20 for parking and $100 for a ticket?

When the revenues go down the contracts will go down. If people stay home, if they won't pay for MASN, if they won't buy $11 Miller Lites, the revenues will go down, and the players will eventually be paid less.  Owners claim they aren't making much money, but be sure that they're not going to lose a ton of money by spending beyond their revenues.

Some teams could be in short-term trouble if revenues plummeted, but teams like the Orioles are particularly well positioned for any market shifts.  Chris Davis is the only player they're committed to paying a fixed amount in 2022.

[Frobby]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:09 PM, Moose Milligan said:

I understand your want for baseball to be set up like soccer.  But we sit here and curse baseball daily for being old and stodgy and not changing with the times...and that's exactly what's happening here.  It's an old and stodgy sport with old and stodgy results.  

Good thing for me that I’m old and stodgy.  

[Enjoy Terror]

On 6/10/2020 at 2:38 PM, Philip said:

If Trout gets 30 million a year, Manny gets 20 million a year, mediocre players get 5 million a year, and the price always goes up, at what point will   The people who pay for the product decide they’re not going to pay any more because the return isn’t worth the investment?

Didn't that already happen when the owners decided to leave a bunch of free agents on the market and the players complained about going to strike if they weren't signed?

[Philip]

17 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Didn't that already happen when the owners decided to leave a bunch of free agents on the market and the players complained about going to strike if they weren't signed?

The owners can sign or not sign whomever they wish. What you mention isn’t a problem( I don’t remember the specific situation, but I cannot see that the players had any legitimate grievance.) This is about avoiding paying guys who ARE signed.

[Redskins Rick]

21 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Didn't that already happen when the owners decided to leave a bunch of free agents on the market and the players complained about going to strike if they weren't signed?

they called it collusion.

 

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

The owners can sign or not sign whomever they wish. What you mention isn’t a problem( I don’t remember the specific situation, but I cannot see that the players had any legitimate grievance.) This is about avoiding paying guys who ARE signed.

It cost mlb 434 million by the time they were done being penalized.

Quote

As first reported by Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports, the MLBPA is currently looking at locations in Florida and Arizona to conduct a spring training for as many as 100 unsigned MLB free agents. While many players are quick to point fingers at the 30 MLB owners and accuse them of collusion, there has been no evidence of such, nor is there likely to be any in the immediate future. Instead, this offseason has been the perfect storm of teams trying to get under the luxury tax while saving money for next year’s free agent class, and a lack of any superstar free agents, despite the players requesting superstar money.

However, from 1985-1987, there was proven evidence that the owners did collude in order to keep free agent spending down, forcing many players to return to their original teams at below market values. In October 1985, Director of the Player Relations Committee Lee MacPhail urged owners to “exercise more self-discipline,” and “resist the temptation to give in to unreasonable demands of experienced marginal players.” While trying to hammer home the point that owners should not spend big money on free agents, MacPhail added: “We must stop daydreaming that one free agent signing will bring a pennant.”

The following month, Commissioner of Baseball Peter Ueberroth stated that signing free agents to long-term deals was “dumb,” and openly encouraged the owners to avoid making offers to a free agent until his previous team publically stated that they did not intend on offering them a new contract. As a result, the teams controlled free agency, and not a single offer was made to a free agent from a rival team.

In February of 1986, MLBPA Executive Director Donald Fehr filed an injunction against the owners on behalf of the players, claiming that they had violated the collective bargaining agreement by acting in collusion. When MLB’s arbitrator, Thomas Roberts, was assigned the case, he ruled on September 21, 1987, that the owners had in fact acted in collusion to restrict the free agent market, violating the terms of the CBA. As a result, the seven players from the free agent class of 1985 who were still under contract were granted “new look” free agency on January 22nd, 1988, where they could field offers from other teams until March 1, and leave their current contract with no penalties if they found a desirable offer elsewhere. The players included Carlton Fisk, Kirk Gibson, Tom Brookens, Joe Niekro, Juan Beniquez, Butch Wynegar, and Donnie Moore; of the seven, only Kirk Gibson was the only player to change teams, moving from the Detroit Tigers to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

The owners would face two more collusion cases after Roberts’ ruling, one on behalf of the 1986 free agent class, and one on behalf of the 1987 free agent class. The players won both cases, with the owners agreeing to a settlement in 1990 to pay over $280 million in damages spanning the three years of free agency collusion. In October 1989, arbitrator George Nicolau ruled that 1986 free agents Ron Guidry, Bob Boone, Doyle Alexander, Willie Randolph, Brian Downing, and Rich Gedman were granted “new look” free agency. When all was said and done the final payment was made in 1994, the total pay to the players after interest was around $434 million dollars.

 

[weams]

On 6/10/2020 at 2:44 PM, Can_of_corn said:

This looks to be slightly dated but the prices are probably pretty close.

https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/628/beer-hot-dog-and-ticket-prices-at-major-league-baseball-parks.html

As you can see no one is charging anything close to 10 bucks for a traditional hotdog.

Maybe if the O's cut their exorbitant hotdog prices more fans would come to the games?

Orioles hot dogs are a buck fifty. Are they the best? They are hot dogs at the best baseball park. And they are nowhere close to the worst.