“Get all 30 teams to compete every season”

[eddie83]

51 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I can't think of a scenario where any of this helps the O's.   If FA comes earlier than  Rutschman and other prospects get FA earlier.  So the O's have to trade players even earlier to get something for them.

Sounds like high school players become more valuable and the movement through he minors becomes faster.   Nothing wrong with that except the O's draft college heavy.

The one thing that needs to be fixed will no doubt not get fixed.  That is the disparity in revenue.   The big market teams are never going for revenue sharing in a fair way.   And MLB wants the big market teams in the playoffs to generate more playoff revenue.

I just don’t get this. Do people forget from about 1995 until around 2010 or so. 

Consecutive losing seasons 

Orioles 14 

Pirates 20

Tigers 12 

Royals 17 out of 18. 
 

If you are smart you can win. I’m not naive and saying money doesn’t matter but in an age where players age faster it matters less. 

[wildcard]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

How does the idea that they would have to cycle through players faster lead to the window being smaller?

If FA is after 4 years, Rutschman has to be traded in 3 years to get a return, probably of minor leaguers who take time to develop.  O's can't afford to sign Rutschman to a long term deal because the risk of injury and age.   

Under the current rules the O's have Rutschman for 5 years before they have to trade him.  That gives them time to accumulate talented players in the majors and contend.  If they have to trade him after 3 years the window is shortened.   

Its true of all players not just Rutschman.

What it actually does in give teams that can afford higher payroll more of advantage because the can afford more long term salaries.  Seems like a big disadvantage for smaller payroll teams.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If FA is after 4 years, Rutschman has to be traded in 3 years to get a return, probably of minor leaguers who take time to develop.  O's can't afford to sign Rutschman to a long term deal because the risk of injury and age.   

Under the current rules the O's have Rutschman for 5 years before they have to trade him.  That gives them time to accumulate talented players in the majors and contend.  If they have to trade him after 3 years the window is shortened.   

Its true of all players not just Rutschman.

What it actually does in give teams that can afford higher payroll more of advantage because the can afford more long term salaries.  Seems like a big disadvantage for smaller payroll teams.

You still need to having rolling roster of inexpensive players to make this work.  That is the same if you have to cycle the players every three years or every five years. 

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why quote me?  Did I say that all 30 teams should be good at once?

I was discussing how owners, in some markets, are rewarded financially by fielding intentionally non-competitive teams.

The Astros, when tanking, were the most profitable team in the league.  That isn't healthy.

 

I quoted you because if everyone is doing the same thing what impact will it have? 
 

If the bad teams all win 6-10 more games than now then maybe the worst team gets the top pick with 65 wins instead of 56. Ok, so what?

 

The Orioles spent a ton of money in 18 and were horrible. Attendance tanked, TV ratings etc. 

These down times don’t last forever how ugly they are.  

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You still need to having rolling roster of inexpensive players to make this work.  That is the same if you have to cycle the players every three years or every five years. 

How is a 3 year window the same as a 5 year window? 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, eddie83 said:

How is a 3 year window the same as a 5 year window? 

Hopefully it isn't a three or a five year window.

Hopefully its a continuing process that keeps the O's competitive.

Are we looking to repeat 2012-2016?  Is that the goal?

Five years on, 15 years off?

[eddie83]

7 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Parity..more competition…more fan bases engaded through the end of the year.

The sport has 780 players at once. How does the union benefit by Manny playing on a bad Orioles team right now instead of SD? How many times do we see an Arenado situation happen?  Good player, bad team - get me the hell out of here. These guys want it all. 
 

I get the lesser the separation the better but you play 162 games. This sport the winning % is tighter than in the NFL. The NFL has more “parity” because the number of games are shorter. Media and fans are too dense to grasp that. A 7-9 NFL team isn’t any good but they may still play meaningful games in December. It’s not because of better parity it’s because the season is only 16 games long. 

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

The sport has 780 players at once. How does the union benefit by Manny playing on a bad Orioles team right now instead of SD? How many times do we see an Arenado situation happen?  Good player, bad team - get me the hell out of here. These guys want it all. 
 

I get the lesser the separation the better but you play 162 games. This sport the winning % is tighter than in the NFL. The NFL has more “parity” because the number of games are shorter. Media and fans are too dense to grasp that. A 7-9 NFL team isn’t any good but they may still play meaningful games in December. It’s not because of better parity it’s because the season is only 16 games long. 

If more teams spend money, more players get money.

The guys like Manny are going to get their money.  But most of the league is comprised of the guys making the league minimum to 4M or so.  They want those players protected.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

If more teams spend money, more players get money.

The guys like Manny are going to get their money.  But most of the league is comprised of the guys making the league minimum to 4M or so.  They want those players protected.

Do they?

I think Union leadership is more dominated by the elite members of the Union and not the guys on the lower end.

[eddie83]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hopefully it isn't a three or a five year window.

Hopefully its a continuing process that keeps the O's competitive.

Are we looking to repeat 2012-2016?  Is that the goal?

Five years on, 15 years off?

Of course not but KC had a 3 year run of winning teams and won a WS.  If good players leave earlier that doesn’t help. 
 

The other point is not all teams can have long windows. The number of wins and losses for all teams is equal at the end of the year.

 

Adapt a rolling salary floor over a number of years. The Orioles can and won’t do this forever. Nobody does.  
 

This sport wants everyone competing at once. It’s illogical. The best players are for most part in their 20’s and not available. Clearly what needs to happen is better compensation earlier on. 

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Do they?

I think Union leadership is more dominated by the elite members of the Union and not the guys on the lower end.

Well I think there is truth to that and we certainly hear about the top guys more (ie the complaining about Manny and Harper)

But the union is made up largely of guys who don’t come close to those dollars, so they need to look out for those players.

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

If more teams spend money, more players get money.

The guys like Manny are going to get their money.  But most of the league is comprised of the guys making the league minimum to 4M or so.  They want those players protected.

That doesn’t improve the available talent pool. Look at the 18 Orioles compared to the 89 Orioles. 
 

The union wants the days of mid level Fa’s getting 3/4 year deals. It’s over. Focus on young players getting more. Get guarantees on certain amount of revenue. Improve pension benefits. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Of course not but KC had a 3 year run of winning teams and won a WS.  If good players leave earlier that doesn’t help. 
 

The other point is not all teams can have long windows. The number of wins and losses for all teams is equal at the end of the year.

 

Adapt a rolling salary floor over a number of years. The Orioles can and won’t do this forever. Nobody does.  
 

This sport wants everyone competing at once. It’s illogical. The best players are for most part in their 20’s and not available. Clearly what needs to happen is better compensation earlier on. 

But if you are doing a proper job of replacing them it doesn't hurt.

If the system is working properly it shouldn't make a difference.

[Sports Guy]

16 minutes ago, wildcard said:

If FA is after 4 years, Rutschman has to be traded in 3 years to get a return, probably of minor leaguers who take time to develop.  O's can't afford to sign Rutschman to a long term deal because the risk of injury and age.   

Under the current rules the O's have Rutschman for 5 years before they have to trade him.  That gives them time to accumulate talented players in the majors and contend.  If they have to trade him after 3 years the window is shortened.   

Its true of all players not just Rutschman.

What it actually does in give teams that can afford higher payroll more of advantage because the can afford more long term salaries.  Seems like a big disadvantage for smaller payroll teams.

Adley isn’t too much for them to extend.

What I do think this will hurt are they monster deals.  No one is giving out a 200+M dollar deal to a player before they have played a full season or 2.  So, how the players do this and the wording is going to be important.  The players can become FA sooner and they can get paid more earlier but if you force the hands of teams immediately, before they can really see how good a player is, the player is going to likely get underpaid.  

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, eddie83 said:

That doesn’t improve the available talent pool. Look at the 18 Orioles compared to the 89 Orioles. 
 

The union wants the days of mid level Fa’s getting 3/4 year deals. It’s over. Focus on young players getting more. Get guarantees on certain amount of revenue. Improve pension benefits. 

Right, that’s what they want and they believe that if the lower tier teams are spending on those guys, that those teams will be better and more competitive.