MLB Lockout Thread

[OriolesMagic83]

Rob Manfred looks like the bad guy in a Marvel movie.  Its like the owners want someone that everyone hates.

[forphase1]

2 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Floors accomplish what they want it to accomplish and it makes teams not really tank.

Im not scared for the teams that spend 200+m on payroll.  The Mets payroll could come close to 300M this year and I still don’t think they are the favorites in the NLE.

A team like Tampa and the way they do things scare me way more than the Yankees.

Now, the real scary combo is the Dodgers.  They do it all but we don’t play them, so I don’t care.  If the Yankees ever get smart, they are a lot scarier.

You are way more focused on the bigger money than I am.  I just don’t care about it. 99 times out of 100, the big money blows up in your face.  

I'm not sure I agree that it makes teams not really tank.  Do you really think if our roster had a few over the hill stars who were being way overpaid for the meager production they could muster that we'd really be better?  That didn't work out so well back in the Sosa/Jay Payton days and it won't necessarily keep teams from tanking now...it'll just make them spend foolish money to reach some arbitrary floor.  Which of course makes the union and the players happy, but certainly doesn't stop tanking, and could arguably HURT rebuilding teams as roster spots and at bats will be taken away from younger players who you could be building upon.  

[Sports Guy]

9 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

I'm not sure I agree that it makes teams not really tank.  Do you really think if our roster had a few over the hill stars who were being way overpaid for the meager production they could muster that we'd really be better?  That didn't work out so well back in the Sosa/Jay Payton days and it won't necessarily keep teams from tanking now...it'll just make them spend foolish money to reach some arbitrary floor.  Which of course makes the union and the players happy, but certainly doesn't stop tanking, and could arguably HURT rebuilding teams as roster spots and at bats will be taken away from younger players who you could be building upon.  

I think by signing actual MLers it raises your floor of terribleness.

It makes you more watchable.  You may still suck but 72 win sucking is, generally speaking, better than 55 win sucking.

[forphase1]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

I think by signing actual MLers it raises your floor of terribleness.

It makes you more watchable.  You may still suck but 72 win sucking is, generally speaking, better than 55 win sucking.

Did having Sosa, of the $17 million salary with .221 average, 14 home runs and .671 OPS make us more watchable?  Or the Jay Payton, of the $4.5M and 5M salaries and .668 and .637 OPS over those 2 years make us more watchable?  Did they really help us win more games?  

 

As to 72 wins versus 55 wins, I don't feel like debating that again as we disagree in the value of drafting high and having the pool money.  Sure, in the abstract I'd rather see the O's win 72 instead of 55, but that isn't always the best outcome for the long term health of the franchise.  But again, we've argued that back and forth and not looking to do the same thing here.  I just don't see how someone can say a floor will make teams not tank or really make them more watchable.  By and large I feel it'll simply funnel some money into aging stars that really won't help teams win.  It'll just give them a higher payroll, which is a win for the players and the union, but not really a win for the teams or the fans IMO.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, forphase1 said:

Did having Sosa, of the $17 million salary with .221 average, 14 home runs and .671 OPS make us more watchable?  Or the Jay Payton, of the $4.5M and 5M salaries and .668 and .637 OPS over those 2 years make us more watchable?  Did they really help us win more games?  

 

As to 72 wins versus 55 wins, I don't feel like debating that again as we disagree in the value of drafting high and having the pool money.  Sure, in the abstract I'd rather see the O's win 72 instead of 55, but that isn't always the best outcome for the long term health of the franchise.  But again, we've argued that back and forth and not looking to do the same thing here.  I just don't see how someone can say a floor will make teams not tank or really make them more watchable.  By and large I feel it'll simply funnel some money into aging stars that really won't help teams win.  It'll just give them a higher payroll, which is a win for the players and the union, but not really a win for the teams or the fans IMO.

You are picking out examples of failed signings that sucked.  Look at the Giants last year.  
 

There are guys who sign every year for “cheaper deals” that can help out a club.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I want to sign guys like that.  If I was told I had a floor to spend and had to spend a lot to get to it, I would offer Correa 40-45m a year on a shorter deal.  But I also think it’s naive to think these guys can’t help you especially if you are routinely sending players out there who just clearly aren’t ML players.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

You are picking out examples of failed signings that sucked.  Look at the Giants last year.  
 

There are guys who sign every year for “cheaper deals” that can help out a club.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I want to sign guys like that.  If I was told I had a floor to spend and had to spend a lot to get to it, I would offer Correa 40-45m a year on a shorter deal.  But I also think it’s naive to think these guys can’t help you especially if you are routinely sending players out there who just clearly aren’t ML players.

Sosa wasn't a signing, he was traded for.  The O's only paid 9.5M for his services.

[LookinUp]

 

No idea if this is true, but...

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

You are never going to have competitive balance in sports.

I don't recall anyone here complaining about how the Wizards are never a (really) good team.  I don't see anyone feeling bad for the Browns and their fanbase.

Some franchises are going to be predominantly good and some are going to be predominantly poor. 

It's that way in baseball and it's that way in sports that have more equitable footing when it comes to money.

No, but it somehow feels better if the teams that are better run win, instead of the ones that inherited like monarchs.

Nobody complains about the Wizards because I literally don't know a single person who is an NBA fan.

[DrungoHazewood]

44 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I think by signing actual MLers it raises your floor of terribleness.

It makes you more watchable.  You may still suck but 72 win sucking is, generally speaking, better than 55 win sucking.

I don't see the big deal.  Moving from 50 to 70 wins is the difference between going 8-19 for the month, and going 11-17 for the month.  The 2019 Orioles won 6-9 games in five of the six months of the season.  Add a few Millars and they'll win 8-11.

We both lived through 1998-2011.  The main difference between then and now was that back then we sometimes fooled ourselves into thinking this was the year we'd win 88, right up until they were 14 games under .500 by June.

[forphase1]

19 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

 

No idea if this is true, but...

This likely is true.  Thankfully baseball has grown smarter about paying too much for past performance and is less willing to pay top money for mediocre current performance.  Sure, it sucks for the players who age out more quickly and aren't able to cash in for years like they once did, but I don't want to see a ton of washed up ex-stars making tons of money because they made a name when they were in their 20s and early 30s but now aren't better than their 21 year old replacements at a 1/10th of the price.  Thus the push to get younger players more money.  

[UMDTerrapins]

7 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

 

No idea if this is true, but...

 

7 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

 

No idea if this is true, but...

I don't think I've ever sided with management before, but when it comes to the financial aspects of the dispute, I'm sympathetic to the owners this time. Since 2012, the league saw attendance drop in seven consecutive seasons (I'm not including the last two years because of the pandemic). In those 7 seasons, attendance declined 8.4% while payrolls went up 35.5%. For a sport with consistently declining attendance and more people cutting the cord, I wouldn't want to lock into a long term CBA that assumes growth and gives me a smaller piece of the pie. Particularly because of the uncertainty about the long term attendance damage that may have been done by having several seasons deeply impacted by covid. Nobody knows when league attendance will stop being affected by future variants, and to what degree fans will return if things do return to normal. I'm all for mediating competitive/manipulation issues and improving the sport, but I'm concerned that the financial demands by the players will be the core issue that affects the start of the season. If I was an owner, the $100 million bonus pool would be completely unacceptable without offsets. 

Just my (very) macro view on the economics. I think the best option for starting the season on time is a short term CBA, or a 5 year CBA with a kickout if certain metrics are met (revenue/attendance). The worst thing for both parties is a protracted interruption, but put to the test, I think the union would cave first. 

[Sports Guy]

21 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't see the big deal.  Moving from 50 to 70 wins is the difference between going 8-19 for the month, and going 11-17 for the month.  The 2019 Orioles won 6-9 games in five of the six months of the season.  Add a few Millars and they'll win 8-11.

We both lived through 1998-2011.  The main difference between then and now was that back then we sometimes fooled ourselves into thinking this was the year we'd win 88, right up until they were 14 games under .500 by June.

I don’t want to put a go nowhere team on the field just to win 72 games.

But if you actually want to contend anytime soon and you have good young players who are getting time, I can’t fathom how anyone doesn’t see the value in 72 wins vs 55.  To think they are going from 55 to 90 wins in a year or 2 just isn’t realistic.

And being a more watchable product is important to most fans, especially with how crappy the team has been for most of the last 25 years.

[LookinUp]

16 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I don’t want to put a go nowhere team on the field just to win 72 games.

But if you actually want to contend anytime soon and you have good young players who are getting time, I can’t fathom how anyone doesn’t see the value in 72 wins vs 55.  To think they are going from 55 to 90 wins in a year or 2 just isn’t realistic.

In 1995, the Marlins won 67 games. They won the world series in 1997

In 2001 they won 76 games. World series in 2003.

In 2019 they won 57 games. Made the playoffs in the 2020 Covid season.

In 2014 the Cubs won 73 games. Won the world series in 2016.

These were some extreme examples for sure. Most teams were in the 80's at least the couple/few years before winning big. I didn't check runners up, etc.

[Sports Guy]

44 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

In 1995, the Marlins won 67 games. They won the world series in 1997

In 2001 they won 76 games. World series in 2003.

In 2019 they won 57 games. Made the playoffs in the 2020 Covid season.

In 2014 the Cubs won 73 games. Won the world series in 2016.

These were some extreme examples for sure. Most teams were in the 80's at least the couple/few years before winning big. I didn't check runners up, etc.

Well, mentioning what the Marlins did in a 60 game season is pretty meaningless.  

And yes, those teams did that...but it wasn't sub 60 win teams jumping up 35-40 wins in a year or 2.  I think we can all agree that the odds of that fast of a turnaround when you are that bad aren't good.  I don't really feel that needs to be a point of contention.  I do think 2 years it can be done, especially if another playoff team is added.  But my goal isn't to hopefully contend in 2024.  Its to contend in 2023 and be one of the best teams in the league in 2024.  

[LookinUp]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Well, mentioning what the Marlins did in a 60 game season is pretty meaningless.  

And yes, those teams did that...but it wasn't sub 60 win teams jumping up 35-40 wins in a year or 2.  I think we can all agree that the odds of that fast of a turnaround when you are that bad aren't good.  I don't really feel that needs to be a point of contention.  I do think 2 years it can be done, especially if another playoff team is added.  But my goal isn't to hopefully contend in 2024.  Its to contend in 2023 and be one of the best teams in the league in 2024.  

Yeah. I'm not disagreeing. Teams usually do have to crawl before they walk and run, for sure. The Marlins teams were outliers.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to time things better and have a more meteoric rise. In fact, I think that's Elias' plan and I think he thinks he can do it better with modern data than anyone before him. Still, history is history and it doesn't happen. Almost ever.