MLB wants to limit spending for teams on non players??!?

[btdart20]

3 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

Lets not kid ourselves. The Yanks, BoSox, Dodgers all have access to the same tech and can spend more on it. Sure Tampa has been run well, and ME is doing a great job with us. But large market teams can replicate what Tampa has done, and couple that with big free agents as well. Lets not act like tech is the big equalizer for small market teams.  

True.  The big difference is the microwave mentality of the large market teams and fans.  Today > tomorrow.  There's an ebb/flow to it, but that's the general difference.

[luismatos4prez]

Implementing a salary floor is a better way of getting teams to spend more on payroll, which seems like the ultimate goal of this move anyway. 

[vab]

It would be nice if MLB could limit how much teams could offer a GM like Elias. I'm really worried about some high-payroll underperforming team like the Mets or Padres coming after him instead of continuing to throw all their eggs into the signing FAs basket. The smaller market teams need to have a fighting chance to keep their braintrust when they can gain an advantage there. 

[osfan83]

1 minute ago, vab said:

It would be nice if MLB could limit how much teams could offer a GM like Elias. I'm really worried about some high-payroll underperforming team like the Mets or Padres coming after him instead of continuing to throw all their eggs into the signing FAs basket. The smaller market teams need to have a fighting chance to keep their braintrust when they can gain an advantage there. 

Right....As long as the Yankees go to the post season 19 of 20 years they might not change much (and why should they). But they miss 3 years in a row, while Tampa/O's keep winning, you better believe they will throw their money at ME and other like him, and will triple their tech and development budgets.   

[Aristotelian]

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

It’s almost as if MLab doesn’t like that so Many smaller market teams are succeeding.

Wouldn't spending limits in general help small market teams? Do we have any evidence that smaller market teams are spending more? Reminds me more of the shift rule, which strikes me as all about resistance to the use of analytics in ways the might change the game. It does seem like a weird thing to legislate.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, btdart20 said:

That's dumb.  It's like saying to cap the paycheck for the business analysts/programmers while letting giving the sales guys all the bonuses.  

Kinda like telling guys they can only stand in certain parts of the field on defense.

[Can_of_corn]

From what I read about this yesterday it is certain teams that don't spend (Rockies) trying to curb the spending of those that do.

It isn't a big market vs small market struggle.

[Morgan423]

45 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

How should the email start?

Does, Dear dipsh!t work or is that not strong enough?

I would go with

My Dearest Dipsh!t,

Remember, you're trying to endear yourself to the recipient to have them look favorably upon your opinion and input.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

But if you limit this stuff, you hurt the small market teams more. 
 

I’m not sure about that.  I’d bet that NY and LA spend a lot more on this stuff than we do, or than most teams do.

That said, I’m flatly against this, and MLB should lose whatever is left of their antitrust exemption if they try it.  I’d be happy to come out of retirement and bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the workers who would be adversely affected by a rule like that.  

[btdart20]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’d bet that NY and LA spend a lot more on this stuff than we do, or than most teams do.

Flat dollar amount - Yes, they probably do.

As a percentage of revenues - Who knows.  My guess is not.

As a percentage of player payroll - Very likely this number is bigger for small markets (and yes, we can't just say small markets = small player payroll).  Not trying to say that.  Just tossing out ratios that could matter.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, btdart20 said:

Flat dollar amount - Yes, they probably do.

As a percentage of revenues - Who knows.  My guess is not.

As a percentage of player payroll - Very likely this number is bigger for small markets (and yes, we can't just say small markets = small player payroll).  Not trying to say that.  Just tossing out ratios that could matter.

Why do they matter?  If New York is spending twice as much as we do on analytics and technology, it doesn’t help us that their revenues are 3 times as high and their payroll is 4 times as high.  

[Just Regular]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not sure about that.  I’d bet that NY and LA spend a lot more on this stuff than we do, or than most teams do.

That said, I’m flatly against this, and MLB should lose whatever is left of their antitrust exemption if they try it.  I’d be happy to come out of retirement and bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the workers who would be adversely affected by a rule like that.  

If Luke or a colleague is the one who innovated the action plan for the Yennier Cano in MLB now, and they want their salary to be 7 figures instead of 5 or 6, why shouldn't it get to be?

One of my favorite Elias anecdotes from the Winning Fixes Everything book was about him trying to get Club options on scouts or some such.   

I heard that one kind of in the mode of "I'm an Ivy League jock, but I'm going to show Mr. Luhnow of McKinsey I know how to optimize efficiency too".

I do believe Friedman's Dodgers and the Rays probably try to silo knowledge and protect what they feel are their real kernels of insight as much as Coke guards the entire recipe, and nothing any GM or proxy says in the public sphere is near the cutting edge.

[Hank Scorpio]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

How should the email start?

Does, Dear dipsh!t work or is that not strong enough?

I'd save the "dipsh*t" for later in the email b/c Morgan Sword would probably just delete your message prior to reading it. 

BTW, what in the hell kind of ridiculous name is "Morgan Sword?" I would expect these kind of ludicrous ideas from a person named Morgan Sword. 

It's the "SWORD" part of the name that chaps me. I know many excellent Morgans.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Hank Scorpio

[spiritof66]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

From what I read about this yesterday it is certain teams that don't spend (Rockies) trying to curb the spending of those that do.

It isn't a big market vs small market struggle.

I'm not sure why you say it's not big market vs. small market. I think -- and I could be wrong -- is that this issue has come up because MLB understands that some teams are at a distinct competitive disadvantage because they just can't generate the revenues that other clubs do, and views that as a possible threat to the future popularity of the sport. (What I think is the real distinction, between high-revenue and low-revenue teams, is similar but not identical to the big market/small market divide. There are factors other than market size that affect revenues. St. Louis is a high-revenue franchise in a small market. Oakland is a low-revenue franchise in a large market.)

Those disadvantaged teams include Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Miami, Washington, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Arizona, Colorado, San Diego, Kansas City and Oakland. Because of the union, MLB cannot impose limits or caps on player salaries. They have attacked those disparities with minor measures that redistribute some revenues and punish extremely high player payrolls. It appears that those measures have had some effect in levelling the playing field. If the Dodgers, for example, could increase player payroll but decide to avoid the luxury tax, their player payroll will be less than the owners would like to be and could otherwise afford. It looks like MLB is looking for another way to make the playing field a little more level. 

Where does that unspent money go? Maybe into ownership's pockets. But maybe not. Nobody knows how much MLB teams spend on non-payroll items. But it's clear that high-revenue teams can spend more on non-player payroll items that are calculated to improve a team's competitive position, and it appears that some of them do just that. I have read at various times that the Dodgers and NYYs outspend other teams on scouting and on international scouting/player development, and that the Red Sox, Rays and Astros are big spenders on executives and analysts. The fact that this is coming up as an issue suggests that some around MLB believe something further should be done to reduce the effects of revenue disparities on competition. If enacted or seriously proposed, it also would raise the issue of baseball's absurd immunity from federal antitrust laws. I think those are both good things. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I'd save the "dipsh*t" for later in the email b/c Morgan Sword would probably just delete your message prior to reading it. 

BTW, what in the hell kind of ridiculous name is "Morgan Sword?" I would expect these kind of ludicrous ideas from a person named Morgan Sword. 

It's the "SWORD" part of the name that chaps me. I know many excellent Morgans.

 "Morgan Sword" sounds like the stage name for an adult film actor. And ideas like this are what I expect from someone working for Rob Manfred.