MLB Offseason Moves/Rumor Thread

[Frobby]

53 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's crazy to me that fans get more upset about owners spending money than owners pocketing profits.

The fans of the teams who can’t match the rich teams’ spending don’t like it.  It’s not that hard to understand.  Yes I’m annoyed that John Angelos isn’t spending what he could, but that would only be about half what the Dodgers are spending anyway.  So the system puts the least wealthy teams at a significant disadvantage.  However, smart teams find ways to be competitive anyway.  

[owknows]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I agree, some folks don't.

 

* I fully embrace the owners right to maximize profits while preferring that players get a larger share.*

My preference is that players and owners to negotiate a mutually satisfactory level of compensation with the recognition that I, not being party to the negotiation, cannot determine objectively determine whose share should be larger or smaller.

[owknows]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

The fans of the teams who can’t match the rich teams’ spending don’t like it.  It’s not that hard to understand.  Yes I’m annoyed that John Angelos isn’t spending what he could, but that would only be about half what the Dodgers are spending anyway.  So the system puts the least wealthy teams at a significant disadvantage.  However, smart teams find ways to be competitive anyway.  

I see a number of teams finding ways to turn the game on it's head by making good administrative decisions and marginalizing the advantage of deep pockets.

I have a strong underdog tendency, so this to me is just something additional to cheer for as a fan.

What's not to love about a championship caliber baseball team that was built with bubblegum and toothpicks?

Particularly if it is suatainable.

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The fans of the teams who can’t match the rich teams’ spending don’t like it.  It’s not that hard to understand.  Yes I’m annoyed that John Angelos isn’t spending what he could, but that would only be about half what the Dodgers are spending anyway.  So the system puts the least wealthy teams at a significant disadvantage.  However, smart teams find ways to be competitive anyway.  

But certain teams are going to have baked in advantages anyway.

You are never going to have a level playing field.

Folks can always just pick a team to root for that has those advantages.

[RZNJ]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

But certain teams are going to have baked in advantages anyway.

You are never going to have a level playing field.

Folks can always just pick a team to root for that has those advantages.

Your last sentence proves that you just don’t get it.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The fans of the teams who can’t match the rich teams’ spending don’t like it.  It’s not that hard to understand.  Yes I’m annoyed that John Angelos isn’t spending what he could, but that would only be about half what the Dodgers are spending anyway.  So the system puts the least wealthy teams at a significant disadvantage.  However, smart teams find ways to be competitive anyway.  

I disagree with the whole system thing.

Why is it that the system isn’t an issue that you can get players in their best years for very little money? 
 

 

[sportsfan8703]

I’m thrilled the Dodgers are doing this. Before them, the Yankees and Red Sox did.  The Yankees are a meme now.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Your last sentence proves that you just don’t get it.

Isn't part of being a fan deriving extra satisfaction that your slightly disadvantaged team of choice wins despite their slight disadvantages?  Isn't it a bit extra sweet when a Gonzaga wins over a Duke?

There is your trade-off. 

You won't ever have a true even field.  No point crying about it.  The players and owners are both satisfied with the current arrangement.

[wildbillhiccup]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's crazy to me that fans get more upset about owners spending money than owners pocketing profits.

If we're using the Dodgers as an example, they seem to be doing both. Signing Ohtani in particular seems like it was just as much a business investment as it was player signing. In ten years or so when someone does an analysis of the direct and indirect revenue that he helped generate for the team I think it's going to blow our minds. 

[sportsfan8703]

The Dodgers have to make another 40 man move for this. Their 40 man has to be pretty stacked. They have 5 SP in AAA, all on the 40 man, all with 2+ options, and all between 25-27. There’s not too much fat left to trim on their roster.

It could be a chance to flip them a Horvath/Wagner type bat for a SP. 

[RZNJ]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Isn't part of being a fan deriving extra satisfaction that your slightly disadvantaged team of choice wins despite their slight disadvantages?  Isn't it a bit extra sweet when a Gonzaga wins over a Duke?

There is your trade-off. 

You won't ever have a true even field.  No point crying about it.  The players and owners are both satisfied with the current arrangement.

I’m not crying about it because there’s nothing I can do about it.   That doesn’t mean the current system is fair or couldn’t be improved.   You continually cry about Angelo pocketing profits even though there’s nothing you can do about it.  Why?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

If we're using the Dodgers as an example, they seem to be doing both. Signing Ohtani in particular seems like it was just as much a business investment as it was player signing. In ten years or so when someone does an analysis of the direct and indirect revenue that he helped generate for the team I think it's going to blow our minds. 

I agree that the Dodgers are going to make money off the Ohtani deal.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

I’m not crying about it because there’s nothing I can do about it.   That doesn’t mean the current system is fair or couldn’t be improved.   You continually cry about Angelo pocketing profits even though there’s nothing you can do about it.  Why?

The system will never be fair.

 

 

I complain because I enjoy complaining.

I'm shocked I had to explain that.

I expect better of you.

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, SemperFi said:

He is NOT being paid $70m his AAV is around $45m and THAT is what he is making based on the year that he is working/playing.

You do understand that the Dodgers pay a third party the $45m in the year generated that then accrues to $70m?

By your logic if you defer salary through your 401k do you then count your annual salary at the appreciated level?  I don't know anyone who does.

And it's NOT to get around the CBT which is based on AAV (average annual value).  The $70m is something his agent dreamed up so he can claim victory...it's not a real 2024 number.

 

My employer doesn’t operate under luxury tax and or salary cap. With international players and the clear advantage the haves versus the have nots it should count imo. 

[ThisIsBirdland]