Is anyone upset that a team just shelled out $1 billion???

[Roll Tide]

29 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

You have no evidence that the Davis contract is in any way responsible for how John is spending.

 

I was talking past tense!

Peter was sure affected by the bad Albert contract. I dont need evidence as I believe they are/were trying to hide the profits to cover tax implications to maintain ownership of the team when Peter passes.

Can the Orioles afford a $300 million payroll in your opinion based on what you know?

Edited December 28, 2023 by Roll Tide

[Roll Tide]

17 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Well, agree to disagree.

 

Fine

[Sports Guy]

53 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The antitrust exemption should go away for starters. The players union is the real reason as they want $70 million per year contracts even if they arent good for the game

Who says they aren’t good for the game?  

[Roll Tide]

6 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Who says they aren’t good for the game?  

You cant possibly believe they are when half the teams cant/wont agree to a contract like that.

[Spy Fox]

25 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

The antitrust exemption should go away for starters. The players union is the real reason as they want $70 million per year contracts even if they arent good for the game

How are you defining not good for the game though? I think this thread shows that people don't all agree on these contracts being bad for the game. 

I'd love it if MLB could find a way to equalize salaries more. But, I'm not sure if they can follow the full cap/floor model of NFL/NBA, with how MLB is so much more of a regional game than a national one.  I'd be more concerned if not for a few things.

• The past 20 years of MLB is full of small/mid market teams having runs of success. Every single team has made the playoffs in the last 10 years. The A's that you mentioned in another post recently made the playoffs six times in a nine year span. Teams that are well-run can succeed with $ or without, especially with the expanded playoff field. (I think modern analytics are a major reason for this.) The 21st century is basically a golden age of parity for MLB. Look at the variety of World Series teams in the history of the game and compare it to today. There are many reasons for that, but I think it shows that the money in today's game isn't poisoning the balance of the game too badly. 
• The haves/have nots distinction is similar no matter how high the contracts go. Let's say there was some force constraining Ohtani's contract to be similar to Harper's, Machado's, etc... The same big $, big market, big media teams would be the ones involved. I don't really care whether someone pays $40M, $55M, or $70M for Ohtani, I know the O's aren't doing it. 
• One common critique of MLB I do agree with is a lack of star power and cultural impact. Ohtani and Yamamoto getting a ton of money and going to a team where they will get a ton of attention is good for this. It would even be good for baseball in that way if they both went to the Yankees, though I would personally hate it. 
• The luxury tax does have clear impacts on team spending to help equalize things. Most years there are teams (Mets and Yankees, notably) adjusting their approach to limit their luxury taxes. Maybe the league can come up with creative iterations on this model in the future to balance spending further. But there is a system in place to hold back teams from spending in an unlimited way, and it mostly works. The deferred money thing is a new strategy to evade that system so I do wonder if there will be some new guidelines on that in the future. It'll take some time to see how that plays out though. 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

You cant possibly believe they are when half the teams cant/wont agree to a contract like that.

So what if some teams can’t do it. Why does it make it bad?

Most of those big 9 figure FA deals are complete failures anyway. If teams want to keep doing them, more power to them.

There is also the uniqueness of this player and how much money he generates off the field. That makes a deal do this magnitude more palatable.

[Roll Tide]

50 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

How are you defining not good for the game though? I think this thread shows that people don't all agree on these contracts being bad for the game. 

I'd love it if MLB could find a way to equalize salaries more. But, I'm not sure if they can follow the full cap/floor model of NFL/NBA, with how MLB is so much more of a regional game than a national one.  I'd be more concerned if not for a few things.

• The past 20 years of MLB is full of small/mid market teams having runs of success. Every single team has made the playoffs in the last 10 years. The A's that you mentioned in another post recently made the playoffs six times in a nine year span. Teams that are well-run can succeed with $ or without, especially with the expanded playoff field. (I think modern analytics are a major reason for this.) The 21st century is basically a golden age of parity for MLB. Look at the variety of World Series teams in the history of the game and compare it to today. There are many reasons for that, but I think it shows that the money in today's game isn't poisoning the balance of the game too badly. 
• The haves/have nots distinction is similar no matter how high the contracts go. Let's say there was some force constraining Ohtani's contract to be similar to Harper's, Machado's, etc... The same big $, big market, big media teams would be the ones involved. I don't really care whether someone pays $40M, $55M, or $70M for Ohtani, I know the O's aren't doing it. 
• One common critique of MLB I do agree with is a lack of star power and cultural impact. Ohtani and Yamamoto getting a ton of money and going to a team where they will get a ton of attention is good for this. It would even be good for baseball in that way if they both went to the Yankees, though I would personally hate it. 
• The luxury tax does have clear impacts on team spending to help equalize things. Most years there are teams (Mets and Yankees, notably) adjusting their approach to limit their luxury taxes. Maybe the league can come up with creative iterations on this model in the future to balance spending further. But there is a system in place to hold back teams from spending in an unlimited way, and it mostly works. The deferred money thing is a new strategy to evade that system so I do wonder if there will be some new guidelines on that in the future. It'll take some time to see how that plays out though. 

As a baseball fan, I grew up with hometown favorites. I can't imagine Cal Ripken having played anywhere else. I don't think its entirely based on if small market teams can be successful. It has to suck being a fan of a team that constantly loses its best players to the Large Market Teams. Or watch them be traded away to those teams because your team doesn't have the revenue to spend.

Don't you think the Orioles or other teams wouldn't like the ability to spend 70 million on Othani and $27 million on a pitcher thats never thrown a MLB pitch? While its likely to pay off there is a chance that he's only mediocre or a bust here. That mistake would be detrimental while the Big Market guys cut him A la Hicks this past season. The small market team would hang onto him much like the Orioles did long after Davis was a MLB player. There shouldnt be that much disparity in payroll.

Do you think Angels fans are enjoying watching their best player being plundered by the cross town Dodgers?

And not allow them to manipulate the payroll by using a lower number to avoid the tax implications. He's getting $70 million per to play 10 years. If they want to do some equation over that equals $700 million over 10 fine. but they shoudnt be able to bury it out longer than the contract. I have no problem with the deferral if thats how Mr Othani wants to be paid. Bobby Bonilla was a genius! But, they should have to include the actual money owed in the period the player is under contract

Edited December 28, 2023 by Roll Tide

[Spy Fox]

17 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

As a baseball fan, I grew up with hometown favorites. I can't imagine Cal Ripken having played anywhere else. I don't think its entirely based on if small market teams can be successful. It has to suck being a fan of a team that constantly loses its best players to the Large Market Teams. Or watch them be traded away to those teams because your team doesn't have the revenue to spend.

Don't you think the Orioles or other teams wouldn't like the ability to spend 70 million on Othani and $27 million on a pitcher thats never thrown a MLB pitch? While its likely to pay off there is a chance that he's only mediocre or a bust here. That mistake would be detrimental while the Big Market guys cut him A la Hicks this past season. The small market team would hang onto him much like the Orioles did long after Davis was a MLB player. There shouldnt be that much disparity in payroll.

Do you think Angels fans are enjoying watching their best player being plundered by the cross town Dodgers?

And not allow them to manipulate the payroll by using a lower number to avoid the tax implications. He's getting $70 million per to play 10 years. If they want to do some equation over that equals $700 million over 10 fine. but they shoudnt be able to bury it out longer than the contract. I have no problem with the deferral if thats how Mr Othani wants to be paid. Bobby Bonilla was a genius! But, they should have to include the actual money owed in the period the player is under contract

Well said and I pretty much agree with all that stuff. I just don't agree with the next step in the thought process that stuff small market teams/fans don't like = bad for the game as a whole. 

I'd be fine with a cap on deferred money. And I bet it might happen if deferment becomes a dominant payroll strategy in MLB. But I'm guessing that's not going to happen, for reasons that some other folks have outlined in some of the other Ohtani threads. 

[SemperFi]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

If the Orioles signed Yamamoto and Othani to those contracts at $97 million per season, how much do you think they would have to on the other 24 players? The Royals, Pirates, A's, etc. How much more do you think the Yankess, Red Sox, Dodgers have? Its broken alright.

In professional sports the field should be level and teams that are ran well are rewarded with titles. Not those buying it!

 

 

 

 

In sports we all need the illusion of hope, but the facts are that large revenue teams (and their stars) drive MLB's revenue stream.  The larger issue isn't the Dodgers this year or the Mets last- its that MLB's revenue is greatly outpacing salaries and  the CBT.   Where is that money then to go?  The Orioles, Rays, Pirates. A's and a few others essentially pocket their $110m CBT check-that's their choice-teams ike the Dodgers have invested back into their brand which is their choice.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Frobby]

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Yep ... As we did with Davis that forced us to move Machado. The owner became gun shy to handing out big contracts where he received no value. Plus hamstrung by the mistake where the Dodgers/Yankees write off a loss and move on like nothing happened/ The fact that you guys dont see this as a problem is comical. 

Well, I don’t think anyone is saying it’s great for us.  But crying about it is kind of like complaining about the weather where you live.  If you don’t like the weather, move!

[Can_of_corn]

4 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

 

I was talking past tense!

Peter was sure affected by the bad Albert contract. I dont need evidence as I believe they are/were trying to hide the profits to cover tax implications to maintain ownership of the team when Peter passes.

Can the Orioles afford a $300 million payroll in your opinion based on what you know?

Peter went from signing Davis to not making decisions pretty quickly.

I don't think the Davis deal had any impact on him.

300 Million?  No.

Why would you need to?

[Malike]

8 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Pretty sure property values and population of major cities are increasing and millions of people are happily living in many of them.

Millions of people are happily living in NYC, but the population is declining, that isn't up for debate. The city has lost nearly 6% of its population since 2021.

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, I don’t think anyone is saying it’s great for us.  But crying about it is kind of like complaining about the weather where you live.  If you don’t like the weather, move!

Just to be clear, So your recommendation is to give baseball or the Orioles?

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Peter went from signing Davis to not making decisions pretty quickly.

I don't think the Davis deal had any impact on him.

300 Million?  No.

Why would you need to?

Who did they sign after Albert Belle? Tejada At was widely considered a bargain. Then Davis and we haven’t spent since. Was/it Peter or John? Peter until he couldn’t make them anymore and John for his own reasons that I don’t care til debate. He’s clearly preventing Elias from spending IMO

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Roll Tide said:

Just to be clear, So your recommendation is to give baseball or the Orioles?

Whichever you prefer. To be clear, I don’t want you to give up either one.  I enjoy your contributions to this board.  But it will be more Zen for you if you either do that or just learn to live with the economic disparities in baseball, because they ain’t going away.