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

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

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.  

Thanks …. But, I do think it’s something that MLB can’t fix. 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Roll Tide

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Thanks …. But, I do not think it’s something that MLB can’t fix. 

I don't think anything is broken.

Folks were complaining about how much money players were getting int he 1890's.

[drjohnnyfever1]

It doesn't matter until they win and become a dynasty over the next few years.  When that happens, then, yes, people will be upset.  But until this expenditure of money proves a championship can be purchased, I just look at this as dumb. 

[Can_of_corn]

The only real issue I see on the horizon is the cable bubble popping.

If the TV revenue takes a dive it could cause some short term distress for unprepared teams.

We've already seen it with the Padres.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think anything is broken.

Folks were complaining about how much money players were getting int he 1890's.

I think the only chance that something significant happens is if the second-tier teams (say, nos. 5-10 in revenue) get very up in arms about it.  The small market teams get certain advantages to make up for revenue disparity (extra picks and pool allocations, different consequences for signing restricted FAs) but the second-tier teams don’t, and they are starting to see the gap between the NY/LA teams and them widen.  

[Can_of_corn]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the only chance that something significant happens is if the second-tier teams (say, nos. 5-10 in revenue) get very up in arms about it.  The small market teams get certain advantages to make up for revenue disparity (extra picks and pool allocations, different consequences for signing restricted FAs) but the second-tier teams don’t, and they are starting to see the gap between the NY/LA teams and them widen.  

They also get additional revenue.

I don't think John minds the Dodgers paying into a fund he profits from.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Can_of_corn

[owknows]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think the only chance that something significant happens is if the second-tier teams (say, nos. 5-10 in revenue) get very up in arms about it.  The small market teams get certain advantages to make up for revenue disparity (extra picks and pool allocations, different consequences for signing restricted FAs) but the second-tier teams don’t, and they are starting to see the gap between the NY/LA teams and them widen.  

It think the unrecognized problem here is the unregulated influx of municipal money to build lavish sports complexes that used to be purchased by the teams.

And the cash that this frees up, to dump on players.

And the market disproportionality inherent in this.

[Winter]

The Dodgers will regret it in time, lets see if it pays off for them in the short run. But i'll laugh when they end up out of the playoffs in round 1

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Winter said:

The Dodgers will regret it in time, lets see if it pays off for them in the short run. But i'll laugh when they end up out of the playoffs in round 1

Why do you think so?

You don't think he'll bring in enough revenue to pay for his deal?

You think the Guggenheim Partners are going to end up in a bad way because of this deal?

There was what, three other teams willing to match the deal?

[Winter]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why do you think so?

You don't think he'll bring in enough revenue to pay for his deal?

You think the Guggenheim Partners are going to end up in a bad way because of this deal?

There was what, three other teams willing to match the deal?

Im more interested in who they invest big money in next year after they learn they just invested all kinds of big money on guys who spend a lot of time on the injured list. 

[emmett16]

40 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The only real issue I see on the horizon is the cable bubble popping.

If the TV revenue takes a dive it could cause some short term distress for unprepared teams.

We've already seen it with the Padres.

Seems like a potential competitive advantage for forward thinking organizations.  
 

I still can’t get over how MLB essentially invented streaming so that folks in Japan could watch Ichiro and here we are talking about their cable bubble about to burst.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Winter said:

Im more interested in who they invest big money in next year after they learn they just invested all kinds of big money on guys who spend a lot of time on the injured list. 

Guys?

Odds are good the Dodgers will be just fine even if he gets injured.

Honestly it all comes off as sour grapes.

If our team was spending like this does this thread get made?

Was anyone in Oriole land complaining back in the 90's when the O's had the highest payroll?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Seems like a potential competitive advantage for forward thinking organizations.  
 

I still can’t get over how MLB essentially invented streaming so that folks in Japan could watch Ichiro and here we are talking about their cable bubble about to burst.  

They made a mint off of MLBAM.

 

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

They made a mint off of MLBAM.

 

They did, but that golden goose is in Disney’s hands now.  

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

They did, but that golden goose is in Disney’s hands now.  

I meant they made a mint off the sale.

No idea how much profit it was or would be generating if they had kept it.