The Dodgers should be kicked out of baseball

[Battle ur tail off]

That is about it for my post. 

Sign Ohtani to a ridiculous contract that will pay him until hes dead and now throw the highest contract ever to a pitcher in the span of about 2 weeks.

Kind of sick of it. Similar to NIL BS in college football. Sports just aren't as much fun when the outcome is already known. LA, yes, they might not win a WS, but there is no doubt they will win their division or at least be in the playoffs. 

Baseball, just like every other sport out there besides football, is broken. Garbage.

[SteveLV]

Please see my thread "Baseball is Broken, Again".

Unless MLB does something to make the playing field remotely equitable, they are going to lose their fans in the small markets, and perhaps they just don't care.

I would be like letting Jerry Jones have no salary cap and sign every good player in football and laugh at the rest of the league.

The NFL has shown how to have a competitive, fair league.  Baseball is completely unfair.

[Battle ur tail off]

13 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

Please see my thread "Baseball is Broken, Again".

Unless MLB does something to make the playing field remotely equitable, they are going to lose their fans in the small markets, and perhaps they just don't care.

I would be like letting Jerry Jones have no salary cap and sign every good player in football and laugh at the rest of the league.

The NFL has shown how to have a competitive, fair league.  Baseball is completely unfair.

Ok, I'll look at it, thanks. Losing fans in small markets doesn't seem to bother either baseball or NCAA football and basketball either. They know who their national brands are, and are happy to see them at the top with their frenzied fanbases watching and paying for whatever they can peddle. $$$ wins as usual.

[Original_JB]

Have you looked at the payroll disparity of Premier League Soccer? https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-wage-bill-ranking-2023-24-man-utd-liverpool-arsenal   And that's not including the "lower" Champion League teams.  I've floated this idea before, and it is this: Combine the Majors and AAA teams (condensed down to around 50 teams total) and run MLB as a 2 tier system similar to the Premier League. Run the same type relegation plan. That way, the big spenders can do as they will, and teams that are more modest in how they want to run their team can be opportunistic and move up to the higher league depending on how they perform. Sure, you'd need to upgrade a few stadiums, but with so much of the money being in TV and the blackouts going away, I think you could grow the game. Yankees/Dodgers coming to Toledo/Durham? Heck yeah. You might get owners who are more willing to own teams if they felt they could run a $25M payroll and be competitive for the lower championship, and not trying to "keep up with the Jones". And this whole thing only comes about if they (owners/players) decide that there will never be a cap and never be a floor and every team is more or less, an independent contractor.

[chpettit19]

I say kick the As out of baseball. The Dodgers are trying to win. It's what we want all the teams to be doing. They have a clear and dramatic advantage in their ability to make, and willingness to spend, money. But at least they're trying to win. Why aren't we mad at the owners of teams that happily take the revenue sharing money from the Dodgers and pocket it while making no attempt to field a competitive team?

I'm jealous as heck of Dodgers fans. It must be nice to have a team who can, and does, go crazy like this. But I don't get being mad at the team. If the other owners really cared about "fair" they'd get the system changed and make it so 3 or 4 teams can't go crazy like this. But they don't. Because they don't care about winning. I say good for the Dodgers and anyone else who's actually doing everything they can to win. Within the rules.

[Riverbrian]

36 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

Have you looked at the payroll disparity of Premier League Soccer? https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-wage-bill-ranking-2023-24-man-utd-liverpool-arsenal   And that's not including the "lower" Champion League teams.  I've floated this idea before, and it is this: Combine the Majors and AAA teams (condensed down to around 50 teams total) and run MLB as a 2 tier system similar to the Premier League. Run the same type relegation plan. That way, the big spenders can do as they will, and teams that are more modest in how they want to run their team can be opportunistic and move up to the higher league depending on how they perform. Sure, you'd need to upgrade a few stadiums, but with so much of the money being in TV and the blackouts going away, I think you could grow the game. Yankees/Dodgers coming to Toledo/Durham? Heck yeah. You might get owners who are more willing to own teams if they felt they could run a $25M payroll and be competitive for the lower championship, and not trying to "keep up with the Jones". And this whole thing only comes about if they (owners/players) decide that there will never be a cap and never be a floor and every team is more or less, an independent contractor.

I am 100% behind relegation. 

It won't happen but I support the idea. 

[SteveLV]

chpettit19 and others, what is wrong with the NFL system with hard floor and hard cap, full revenue sharing model?

I sincerely want to know the downside of that system adopted by MLB.

Original JB, I know next to nothing about soccer but it sounds innovative.  But if it encourages disparate spending, I am against it. I don't want to be a fan of a league with have and have nots trying to compete against each other.

[mnfireman]

The Dodgers should be kicked out of baseball 

No, MLB needs to institute a salary cap with a hard floor and a hard ceiling. No penalty for spending over $XXX, you spend somewhere between the two numbers, period. 

Maybe MLB should fix this ridiculous TV situation as well, but that's a conversation for a different topic... 

[Mike Sixel]

33 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I say kick the As out of baseball. The Dodgers are trying to win. It's what we want all the teams to be doing. They have a clear and dramatic advantage in their ability to make, and willingness to spend, money. But at least they're trying to win. Why aren't we mad at the owners of teams that happily take the revenue sharing money from the Dodgers and pocket it while making no attempt to field a competitive team?

I'm jealous as heck of Dodgers fans. It must be nice to have a team who can, and does, go crazy like this. But I don't get being mad at the team. If the other owners really cared about "fair" they'd get the system changed and make it so 3 or 4 teams can't go crazy like this. But they don't. Because they don't care about winning. I say good for the Dodgers and anyone else who's actually doing everything they can to win. Within the rules.

Tris.

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

chpettit19 and others, what is wrong with the NFL system with hard floor and hard cap, full revenue sharing model?

I sincerely want to know the downside of that system adopted by MLB.

Original JB, I know next to nothing about soccer but it sounds innovative.  But if it encourages disparate spending, I am against it. I don't want to be a fan of a league with have and have nots trying to compete against each other.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I'd be totally good with MLB going to that system. I'm just saying I think people are mad at the wrong teams. I don't understand being mad at the teams that are actually trying to win instead of the ones that are happy to pocket money while not trying to win.

There are far more "have nots" in baseball than "haves." If the "have nots" really cared about a "fair system" that doesn't have disparate spending and everyone is on an even playing field from a spending perspective baseball would have that system. But the truth is that the "have not" owners don't care about that stuff. They make money hand over fist while their teams appreciate without them ever having to truly try to win. The teams you should be mad at are the ones who don't care about winning, not the ones who do.

[Riverbrian]

6 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

chpettit19 and others, what is wrong with the NFL system with hard floor and hard cap, full revenue sharing model?

I sincerely want to know the downside of that system adopted by MLB.

Original JB, I know next to nothing about soccer but it sounds innovative.  But if it encourages disparate spending, I am against it. I don't want to be a fan of a league with have and have nots trying to compete against each other.

I love the concept of relegation but the reality is that it doesn't change the disparity between the haves and have nots.

It basically swaps out the have nots.

What it does do though is curb any thought of giving up. 

If you are at the bottom of the standings... you got to compete to stay in the league. The Revenue hit will be gigantic if they are moved down a level.

September for the A's and Nationals would matter. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't understand being mad at teams paying players and trying to win, rather than the teams not spending money and not trying to win. Mind. Boggling.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I'd be totally good with MLB going to that system. I'm just saying I think people are mad at the wrong teams. I don't understand being mad at the teams that are actually trying to win instead of the ones that are happy to pocket money while not trying to win.

There are far more "have nots" in baseball than "haves." If the "have nots" really cared about a "fair system" that doesn't have disparate spending and everyone is on an even playing field from a spending perspective baseball would have that system. But the truth is that the "have not" owners don't care about that stuff. They make money hand over fist while their teams appreciate without them ever having to truly try to win. The teams you should be mad at are the ones who don't care about winning, not the ones who do.

Wasn't it the owners who were trying to get a salary cap into the CBA and the players union rejecting it firmly? 

 

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Wasn't it the owners who were trying to get a salary cap into the CBA and the players union rejecting it firmly? 

 

The owners were trying to get a hard cap with no floor. And the cap they put forth was lower than the current CBT thresholds. So, yes, the players union rejected it firmly. Neither side wants the NFL style system.

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Wasn't it the owners who were trying to get a salary cap into the CBA and the players union rejecting it firmly? 

 

The owners wanted no floor, and to spend less than they are now.... Everyone should reject that. 

[Riverbrian]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The owners were trying to get a hard cap with no floor. And the cap they put forth was lower than the current CBT thresholds. So, yes, the players union rejected it firmly. Neither side wants the NFL style system.

I have no idea because I tend not to believe marketing. But, I read reports that the owners proposed a salary floor of 100 Mill but included a lowering of the CBT to $180 and yes the players union didn't go for that.

Tony Clark has said unequivocally that they will never agree to a salary cap of any kind. He wouldn't have to make such a statement if the other side wasn't interested in a salary cap.

Anyway... I'm just not as one sided on the issue. Neither sides are Angels... It's big money battling big money to see who gets the biggest money. Measuring the pie slices. 

These battles are never for you and I.   

[Riverbrian]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The owners wanted no floor, and to spend less than they are now.... Everyone should reject that. 

I'm not sure that's true. 

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Riverbrian said:

I'm not sure that's true. 

I could be wrong about the floor. But overall, yes, they wanted to spend less. That's always their goal. You don't to be a billionaire by being generous with your inheritance. 

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I could be wrong about the floor. But overall, yes, they wanted to spend less. That's always their goal. You don't to be a billionaire by being generous with your inheritance. 

On that we agree. 

[terrydactyls]

41 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Tris.

Who is Tris?

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I have no idea because I tend not to believe marketing. But, I read reports that the owners proposed a salary floor of 100 Mill but included a lowering of the CBT to $180 and yes the players union didn't go for that.

Tony Clark has said unequivocally that they will never agree to a salary cap of any kind. He wouldn't have to make such a statement if the other side wasn't interested in a salary cap.

Anyway... I'm just not as one sided on the issue. Neither sides are Angels... It's big money battling big money to see who gets the biggest money. Measuring the pie slices. 

These battles are never for you and I.   

Oh, I'm not one sided on it either. I don't think either side wants it, and everything that comes out is marketing from one side or the other. Tony Clark makes that statement so that if it ever does come to be he can demand the highest possible threshold. Certain owners want it because they'd make more money in that system, but some don't because they would make less money in that system. 

Like you said, it's all big money battles. And nobody is battling for the fans. Can we get a fan union to the table for the next CBA negotiations?

[DJL44]

Random thoughts

Every one of these deals over the luxury tax increases the amount of money the Dodgers pay out to the rest of the league. The Twins are going to have a higher baseline payout that will more than make up for any drop in local TV revenue.

All this spending by the Dodgers and I still think I like the Braves as the favorite in 2024.

One thing interesting about this deal - Yamamoto becomes the favorite for Rookie of the Year and that will earn the Dodgers a draft pick bonus in 2025. 

There is probably at least one entire MLB team worth of talent remaining in Japan.

[terrydactyls]

I can't "hate" the big spenders (Dodgers) or the non-spenders (A's).  Both are operating within the rules of MLB.  It reminds me of when my college basketball friends in the 1980's would call coaches cheaters or cowards when they would go into a four-corner offense if they had a 2nd half lead on a much better team.  I always told them that if they didn't think they could outscore the better team, then they should use the best "legal" offense available.  Don't hate the people following the rules.  Hate the rules that allow them to operate as they do now.

[Riverbrian]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

 

Like you said, it's all big money battles. And nobody is battling for the fans. Can we get a fan union to the table for the next CBA negotiations?

Amen Brother!!! 

Strength in numbers baby. If people could ever as John Lennon once said "Come Together".

Not only would we have parity in baseball... We'd have a 24 team playoff format in College Football!  

We give away our power for the low low price of PR crafted sound bites. 

[Squirrel]

21 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

Who is Tris?

She was the main character in the Divergent series, books and movies

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

We'd have a 24 team playoff format in College Football!  

That's how many teams you would need if you ever want to see the Gophers make the playoffs. Even that might not be enough. The NCAA basketball tournament picks 68 teams and the Gophers routinely miss that playoff.

[DJL44]

22 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

Who is Tris?

Tris Speaker Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Rookie Status & More | Baseball-Reference.com

[Riverbrian]

3 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That's how many teams you would need if you ever want to see the Gophers make the playoffs. Even that might not be enough. The NCAA basketball tournament picks 68 teams and the Gophers routinely miss that playoff.

One step at a time. Gotta rise above Northwestern, Illinois and Purdue first. 😄

Or

We can all just blame the owners and the lack of NIL Money. 

[Rigby]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I say kick the As out of baseball. The Dodgers are trying to win. It's what we want all the teams to be doing. They have a clear and dramatic advantage in their ability to make, and willingness to spend, money. But at least they're trying to win. Why aren't we mad at the owners of teams that happily take the revenue sharing money from the Dodgers and pocket it while making no attempt to field a competitive team?

I'm jealous as heck of Dodgers fans. It must be nice to have a team who can, and does, go crazy like this. But I don't get being mad at the team. If the other owners really cared about "fair" they'd get the system changed and make it so 3 or 4 teams can't go crazy like this. But they don't. Because they don't care about winning. I say good for the Dodgers and anyone else who's actually doing everything they can to win. Within the rules.

I would agree with the bulk of your post, however, allowing the Dodgers (or anyone else) to circumvent the meager rules that are in place (luxury tax) is an increasingly huge detriment to the game.

[Rigby]

34 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

She was the main character in the Divergent series, books and movies

Huh....thought he was Danny Seraphine's replacement in Chicago.