Mr. Brooks

If the premise is pay equates to human contribution, then yes, of course baseball players are overpaid. Then again, under that premise, so are millions of people who work in "normal" industries. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that is the path you were trying to go down. I previously thought you meant from a % of revenue standpoint. Of course, if we are using that logic, then the owners also don't "deserve" much of the insane money they are earning. I've also never suggested that the players are underpaid. I've simply tried to give the viewpoint that if the market is there for these massive profits, then I respect BOTH sides trying to maximize their earning potential. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. 1) Sure, if the government declares a monopoly, and cuts revenue potential, then it makes sense for both sides to make less money. That argument has not previously been presented in this thread, unless I missed it. My arguments have been on the premise that the owners would still be making as much revenue as the market would allow. If the players portion were to go down, only to further line the pockets of the owners though, that would not be reasonable, IMO. 2) Would they lose any talent? Tougher to answer, but I'd say yes. Maybe not a lot in the short term, as it would obviously be too late for most of them to successfully transition to another sport. Over the long term, I think the talent level would drain dramatically. I think you'd see elite young athletes focus more on other sports, if salary were cut that drastically in baseball only. 3) As Mike said, it stops being a game once you are paid to do it. This is a career, just like the majority of other non essential industries. So, I can't say if they'd still find it lucrative or not. Keep in mind, they don't earn that salary for decades, like most workers do. How long is the average career in MLB? Some potential mlb players might decide that going to college, and persuing a career in Engineering, or Finance, or Law will be safer, and just as lucrative, if salary is lowered enough. Is 50% enough to persuade many to take another route? I can't say, probably for some, yes. 4) Not sure that Korea or Japan would be the competition. Perhaps in the short term, some lower to mid level talent guys would go over there. Long term, I think it would be other sports, or other career types.

I'm not terribly interested in his ERA. Too much of that is out of his control. His career FIP is actually only about 2% better than Gibson's, so they're more or less a wash. I don't want another Gibson in the rotation. Again, perhaps he's destined to be one of those guys who will always outperform his FIP. I admit those guys exist. If he is, then I'd be wrong. I never claimed he was "trash", I would never say that about a person I don't know. I just don't view him as enough of an upgrade to justify blocking a Mejia, or a Gonsalves, or a Romero.

You are the one claiming they are overpaid. The burden is on you to show that they make more than athletes in other sports do. I disagree that normal market forces don't apply.

State income tax is paid where the money is earned, not where you live.

The players would strike. The union isn't going to just sit back and accept a drastically lower piece of the pie, unless revenues start going way down. And the owners would be needlessly slaughtering the goose that laid the golden egg. Nobody is going to pay to watch replacement players.

I'd put the Todd Frazier signing ahead of those. These are his bWAR totals the last 4 years: 2017:3.4 16: 3.4 15: 4.0 14: 5.3 He's a remarkably consistent 3.5-5 WAR player, and was picked up for 2/17. I wish the Twins would have been in on that.

Not sure, I'd have to go back and check. But, Garcia is/was a drastically better bet than Odorizzi. Career FIP 2/3 of a run better than Odorizzi.

I think they'd probably be fine putting Ervin on the 60 day DL. 12 weeks puts him roughly a week into May, at which point he'd need a lengthy rehab assignment. At worst, he probably misses one more start than he would have needed to.

And I don't think that ERA is sustainable. I don't want to be the guy buying stocks right before the correction. Perhaps he'll be one of those guys destined to outperform his FIP. Ok, then I'd be wrong. But, that's my opinion at this time.

Not sure I'd pick up Odorizzi off the waiver wire, let alone trade for him.

Gibson's ERA+ was within 1% of his career ERA+. Why is it "likely" that he'll be better this year?

How is the bullpen about the same? They've added Addison Reed, Fernando Rodney, and Zach Duke.

Well I don't believe that the players would accept a league wide 50% pay reduction. If the owners want to gamble that they will, they can, but we'll see.

Perhaps, but he's been a negative defensive player four consecutive seasons (bref), so that certainly seems to be the trend. His offensive upside is league average, so I just don't feel he's worth the risk in a corner OF spot on a team with playoff aspirations. I don't see him as an upgrade over Granite, and I'm not a Granite believer.

Negative 1.1 bWAR.

I do as well.

Well, I haven't argued anywhere that they are underpaid. Though, I'm not sure that's absurd. Again, I'd have to see data relating their portion of revenue to other industries to be able to answer that. Are players going to accept a 33% pay cut? Of course not. Not unless revenues go down significantly. Again, if they would, the owners would already be paying them that. This is a for profit industry. The owners are always going to pay the minimum they have to, while retaining the talent they need to operate. Same as every other industry. I actually don't understand why you think they make what they do, if owners could pay significantly less without losing any talent? Why would they do that? What kind of business would operate that way?

He's not a productive asset anymore though. He's among the worst fielders in all of baseball. Despite a league average OPS, he was more than a full win worse than replacement level. I guess if they take him as a salary dump, then release him, it would be fine. Don't want him on the 25 man roster though.

I was asking if you had data, or just spitballing. You sort of stated it like fact before, so I couldn't tell that you were just spitballing. If the owners thought for a second they could pay less, they already would have. They don't pay more than they have to, just to be generous. That's not how any for profit business works. And suggesting they pay the players less, and donate the difference to charity would be great, if it was at all realistic. It's not, these are businesses, not charities. I'm not sure you've seen NBA contracts, if you think baseball players are overpaid. Andrew Wiggins just signed a 5 year $150 million dollar extension. Wiggins is, according to the advanced metrics, one of the worst players in the league. Even if you disregard those metrics, he's at best a complimentary player. I'd have to see actual data to be convinced that mlb players are more overpaid than other pro athletes.

Swap Kepler in for Rosario and I still Insta accept if I'm the Twins.

Ugh, Napoli was worth a half a win... in the negative last year. If Napoli has a higher OPS than Vargas in 2018, I'll eat my hat.

I don't think that would be enough to get Archer. But if it was, I wouldn't even have to think about it before pulling the trigger, from the Twins side.

1) Do you have any data to show that they are paid way too much? Something that shows what percentage of other industries revenue goes to the workforce, in comparison to the percentage of the pie that athletes get? 2) Of course the money from cable packages helps enable rising salaries. I'm certainly not disputing that. But those prices are set by market demand. People are apparently willing to pay those prices. The rising salaries are the players getting their share of those rising revenues. The salaries are not the cause of the rising cable prices, they are the result. I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that, if owners were to pay the players less, they would just, out of the kindness of their hearts, turn down these huge bids from cable providers? 3)I have no idea when or if a salary bubble is going to burst. I'm not arguing anything involving that point, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting that I'm not willing to concede.

But they are not charging more for TV contracts due to paying higher salaries. Teams are going to negotiate the highest contract that someone is willing to pay them for the TV rights. They'd be doing that even if the players made minimum wage. Like any for profit business in America, teams are going to try to make as much money as demand will allow. And the players, like any workforce in America, is going to attempt to get as much of that pie as the demand for their services will allow. Neither side is in the wrong, or greedy. And nowhere did I ask you to defend anything.

Curious what data you are using for those claims?