buzzcut

2019-2020 MLB Offseason Thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Red Comet said:

 

Hey, I'd like to see the Reds become a great team again. It's just a shame Joey Votto and Johnny Cueto didn't have great talent around them. I'd say Dusty Baker having a role in that, but if someone like Ned Yost can bumble his way into a title, about anyone could.

 

 

Oh, absolutely to all of that. Add a hard salary cap and floor (major league level only) and you'll see a lot more parity.

 

There we go.  And also, how about rolling the trade deadline back to about mid-May, so there isn't the annual fire sale of the haves looting the have-nots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sports leagues convincing the masses that limiting players' salaries is somehow in the interest of competitive balance is one of the great modern crimes. And it was artfully done; team owners wanted to save money, so they told everyone that it'll make the league more fair, and everyone just bought it. Bravo to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Six said:

Sports leagues convincing the masses that limiting players' salaries is somehow in the interest of competitive balance is one of the great modern crimes. And it was artfully done; team owners wanted to save money, so they told everyone that it'll make the league more fair, and everyone just bought it. Bravo to them.


That’s all true, but having a high salary floor is still a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Six said:

Sports leagues convincing the masses that limiting players' salaries is somehow in the interest of competitive balance is one of the great modern crimes. And it was artfully done; team owners wanted to save money, so they told everyone that it'll make the league more fair, and everyone just bought it. Bravo to them.

 

I don't want teams in big markets with big TV contracts and deep pockets to buy up all the talent and having MLB be a superstars and scrubs league. I also don't want to see Marlinsesque firesales. Yeah, it would benefit ownership but as a fan, I don't want to see the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers/etc. dominate the league and no one else having a shot. 

Edited by Red Comet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to see the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers dominate,  then I suggest take your interests elsewhere 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEAD! said:

If you don't want to see the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers dominate,  then I suggest take your interests elsewhere 

Have those teams dominated though? The Red Sox got 3 championships and Yankees 1 over the past 2 decades. Meanwhile you got the NFL where the patriots have been to 9 Super Bowls and won 6 of them during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 3:26 PM, LMU said:

Also, hopefully he's matured a bit because Rich Hill exploded at him a few times for doing stupid juvenile crap.

 

I didn't know much about the guy beyond what I saw on the field, but the more I learn about Alex Verdugo, the more he comes off as a flaming dbag.

 

The Dodgers are right there with the Rays for the title of smartest front office in baseball, and Alex Verdugo projects to a potential batting champion. Teams normally do everything in their power to keep someone like that, and instead the Dodgers spent a year trying to trade Verdugo before the Betts deal. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I doing it right?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Red Comet said:

 

I don't want teams in big markets with big TV contracts and deep pockets to buy up all the talent and having MLB be a superstars and scrubs league. I also don't want to see Marlinsesque firesales. Yeah, it would benefit ownership but as a fan, I don't want to see the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers/etc. dominate the league and no one else having a shot. 

- MLB has no salary cap and has not had a back-to-back WS Champion since the 1998-2000 Yankees. (Yes, they've had teams win multiples since, but never back-to-back)

- NBA, NHL and NFL all have salary caps, and how many back-to-back Champions have they had in that time period?

 

For crying out loud, the NBA had the same Finals matchup for four straight seasons. LeBron James was in 8 straight finals. In the NBA, players don't pick contracts, they just pick teams and then the contracts come later or already pre-determined which basically ends up with the biggest names pairing up in whatever market they decide, usually one of the bigger ones. The Thunder were successful mainly based on drafting great players and keeping them around for many years. Other than that, how often do the smaller markets actually succeed in the NBA? The NHL has some more parity, but even they've had teams repeat. And the NFL? The Patriots take a year off here and there, but basically it's "who are they gonna play this year?". This may change depending on what happens to their roster going forward, but you look at the past 20 years, and, although it's not the NBA level of non-parity, it's nowhere near MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shumway said:

Am I doing it right?

 

 

 

Yes you are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McCall said:

- MLB has no salary cap and has not had a back-to-back WS Champion since the 1998-2000 Yankees. (Yes, they've had teams win multiples since, but never back-to-back)

- NBA, NHL and NFL all have salary caps, and how many back-to-back Champions have they had in that time period?

 

For crying out loud, the NBA had the same Finals matchup for four straight seasons. LeBron James was in 8 straight finals. In the NBA, players don't pick contracts, they just pick teams and then the contracts come later or already pre-determined which basically ends up with the biggest names pairing up in whatever market they decide, usually one of the bigger ones. The Thunder were successful mainly based on drafting great players and keeping them around for many years. Other than that, how often do the smaller markets actually succeed in the NBA? The NHL has some more parity, but even they've had teams repeat. And the NFL? The Patriots take a year off here and there, but basically it's "who are they gonna play this year?". This may change depending on what happens to their roster going forward, but you look at the past 20 years, and, although it's not the NBA level of non-parity, it's nowhere near MLB.

To be fair a lot of this has to do with how 1 or 2 players can greatly affect a team in the NBA, versus MLB where you can have the best players at every position but it won’t guarantee a win or even playoffs because it’s the most random sport ever. The NFL does have parity though outside of the patriots who just play chess while everyone else plays checkers. No team outside of them has had a longer than 5 years of success before trading off core guys and rebuilding. NHL is pretty random too how many times in playoffs do we see a lower seed beat a higher seed because the puck bounces in a weird way? A lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 4:45 PM, pmoehrin said:

 

I didn't know much about the guy beyond what I saw on the field, but the more I learn about Alex Verdugo, the more he comes off as a flaming dbag.

 

The Dodgers are right there with the Rays for the title of smartest front office in baseball, and Alex Verdugo projects to a potential batting champion. Teams normally do everything in their power to keep someone like that, and instead the Dodgers spent a year trying to trade Verdugo before the Betts deal. Why?

 

Teams also normally do everything in their power to keep someone like Mookie Betts!

 

I agree with you here but I do think that it makes a lot of sense for the faceplanting Dodgers to really, really go for it given the trade they ended up with, regardless of what sketchy intangibles make Verdugo less attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Digby said:

Teams also normally do everything in their power to keep someone like Mookie Betts!

 

I agree with you here but I do think that it makes a lot of sense for the faceplanting Dodgers to really, really go for it given the trade they ended up with, regardless of what sketchy intangibles make Verdugo less attractive.

 

What I'm saying has very little to do with the Betts trade. You want my top two of my prospects for the best defensive right fielder the game has seen since Roberto Clemente while he's still in his prime? Done.

 

But the Dodgers shopping around Verdugo makes no sense, especially when he's more or less meeting his projections. That raises a flag for me, because the Dodgers have been notoriously stingy with trading prospects, and Verdugo has been for there for the taking for the past year.

 

I'm not knocking the Dodgers for doing this. I'm wondering why, and I have a feeling the Red Sox may get the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oakland A's will no longer have free radio broadcasts. Congratulations on having less media presence than AA teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

The Oakland A's will no longer have free radio broadcasts.

 

Really?  But there was this recent announcement:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Really?  But there was this recent announcement:

 

 

They are keeping the deal with KHTK based out of Sacramento, but the KTRB deal is dead.

 

I don't think its that big of a deal. Thirty years ago, it would have been a different story, but people have been tuning out of listening to AM radio for the last decade-plus. Its outdated technology with a limited shelf life. That's why Howard Stern left the medium 15 years ago.

 

You look at AM radio now and its dominated almost exclusively by conservative talk shows. KTRB is no different, and a lot of A's fans apparently expressed displeasure in listening to a radio station like that, even if it's just for A's games. But that's about all that's out there anymore when it comes to AM radio, so I think the A's just said screw it, we'll do all satellite this year, and revisit the problem next year.

 

Its a far cry from the issues they had in the '70s when their radio signal didn't even reach every part of Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.