Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MLB Trade Rumors)   Trea turns to Philly   (mlbtraderumors.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Batting average, shortstop Trea Turner, second highest guarantee, Ultimate Zone Rating, free agency, career batting average, Bryce Harper, Turner  
•       •       •

374 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Dec 2022 at 4:35 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



29 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-12-05 4:33:27 PM  
[small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'
 
2022-12-05 4:37:04 PM  
No Verlander headline? After like a decade of Kate Upton comments?
 
2022-12-05 4:40:27 PM  
They'll like Trea there. Dude is lightning fast, hits for average and power.

An 11 year contract with full no-trade clause is ludicrous but he's really good.
 
2022-12-05 5:20:47 PM  
picked the wrong teammate to reunite with
 
2022-12-05 5:24:03 PM  
Hell, yeah! Now we get to watch the slow decline of player in his thirties.

/ again
 
2022-12-05 5:40:26 PM  

gameshowhost: [small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'


Oh, boo hoo, let me shed a tear for the multi-millionaire or billionaire owners of other teams that would rather treat their team as a piggy bank. Any owner that refuses to spend money on their team should sell it and go away, rather than fake whining about how sports economics is so tough on them.

"Small market" is literally a lame excuse used to justify trying not to compete, and instead rely on the subsidizing of operations by the teams that do spend money. (See: Pirates, Pittsburgh)  I know I'm biased as a Phillies fan, but even during the 90s and early 2000s when they truly sucked (and the years after the Utley-Rollins-Howard run), I wasn't upset what the Yankees and the Dodgers and other teams were spending. I was upset that the Phillies weren't (or, worse, the few times they even tried, they spent it stupidly). In fact, they knew that the term "small market" wouldn't fly in Philly, so they instead would use "mid-market" or "economic sense" as excuses that they couldn't afford to compete. It's why I *welcomed* the Bryce Harper contract; sure, it may be a (small, given the yearly rising salaries) burden on the team come the last few years, but the important part was that it signaled an end to the penny-pinching. Hell, look at the Padres, a for-the-longest-time "small market" team, when they started spending real money a few years ago. I'm sure their fans are ecstatic that the team that was always "well, we can hopefully compete during those miracle years when the Dodgers and Giants are both down" suddenly decided to throw money at the players.

With the exception of the Rays (because of that horrid stadium and the car-eating bridge monster), if you put a good, winning team on the field, that competes year-after-year, people will attend. They will buy tickets, and merchandise, and concessions, and programs, and pay for parking, and everything else. It is almost impossible to lose money owning a professional sports franchise, especially in an era with revenue sharing and luxury taxes and large broadcast contracts, unless you are truly incompetent. There's a reason that, whenever it comes time to do CBA negotiating, owners (of all sports, but especially baseball) like to do the "We're losing *tons* of money, really, just trust us" routine, or showing only a small amount of hand-picked stats and figures, rather than opening up everyone's book fully for an audit. It's why they only want a salary cap, but the idea of a salary floor is either a non-starter, or should be set so ridiculously low that it won't make a difference to anything.

"Small market" is owner speak for "I want the fan base to give me money without expecting that I'm going to use it to improve the product"
 
2022-12-05 5:51:01 PM  

Joe_diGriz: gameshowhost: [small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'

Oh, boo hoo, let me shed a tear for the multi-millionaire or billionaire owners of other teams that would rather treat their team as a piggy bank. Any owner that refuses to spend money on their team should sell it and go away, rather than fake whining about how sports economics is so tough on them.

"Small market" is literally a lame excuse used to justify trying not to compete, and instead rely on the subsidizing of operations by the teams that do spend money. (See: Pirates, Pittsburgh)  I know I'm biased as a Phillies fan, but even during the 90s and early 2000s when they truly sucked (and the years after the Utley-Rollins-Howard run), I wasn't upset what the Yankees and the Dodgers and other teams were spending. I was upset that the Phillies weren't (or, worse, the few times they even tried, they spent it stupidly). In fact, they knew that the term "small market" wouldn't fly in Philly, so they instead would use "mid-market" or "economic sense" as excuses that they couldn't afford to compete. It's why I *welcomed* the Bryce Harper contract; sure, it may be a (small, given the yearly rising salaries) burden on the team come the last few years, but the important part was that it signaled an end to the penny-pinching. Hell, look at the Padres, a for-the-longest-time "small market" team, when they started spending real money a few years ago. I'm sure their fans are ecstatic that the team that was always "well, we can hopefully compete during those miracle years when the Dodgers and Giants are both down" suddenly decided to throw money at the players.

With the exception of the Rays (because of that horrid stadium and the car-eating bridge monster), if you put a good, winning team on the field, that competes year-after-year, people will attend. They will buy tickets, and merchandise, and concessions, and programs, and pay for parking, and everything else. It is almost impossible to lose money owning a professional sports franchise, especially in an era with revenue sharing and luxury taxes and large broadcast contracts, unless you are truly incompetent. There's a reason that, whenever it comes time to do CBA negotiating, owners (of all sports, but especially baseball) like to do the "We're losing *tons* of money, really, just trust us" routine, or showing only a small amount of hand-picked stats and figures, rather than opening up everyone's book fully for an audit. It's why they only want a salary cap, but the idea of a salary floor is either a non-starter, or should be set so ridiculously low that it won't make a difference to anything.

"Small market" is owner speak for "I want the fan base to give me money without expecting that I'm going to use it to improve the product"


Even the Rays do very well with TV ratings.
 
2022-12-05 6:19:27 PM  

Joe_diGriz: gameshowhost: [small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'

Oh, boo hoo, let me shed a tear for the multi-millionaire or billionaire owners of other teams that would rather treat their team as a piggy bank. Any owner that refuses to spend money on their team should sell it and go away, rather than fake whining about how sports economics is so tough on them.

"Small market" is literally a lame excuse used to justify trying not to compete, and instead rely on the subsidizing of operations by the teams that do spend money. (See: Pirates, Pittsburgh)  I know I'm biased as a Phillies fan, but even during the 90s and early 2000s when they truly sucked (and the years after the Utley-Rollins-Howard run), I wasn't upset what the Yankees and the Dodgers and other teams were spending. I was upset that the Phillies weren't (or, worse, the few times they even tried, they spent it stupidly). In fact, they knew that the term "small market" wouldn't fly in Philly, so they instead would use "mid-market" or "economic sense" as excuses that they couldn't afford to compete. It's why I *welcomed* the Bryce Harper contract; sure, it may be a (small, given the yearly rising salaries) burden on the team come the last few years, but the important part was that it signaled an end to the penny-pinching. Hell, look at the Padres, a for-the-longest-time "small market" team, when they started spending real money a few years ago. I'm sure their fans are ecstatic that the team that was always "well, we can hopefully compete during those miracle years when the Dodgers and Giants are both down" suddenly decided to throw money at the players.

With the exception of the Rays (because of that horrid stadium and the car-eating bridge monster), if you put a good, winning team on the field, that competes year-after-year, people will attend. They will buy tickets, and merchandise, and concessions, and programs, and pay for parking, and everything else. It is almost impossible to lose mon ...


I completely share your loathing of ownership, but that still doesn't justify MLB's lack of revenue sharing - from the fan 'i want to watch these guys because they have a shot of winning, not simply that they're fielding a team' perspective.

The Brewers are a textbook example of effectively operating as a feeder team for the big markets -- there's no way in hell MIL could run on the likes of NY/CHI/LA payrolls; MIL's margin for error and windows of opportunity are way smaller, and that is directly related to franchise competitiveness.

By contrast, there'd be no Packers or Bucks in this state if it weren't for NFL and NBA revenue sharing (and they're still both harder to run than teams that have owners with much, much bigger pocketbooks... but at least those leagues' revenue sharing agreements open some more doors of possibility). Hell, Bucks had to have deeper pockets than Herb friggin' Kohl step in just to keep our franchise from being yoinked to SEA/LV.

/MIL and SD/PIT are incomparable as the latter pair are at like *2x* the metro area population of mil
 
2022-12-05 6:23:03 PM  

gameshowhost: MLB's lack of revenue sharing


wat
 
2022-12-05 6:25:38 PM  

The Bestest: gameshowhost: MLB's lack of revenue sharing

wat


Was thinking the same thing. Every team makes $100m off the tv contacts before a single ticket is sold. And even gate receipts are shared...
 
2022-12-05 6:28:47 PM  

The Bestest: gameshowhost: MLB's lack of revenue sharing

wat


i don't mean they have zero revenue sharing -- i meant lack as in a deficiency.

/lack of wasn't the best wording
//next time i'll use deficient
 
2022-12-05 6:37:57 PM  

gameshowhost: The Bestest: gameshowhost: MLB's lack of revenue sharing

wat

i don't mean they have zero revenue sharing -- i meant lack as in a deficiency.

/lack of wasn't the best wording
//next time i'll use deficient


well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals

National TV is split evenly 30 ways. So is merch (every Jeter jersey? Yeah, the Yankees only get 1/30th of that)
Gate is 50/50.
There's a competitive balance pool (this is what luxury tax, among other things pay into) that distributes most to the "neediest" teams.

The real advantage teams like the Yankees have are:

-costs of things (like ad sales) in the market
-owning their own broadcast network
-owning their own concession company
 
2022-12-05 7:01:56 PM  

The Bestest: well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals


That's also a mistake, but I'm a different way. I'm a 46 year old dude who doesn't have cable. I get the MLB.TV package free because of my cell phone provider, so I can watch a game basically any time during the regular season.

But since I'm in the Nationals and Orioles broadcast markets, I can't watch their games, so not only do I have absolutely no connection to the team, my kids aren't growing up watching games at Camden Yards so they're not asking me to go check out an O's game in person.

They're short-sightedly killing their future.
 
2022-12-05 7:10:39 PM  
First of all, props to Philly, damn they got serious.

And as far as competitive balance goes... I think there's just some bad ownership out there and MLB needs to sack up and do something about it. There's no excuse for Pittsburgh. Great fanbase. Awesome stadium, maybe one of the best. There's no reason they can't at least be competitive in their division other than crappy ownership.
 
2022-12-05 7:20:04 PM  

Gonz: The Bestest: well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals

That's also a mistake, but I'm a different way. I'm a 46 year old dude who doesn't have cable. I get the MLB.TV package free because of my cell phone provider, so I can watch a game basically any time during the regular season.

But since I'm in the Nationals and Orioles broadcast markets, I can't watch their games, so not only do I have absolutely no connection to the team, my kids aren't growing up watching games at Camden Yards so they're not asking me to go check out an O's game in person.

They're short-sightedly killing their future.


Oh yes THIS. Due to a fluke of geography, history, and AM radio fan bases, we get blacked out for Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, and Astros... and seriously I might be forgetting a team or two. That means if say the Yankees (which we can get here) are playing ANY of those teams, it's blacked out.

This is farking stupid, anti-fan, and does self inflicted economic damage to MLB.
 
2022-12-05 7:23:53 PM  

yahyahyah: Gonz: The Bestest: well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals

That's also a mistake, but I'm a different way. I'm a 46 year old dude who doesn't have cable. I get the MLB.TV package free because of my cell phone provider, so I can watch a game basically any time during the regular season.

But since I'm in the Nationals and Orioles broadcast markets, I can't watch their games, so not only do I have absolutely no connection to the team, my kids aren't growing up watching games at Camden Yards so they're not asking me to go check out an O's game in person.

They're short-sightedly killing their future.

Oh yes THIS. Due to a fluke of geography, history, and AM radio fan bases, we get blacked out for Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, and Astros... and seriously I might be forgetting a team or two. That means if say the Yankees (which we can get here) are playing ANY of those teams, it's blacked out.

This is farking stupid, anti-fan, and does self inflicted economic damage to MLB.


You sound Iowan.
 
2022-12-05 7:31:39 PM  

buckeyebrain: You sound Iowan.


No, but damn well done sir. Close enough.
 
2022-12-05 7:35:22 PM  

yahyahyah: buckeyebrain: You sound Iowan.

No, but damn well done sir. Close enough.


Arkansas? Missouri? Southern Illinois?

Iowa doesn't get the Twins, either.
 
2022-12-05 8:25:49 PM  
Sad to see him leave the Dodgers. He was fun to watch.  He will definitely fit in well with the Phillies. And that's one hell of a contract.
 
2022-12-05 8:28:47 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Smoothest slide ever.
 
2022-12-05 8:44:41 PM  

The Bestest: gameshowhost: The Bestest: gameshowhost: MLB's lack of revenue sharing

wat

i don't mean they have zero revenue sharing -- i meant lack as in a deficiency.

/lack of wasn't the best wording
//next time i'll use deficient

well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals

National TV is split evenly 30 ways. So is merch (every Jeter jersey? Yeah, the Yankees only get 1/30th of that)
Gate is 50/50.
There's a competitive balance pool (this is what luxury tax, among other things pay into) that distributes most to the "neediest" teams.

The real advantage teams like the Yankees have are:

-costs of things (like ad sales) in the market
-owning their own broadcast network
-owning their own concession company


Right, and that's big money that provides a quite a differential for *gestures to all the things that cost an MLB team money*. A league interested in competitive balance would figure out some way to incorporate those earnings into the revenue sharing equation.
 
2022-12-05 8:51:15 PM  

Dafatone: yahyahyah: buckeyebrain: You sound Iowan.

No, but damn well done sir. Close enough.

Arkansas? Missouri? Southern Illinois?

Iowa doesn't get the Twins, either.


Yeah, them too, and maybe Cincinnati? It's farking ridiculous. I did the math at one point and the total number of games blacked out made it foolish to consider the MLB package. (unless there's multiple forms of VPN chicanery)
 
2022-12-05 10:37:28 PM  

Joe_diGriz: gameshowhost: [small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'

Oh, boo hoo, let me shed a tear for the multi-millionaire or billionaire owners of other teams that would rather treat their team as a piggy bank. Any owner that refuses to spend money on their team should sell it and go away


I would be a horrible baseball team owner.

The super rich have a different mindset than a schmo such as myself, but spending tons of cash (assuming I have it, these people do) to create a dynasty under my watch would be money well spent. I'd be handing out record contract after record contract and light up the tires as I blow past the luxury tax thresholds.
 
2022-12-05 10:40:59 PM  

buckeyebrain: yahyahyah: Gonz: The Bestest: well, pretty much the only thing that -isn't- shared are local broadcast and ad deals

That's also a mistake, but I'm a different way. I'm a 46 year old dude who doesn't have cable. I get the MLB.TV package free because of my cell phone provider, so I can watch a game basically any time during the regular season.

But since I'm in the Nationals and Orioles broadcast markets, I can't watch their games, so not only do I have absolutely no connection to the team, my kids aren't growing up watching games at Camden Yards so they're not asking me to go check out an O's game in person.

They're short-sightedly killing their future.

Oh yes THIS. Due to a fluke of geography, history, and AM radio fan bases, we get blacked out for Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals, Royals, Rangers, and Astros... and seriously I might be forgetting a team or two. That means if say the Yankees (which we can get here) are playing ANY of those teams, it's blacked out.

This is farking stupid, anti-fan, and does self inflicted economic damage to MLB.

You sound Iowan.


nah, in Iowa we get blacked out of the Cubs, Twins, Brewers, Royals, White Sox, and Cardinals.
 
2022-12-05 10:44:03 PM  

yahyahyah: Dafatone: yahyahyah: buckeyebrain: You sound Iowan.

No, but damn well done sir. Close enough.

Arkansas? Missouri? Southern Illinois?

Iowa doesn't get the Twins, either.

Yeah, them too, and maybe Cincinnati? It's farking ridiculous. I did the math at one point and the total number of games blacked out made it foolish to consider the MLB package. (unless there's multiple forms of VPN chicanery)


same here (in Iowa), no farking point.
 
2022-12-06 8:25:56 AM  

MSkow: Joe_diGriz: gameshowhost: [small market teams:] 'Many compete. Very level playing field.'

Oh, boo hoo, let me shed a tear for the multi-millionaire or billionaire owners of other teams that would rather treat their team as a piggy bank. Any owner that refuses to spend money on their team should sell it and go away

I would be a horrible baseball team owner.

The super rich have a different mindset than a schmo such as myself, but spending tons of cash (assuming I have it, these people do) to create a dynasty under my watch would be money well spent. I'd be handing out record contract after record contract and light up the tires as I blow past the luxury tax thresholds.


You do realize this is the method the Yankees tried at the beginning of this century and they've won 1 World Series since then, right?

Payroll is a weird combination of "obviously important" and "most overrated thing in baseball"
 
2022-12-06 9:04:17 AM  

MSkow: I'd be handing out record contract after record contract and light up the tires as I blow past the luxury tax thresholds.


Eh, you still have to be smart (or, at least, not incredibly dumb) about it. It's okay to overpay for some players, but it's foolish to just hand out $35m/year contracts (or whatever) like candy. There has to be *some* limit on spending, and that limit is "a 38-year-old catcher should not get 5-years, $150M simply because he hit 30 homers in his contract year".

And you still need to spend money on scouting (especially international) and development, so you can have a mix of good young players and free agents. Which, sadly enough, is *also* something a number of clubs tend to skimp on.
 
2022-12-06 9:33:39 AM  

The Bestest: There's a competitive balance pool (this is what luxury tax, among other things pay into) that distributes most to the "neediest" teams.


And the way this is done is a problem. It encourages teams to simply put it into a pocket. (In some cases, so egregiously that MLB actually has to warn them about at least *pretending* to field a competitive team; yes, Marlins, I mean you.)

There is no official spending floor, so there's no real penalty for teams intentionally fielding a AAAA team or a team of low-priced "just want to play baseball" veterans. If the luxury tax is to be used to offset the spending of wealthier (or, at least, more open-checkbook) owners, then it should not be used to subsidize owners who spend less on their entire roster than many teams do on just one or two players.
 
2022-12-06 9:36:39 AM  

Joe_diGriz: The Bestest: There's a competitive balance pool (this is what luxury tax, among other things pay into) that distributes most to the "neediest" teams.

And the way this is done is a problem. It encourages teams to simply put it into a pocket. (In some cases, so egregiously that MLB actually has to warn them about at least *pretending* to field a competitive team; yes, Marlins, I mean you.)

There is no official spending floor, so there's no real penalty for teams intentionally fielding a AAAA team or a team of low-priced "just want to play baseball" veterans. If the luxury tax is to be used to offset the spending of wealthier (or, at least, more open-checkbook) owners, then it should not be used to subsidize owners who spend less on their entire roster than many teams do on just one or two players.


Again I point out, all a salary floor does is make teams pretty much equally as bad as they are, but just for more money
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.