Doesn’t make much difference how the Lions do in the draft; except to the players. Tigers made a couple of horrible signings and now we have the classic “rebuild” that most seem to think is always necessary. Well, it is when you sign contracts that result in little or no productivity during the back end of the deal. A lot of fantasy owners could do better – no exaggeration.
Hey Tim, what do you think of draft order being decided by cost-per-win from the previous season? Would encourage all teams to try and be competitive while not disadvantaging small market teams
What would happen if: yanks trade ellsbury and include 40 of the 48M which is owed In order to make it happen. If ellsbury spends enough time on DL for acquiring team to collect the 80% on insurance. Would;
A) Yankees get refund
B). New team get profit
C) insurance is void in event of trade.
Maybe they should have a lottery for the bottom ten teams like in the NBA. Worst record might only get you the 10th pick. Or maybe establish a salary floor. Everyone below that floor gets penalized in the draft.
I could see a team take an underwater contract to get a prospect or two.
A floor with penalties would be better than what we have now.
I could also see the union pushing for the elimination of losing a draft pick for signing a player with a QO. The pick loss helps the teams and hurts the players.
A mid or small market team loses a quality – maybe even a star – player to a large market team which pays a salary they cannot possibly afford, and their fans see them get no compensation? The draft choice compensation given now is no solace to local fans that are the ones paying the freight.
Why is everything on here all about giving everything to the players? Don’t the paying customers deserve consideration?
Until ALL local TV-Radio revenues are put into an account, then distributed evenly to the 30 teams; these endless mickey mouse patchwork rules (which gets worse each year) only enrich and empower lawyers, confuse fans, and detracts from the paying customer’s understanding and enjoyment of the sport. The large markets will still have a money advantage as mid and small market fans cannot afford to pay their ticket prices.
Make the amount a team has to spend on payroll, the draft, internal operations, etc. almost level – as in the NFL – and the bureaucratic gobbledygook rules can be thrown out leaving fans to talk about baseball again.
The issue of course is that the fans aren’t “paying all the freight,” at least not through ticket prices. Ticket revenue is a tiny part of a team’s revenue stream. Everything else is what pays the bills and the players and lines the owners’ pockets. So of course the players should get a bigger share of the pie; nobody is watching baseball to see an owner sit in his luxury box. Baseball team owners are wealthy businessmen and they’re working on profits, not winning, and the current structure allows a team to be very profitable while losing. Ticket prices for anything are what the market will bear; if a team decided to employ 25 rookies next season, each making the minimum, do you think ticket prices would decrease?
Agreed Samuel. It should be about the team instead of the players. It shouldn’t be about a few players getting huge dollars. I want to see the money spread around the team. Rookies should be paid more than three years of $500,000/yr – especially if they are producing.
They’d need to make a second major league and restructure the minors for that to happen. You’re not going to have major league stadiums that seat 10K people maximum.
Yeah but how much fun would that be! Totally restructure AAA so they are competing to get into the bottom of the league. AAA tix sales would boom. Park Expansions would happen. And have you not seen some of the bottom table teams in the Premier League? Very small venues. Week night Attendance at some MLB parks isn’t much better. Excitement love it
“If you get pulled over for speeding, telling the cop “That guy was going faster!” doesn’t get you out of it.”
That’s true, but it isn’t really fair either. That’s hardly a justification for selective assessment. And like speeding, a lot of drivers get away with it, just as a lot of steroid users got away with it. It seems to me fairness should be the first consideration.
“I think it’s safe to say that many, many players in the Steroid Era never took steroids.”
Tim. there is absolutely no way that could know that. If you see a rat in your barn, it means you probably have 20. Since over 100 players were named in the Mitchel Report, based on one source, it suggests the problem was much bigger than just those named. That ARod and Biogensis came out years later shows that evidence was missed. How many other labs escaped detection? One thing that absolutely cannot be proved is that some one did not use steroids.
You may not have a vote for the HoF, but you do have significant influence; your unimaginative and parochial response is disappointing.
so your suggestion is that we treat all guilty since proving innocence is impossible, and therefore vote those that are obvious cheaters? I understand that there may already be players that have cheated in the HOF. In fact, most certainly we do. However, that does not give carte blanche to let anyone that cheated in. I think it is almost impossible for the writers to know who cheated and who didn’t, but they should not elect those who we know for sure that did.
Your thoughts on Tigers baseball and Lions draft
Doesn’t make much difference how the Lions do in the draft; except to the players. Tigers made a couple of horrible signings and now we have the classic “rebuild” that most seem to think is always necessary. Well, it is when you sign contracts that result in little or no productivity during the back end of the deal. A lot of fantasy owners could do better – no exaggeration.
How about an executive summary on the chat?! Please.
Hey Tim, what do you think of draft order being decided by cost-per-win from the previous season? Would encourage all teams to try and be competitive while not disadvantaging small market teams
What would happen if: yanks trade ellsbury and include 40 of the 48M which is owed In order to make it happen. If ellsbury spends enough time on DL for acquiring team to collect the 80% on insurance. Would;
A) Yankees get refund
B). New team get profit
C) insurance is void in event of trade.
New team. Insurance policy sticks with the player
Maybe they should have a lottery for the bottom ten teams like in the NBA. Worst record might only get you the 10th pick. Or maybe establish a salary floor. Everyone below that floor gets penalized in the draft.
Interesting comment.
The 76’ers tanked for years while that system was in place.
Seemed to work out well for them.
If an MLB team wanted to tank with a floor in place, they’d just overpay some lousy players.
I could see a team take an underwater contract to get a prospect or two.
A floor with penalties would be better than what we have now.
I could also see the union pushing for the elimination of losing a draft pick for signing a player with a QO. The pick loss helps the teams and hurts the players.
What about a teams fans?
A mid or small market team loses a quality – maybe even a star – player to a large market team which pays a salary they cannot possibly afford, and their fans see them get no compensation? The draft choice compensation given now is no solace to local fans that are the ones paying the freight.
Why is everything on here all about giving everything to the players? Don’t the paying customers deserve consideration?
Until ALL local TV-Radio revenues are put into an account, then distributed evenly to the 30 teams; these endless mickey mouse patchwork rules (which gets worse each year) only enrich and empower lawyers, confuse fans, and detracts from the paying customer’s understanding and enjoyment of the sport. The large markets will still have a money advantage as mid and small market fans cannot afford to pay their ticket prices.
Make the amount a team has to spend on payroll, the draft, internal operations, etc. almost level – as in the NFL – and the bureaucratic gobbledygook rules can be thrown out leaving fans to talk about baseball again.
The issue of course is that the fans aren’t “paying all the freight,” at least not through ticket prices. Ticket revenue is a tiny part of a team’s revenue stream. Everything else is what pays the bills and the players and lines the owners’ pockets. So of course the players should get a bigger share of the pie; nobody is watching baseball to see an owner sit in his luxury box. Baseball team owners are wealthy businessmen and they’re working on profits, not winning, and the current structure allows a team to be very profitable while losing. Ticket prices for anything are what the market will bear; if a team decided to employ 25 rookies next season, each making the minimum, do you think ticket prices would decrease?
Agreed Samuel. It should be about the team instead of the players. It shouldn’t be about a few players getting huge dollars. I want to see the money spread around the team. Rookies should be paid more than three years of $500,000/yr – especially if they are producing.
Theres one surefire way to fix tanking: Relegation. It’d never happen but would be fun.
They’d need to make a second major league and restructure the minors for that to happen. You’re not going to have major league stadiums that seat 10K people maximum.
Yeah but how much fun would that be! Totally restructure AAA so they are competing to get into the bottom of the league. AAA tix sales would boom. Park Expansions would happen. And have you not seen some of the bottom table teams in the Premier League? Very small venues. Week night Attendance at some MLB parks isn’t much better. Excitement love it
Tim you think the NL Central looks weak this year? I normally respect your opinion but what the hell?
“If you get pulled over for speeding, telling the cop “That guy was going faster!” doesn’t get you out of it.”
That’s true, but it isn’t really fair either. That’s hardly a justification for selective assessment. And like speeding, a lot of drivers get away with it, just as a lot of steroid users got away with it. It seems to me fairness should be the first consideration.
“I think it’s safe to say that many, many players in the Steroid Era never took steroids.”
Tim. there is absolutely no way that could know that. If you see a rat in your barn, it means you probably have 20. Since over 100 players were named in the Mitchel Report, based on one source, it suggests the problem was much bigger than just those named. That ARod and Biogensis came out years later shows that evidence was missed. How many other labs escaped detection? One thing that absolutely cannot be proved is that some one did not use steroids.
You may not have a vote for the HoF, but you do have significant influence; your unimaginative and parochial response is disappointing.
so your suggestion is that we treat all guilty since proving innocence is impossible, and therefore vote those that are obvious cheaters? I understand that there may already be players that have cheated in the HOF. In fact, most certainly we do. However, that does not give carte blanche to let anyone that cheated in. I think it is almost impossible for the writers to know who cheated and who didn’t, but they should not elect those who we know for sure that did.