Same as last year keeping it to Div/League/WS winners
ALE - BAL
ALC - DET
ALW - SEA
———
NLE - NYM
NLC - CHC
NLW - LAD
———
AL - SEA
NL - LAD
———
WS - LAD
My MLB division winners predictions. Didn’t have enough time to think out every team and all there potential records so just going with division winners and league/ws winners
ALE - BOS
ALC - DET
ALW - SEA
———
NLE - NYM
NLC - CHC
NLW - LAD
———
AL - BOS
NL - LAD
———
WS - LAD
Kyle Manzardo is 3-for-4 with two doubles and one home run tonight. It's his second career game with three extra-base hits, along with Opening Day last year.
Hammy is the best mlb broadcaster of all time. You can go back to any opposing team home run, they literally all sound like this. He will always be unmatched #guardsball
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee Fair point. There are real world examples of that happening, but the advantage of being tied to league revenue is the opposite can happen where they end up with more money back out of escrow too (which has also happened). Players can also still get guaranteed money contracts.
“Tie the cap to league revenue” sounds fair until you realize owners spent 30 years engineering what counts as league revenue.
The Braves don’t just sell tickets. They own The Battery. Mixed-use development. Hotels. Restaurants. Parking. None of it counts as baseball related revenue.
Cubs own the rooftops across from Wrigley. Rangers built Globe Life District. Cardinals own Ballpark Village. The Mets are building a casino.
The players fill those seats and attract the fans. The players make that real estate valuable. The players are the product that turns a parking lot into a $500M development.
But Freddie Freeman’s contract counts against the cap. The Battery’s hotel revenue doesn’t count toward the pool.
The NFL cap works because owners can’t spin gate revenue into a shell LLC and hide it from the players. MLB owners can and do.
A cap tied to “league revenue” in baseball is a ceiling built on a rigged floor.
@eYARKulation@stephencurry93@rationalyankee Yeah that’s just some stuff I’ve heard other people say that came to my mind. I’m sure there’s a million other things that could be done.
BUT I AM OKAY WITH A LITTLE BANTER BETWEEN ANNOUNCERS BECAUSE I AM NOT A SCORNED PUSSY WITH A PERPETUAL VICTIM COMPLEX WHERE I FEEL THE NEED TO PLAY CHARITY-CARDS TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BAD FOR ME.
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee You could have it be a form of restricted FA as well where the player gets to shop and the current team gets the opportunity to match the best value and if there’s no offer then you go to the normal arbitration process then they still get their guaranteed 5-6 years.
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee Earlier access to FA is the first thing that comes to mind for me. Once you have better revenue sharing, a cap, and a floor all teams can compete more evenly in the FA market so there’s much less need to have favorable rookie contracts for small market teams.
@trinholitics@TurkStevens Great because at no point have I ever argued what anyone may or may not agree to. I don’t pretend to be able to read minds. I merely just wanted to state there are concessions the PA could argue for that would make fair revenue sharing possible from their point of view.
@trinholitics@TurkStevens Complex ownership structures increase enforcement difficulty, but that is precisely what rule-based auditing and classification systems are designed to handle; it does not demonstrate that a workable framework cannot exist.
@trinholitics@TurkStevens The Cubs example only shows that some revenue sources may be harder to classify than others. That doesn’t mean an enforceable framework for classifying them cannot exist in principle.
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee I won’t claim to know what anyone’s “negotiating breakpoints” will be and how close they align, but conceptually I believe it certainly can be done, and since it’s conceptually possible I don’t see a reason why they won’t find that point. (Personally)
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee Well technically speaking a cap/floor/rev sharing system could do all three things. Make majority of fans happy, get more money to players, and increase the values of franchises for owners. I don’t think it’s impossible to find a system that does all 3.
@bawfuls@trinholitics There are a few assumptions in that claim. No CBA is permanent, and any long-term effects depend heavily on how revenue is defined, how the floor is set, and how it scales over time. Saying it is inherently and permanently advantageous to owners seems like a stretch given that.
@stephencurry93@eYARKulation@rationalyankee I think that’s totally fair. We’ve said this before but none of us want the players to get a bad deal. They should absolutely work out the best deal possible. Some of us just think the league as a whole would be better off if that deal includes a floor and a cap (and rev sharing)