Just Some Guy

Libertarian, business owner, investor, CFA® charter holder, Chicago Cubs, Creighton Bluejays and Bitcoin enthusiast.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

Don’t be fooled. Governments make more on a gallon of gas than “Big Oil”. Yet “Big Oil” is the problem…

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

I guess we’re doomed! ☹️

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

Ok @obvious_shirts , time to break out the big guns (chains)!! If this doesn’t break the Cubs outta their funk, nothing will.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@samhuppert Took me a second time of reading it, but it conveyed.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

The fact that he:

A) made it to the major leagues
B) showed some occasional ML success early in his career
C) was at one time a top-50 MLB prospect
D) is still extreme rotation depth for the ML team (despite his struggles)

means it wasn’t a disaster of a pick. Disappointing, sure. Disaster, no. It looks like it may not work out as well as we would have liked, but he has had value over the years. The cubs just didn’t/couldn’t take advantage of it. They weren’t helped by injuries either.

Also let’s not forget that at the time the Cubs draft strategy for pitching was quick movers with a higher floor, but lower ceiling. That is pretty close to what he became.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@TheWARmonger_ Yeah, that is even safer.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@TheWARmonger_ Yep. Its why I say Cy Young's 511 career wins is the safest record in sports.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@DMMP15 @Arockalyps @Ben_Yoel In fairness the Dodgers TV deal alone is larger than most teams’ entire revenue.

Several teams CAN’T spend even half what the Dodgers can.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@Domination2030 @Eternal_Kernal @BNightengale They bumped it up this year because they knew it would look bad in negotiations. MLB suggested to all the lowest spending teams they should do it.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@AnselLindner That's the problem...they won't lose badly because it will take weeks to "resolve".

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

They didn’t have financial problems because their owner died. They had problems because their regional TV syndicate declared bankruptcy costing them upwards of $40M per year in revenue.

Yes, the new owners have more money. But that is completely irrelevant to the arguments we’re having, other than to my joke saying every few years they’ll have to sell to a richer owner.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

They did. Why do you think they needed to cut payroll and trade players away a few years ago after their regional TV syndicate declared bankruptcy? Why was MLB threatening to step in? What do you think was one of the driving reasons to sell the team to a group who could pay $4 billion?!

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@SwarleyShow @JesseRogersESPN Your bio says you specialize in sarcasm. Obviously not or you would have caught mine.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@MackersMack @JesseRogersESPN And before anyone misconstrues my note above, when I say "the money isn't there anymore" I'm not saying the owners can't afford to share more of the revenue with players. Just that the TV money-train has left the station, and so MLBPA's example was a bit disingenious.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

We're arguing semantics. You're arguing it would have worked if the TV deal wouldn't have ended. I'm saying the TV deal ended, so it won't work at the same scale.
(we can differ on the opinion if the Padres would have been able to continue at the rate they were going).

What the Padres did was exciting for their fans, and the sport. But it was obvious that the TV money boom was ending. Now did anyone expect the regionals to go bankrupt so abruptly, no. But teams trying to negotiate new deals were getting fractions of what they had been expecting based on earlier comps around the league. The money wasn't there anymore. The MLBPA is acting like the money is still there.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@JoshGor03984163 @danorlovsky7 He said deepest, not best. Those are not the same.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@Dawg69420___ @MackersMack @JesseRogersESPN and by this I mean I agree with you.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

@Dawg69420___ @MackersMack @JesseRogersESPN I'm not arguing with you on this...

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

and IF your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

We can talk about IF all we want, but it is irrelevent, because they did go bankrupt along with almost half the leagues' as well.

Can you still execute the model on a smaller scale with a smaller payroll? Sure, but the levels will be much smaller and the MLBPA will still be complaining that the team isn't spending enough.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

I agree it is not normal and it is the main reason they had to cut salary. BUT....they were already in the red before losing that revenue. It wasn't a sustainable solution. They were looking to try to hold on for a couple years and win, then they would have had to do the same thing...not as drastic of course, but it was never going to be sustainable.

Plus, as I've said, regardless of why, the fact is the money is now gone, and its not coming back, at least not in the short-medium term.

[Just Some Guy @catchthe_wave3]

Right, but even when they had their big deal they were in the red, then the regionals went bankrupt, and MLB took over. Teams like the Padres are getting now getting an estimated 1/4 - 1/2 of what their previous deals were. So again, teams can't do what the Padres did. Hell, the Padres couldn't really afford to do what they did, but did it anyways. It wasn't sustainable when they had the full value of the TV deals, and surely isn't sustainable now.

It isn't a valid example for the MLBPA to hold up. They are simply trying to get the fan support (which they mostly have anyways). It just rubs me the wrong way when they do this...both sides.