LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


Test
  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next  [ 656 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)

Author Message
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:06 PM Post
Posts: 580
KeithStone53151 said:
agent39 said:
Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.


I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument.



The cba says youre wrong.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:10 PM Post
Posts: 482
adambr2 said:
Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things;

1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year.

2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks.

3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation.

4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration.

These all disproportionately hurt the Brewers. Lets say the Brewers have 200 million in revenue and the Dodgers have 480 million in revenue. Probably not far off.
Currently those expenses are currently average 80 million for both. And these proposal raise it to 120 million. The Brewers discretionary spending is far more hit than the Dodgers. Obviously the math is more complex as these expenses are larger to the Brewers because they have to use those cost control vehicles more than the Dodgers, so reality is probably worse.
If you can get the Dodgers to share local TV revenue, cool.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:21 PM Post
Posts: 7548
adambr2 said:
Spitballing, but I would see all of these as good things;

1) Less minor league control before Rule 5 eligibility, maybe 1 less year.

2) Significantly higher salaries at the Minor League levels. At least a living wage at every level, and year round paychecks.

3) Higher MLB minimum salary, around $1M, then rising with inflation.

4) Only 1 year of pre-arbitration salary at the minimum followed by 6 years of arbitration.

5) Team salary floor based on annual total revenue.

6) Performance based arbitration based on modern analytics and not outdated statistics. Players are guaranteed a percentage of all revenue agreed upon in the CBA. Arbitration salaries are based on performance for each individual player based on the division of the player's share of revenue after deductions of all free agent contracts and minimum $1M contracts (pre-arby players, arbitration eligible players who do not meet performance requirements for more than $1M.)


All of those things would be good for the players, but I don't see how any of them would help the Brewers compete against the big money teams.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:31 PM Post
Posts: 3318
Location: New Berlin, WI
agent39 said:
KeithStone53151 said:
agent39 said:
Im the only person here with first hand knowledge. Everyone else is regurgitating news theyve read. They're very wrong.


I think the general argument of players/agents right now is wrong. Trying to argue that owners should pony up and meet outlandish asking prices simply because revenues are increasing is a dreadful argument.



The cba says youre wrong.


The CBA says teams have to meet agents asking prices if revenues increase? Really? I find that hard to believe. Players/agents have a legitimate beef, but trying to strong-arm owners into giving Darvish/Arrieta their reported 6-7 year asking prices that are almost certainly going to be albatross contracts by the end of them isn't going to garner public support. I've seen that you are frustrated that public opinion is almost unanimously against you, maybe regrouping and attacking the injustice differently makes more sense. More money in their primes, less team control, more money for minor leaguers. Those arguments are more likely to garner public support.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:32 PM Post
Posts: 15301
Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway.

Would love to hear some alternatives...


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:38 PM Post
Posts: 3318
Location: New Berlin, WI
adambr2 said:
Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway.

Would love to hear some alternatives...


Salary cap/floor, with significantly increased revenue sharing. Best way to guarantee players X% of the revenues. Players have been opposed to a cap for some reason, I don't know why...and big markets would hate this as they wouldn't have a significant advantage over the small markets anymore.

If you stick to a similar system, I like bumping the min salary up to $1 million and draw a hard line in the sand that every player can become a free agent at age 28 or 29 no matter where they are in the team control process. Prevents teams from keeping X player in the minors for longer than they should.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 2:41 PM Post
Posts: 7548
adambr2 said:
Yeah, again, just spitballing. My thinking was that the 7th year of control would be beneficial to the team (1+6) But after the 7 years is up you're probably in a situation where most free agents can only be afforded by the big spenders because the smaller ones will be using all their money to keep their own. But most contracts at that point would probably be bad ones anyway.

Would love to hear some alternatives...


Ok, but you won't like it. Near 100% revenue sharing, and a hard salary cap. Nothing else will come close to addressing the competitive inbalance. (Also international draft but that pales in comparison.)


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 3:22 PM Post
Posts: 9409
KeithStone53151 said:
What if you had a lottery system for the draft? Not like the NBA, say every team the doesn't make the playoffs goes into a pool and are basically drawn out of a hat. The 84 win team that just missed the playoffs has the same chance at a high pick as the 62 win tanking team. There's no way you can tank for 3-4 years and guarantee a top 5 pick each time. Maybe you get lucky, but you might as well try to compete as there would be no incentive to tank.


How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 4:35 PM Post
Posts: 3318
Location: New Berlin, WI
MrTPlush said:
KeithStone53151 said:
What if you had a lottery system for the draft? Not like the NBA, say every team the doesn't make the playoffs goes into a pool and are basically drawn out of a hat. The 84 win team that just missed the playoffs has the same chance at a high pick as the 62 win tanking team. There's no way you can tank for 3-4 years and guarantee a top 5 pick each time. Maybe you get lucky, but you might as well try to compete as there would be no incentive to tank.


How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.


I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 5:48 PM Post
Posts: 9409
KeithStone53151 said:
MrTPlush said:
KeithStone53151 said:
What if you had a lottery system for the draft? Not like the NBA, say every team the doesn't make the playoffs goes into a pool and are basically drawn out of a hat. The 84 win team that just missed the playoffs has the same chance at a high pick as the 62 win tanking team. There's no way you can tank for 3-4 years and guarantee a top 5 pick each time. Maybe you get lucky, but you might as well try to compete as there would be no incentive to tank.


How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.


I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...


Never did I say that.

I am saying teams are not tanking for draft position like they would in the NBA. Teams in the MLB "tank" because they are selling off their proven assets(Lucroy/Gomez). Teams aren't becoming terrible to get better draft position. What you are proposing would have absolutely zero effect on how teams rebuild. Teams would do exactly what they do now.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 6:34 PM Post
Posts: 971
The Brewers offered Darvish in the nine figures. They paid Cain. It’s not collusion and I don’t think such a case would go anywhere. MLB could trot out loads of evidence showing how much money was blown on bloated contracts for declining players in their thirties. No one could take seriously complaints by the likes of Cobb or Lynn, and I’d imagine they will end up with nice eight figure per year deals. I don’t see those guys as nine figure investments and I don’t think a judge or jury would either. The player expectations need to be managed much better. Next year, Machado, Bryce, Kershaw et al will all get big deals. There’s nothing to see here except for unrealistic expectations.

Marvin Miller wanted a system where there was a limited supply of free agents every year so that teams would bid up on the few who were available. This year at least, the MLB PA thinks it hasn’t worked so well. But a nine figure offer to Darvish and loads of evidence against paying declining players will hurt any such argument. MLB is lock solid on this, IMO.

But, the players need to think about the long game, and the economics will benefit them over the long term.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 9:05 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4407
MrTPlush said:
KeithStone53151 said:
MrTPlush said:
How about not. The NBA has this because teams will intentionally tank to get a number one pick because they know with really high centainty the kind of impact a top pick will give them. If the next Lebron James was hitting the draft the amount of teams tanking for the sole purpose for that pick would be terrifying(if there wasn't a lottery). MLB draft is too fluky. If teams knew better what they were getting I could see this being a problem. Unfortunately the only bonafide superstar everyone knew was going to be huge I can think of in the MLB draft(in recent years) was Bryce Harper.

I know that idea is far from likely, just a thought. But if tanking isn't a good strategy in baseball, why are so many teams doing it? Just recently the nationals got Strasburg and Harper, cubs got Bryant, Rizzo, schwarber, Astros got Bergman and correa. Tanking has proved extremely effective, I'm not sure how you can dispute that...

Never did I say that.

I am saying teams are not tanking for draft position like they would in the NBA. Teams in the MLB "tank" because they are selling off their proven assets(Lucroy/Gomez). Teams aren't becoming terrible to get better draft position. What you are proposing would have absolutely zero effect on how teams rebuild. Teams would do exactly what they do now.

I agree that tanking is a strategy employed for several reasons beyond just draft ramifications, but it is still very much part of the equation. Beyond just a higher selection, the draft pool allotments are also affected by order of finish. The higher draft pool allotments allow teams to manipulate the draft beyond just the cut and dry order of selection. As far as I know that is unique to the baseball draft, at least as compared to other major sports.

Currently the incentives are influencing teams to either try to assemble a surefire playoff roster, or else try to sell off assets with down the road success in mind. I have seen some interesting suggestions for shifting focus towards incentivizing winning more for all 30 teams. Right now the worst place to be in baseball is average. One suggestion was to give the 20 teams that miss the playoffs a draft order (and pool money) in order from most wins to least. So for instance the 86 win Brewers (who are even drafting behind a playoff team, the Twins, this year) would have the #1 selection in this year’s draft for being the most successful team to just miss the playoffs. The idea is subject to plenty of scrutiny, but it would put a lot of additional value on being able to assemble an 80-win team, and would make it much harder for a team to rebuild via a complete “tear it down to the studs” rebuild/tank job... something the Brewers never really executed, but the Astros and Cubs certainly did.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 10:16 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5525
Eye Black said:
Currently the incentives are influencing teams to either try to assemble a surefire playoff roster, or else try to sell off assets with down the road success in mind. I have seen some interesting suggestions for shifting focus towards incentivizing winning more for all 30 teams. Right now the worst place to be in baseball is average. One suggestion was to give the 20 teams that miss the playoffs a draft order (and pool money) in order from most wins to least. So for instance the 86 win Brewers (who are even drafting behind a playoff team, the Twins, this year) would have the #1 selection in this year’s draft for being the most successful team to just miss the playoffs. The idea is subject to plenty of scrutiny, but it would put a lot of additional value on being able to assemble an 80-win team, and would make it much harder for a team to rebuild via a complete “tear it down to the studs” rebuild/tank job... something the Brewers never really executed, but the Astros and Cubs certainly did.

This is interesting. The challenge with the draft is that those players won't make an impact for 2-3 years (college picks) or 4-5 years (high school). I'm thinking more like the NBA, where you have exemptions that don't count towards the cap. Perhaps something like the top two teams that miss the playoffs get a voucher towards signing free agents the next offseason. MLB will pay up to a certain amount ($10M? $15M? $20M?) towards free agent signings, but it's not cash that the team can pocket - it's use it or lose it. Because it's not a huge amount it encourages teams to sign non-premiere free agents (a.k.a. "gumballs") instead of holding out for premiere free agents (a.k.a. "candy bars"). The NBA has injury exemptions that don't count towards the cap; I think that's a good start too.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 09, 2018, 11:22 PM Post
Posts: 9409
Yah I don’t see that backwards draft order really making sense either. Takes too long for a MLB draftee to make an impact. I also don’t understand you guys trying to give incentives to teams that close to making the playoffs. As we can see with the Brewers after just missing the playoffs they are trying very hard to be there next year. Obviously it’s a different case because they are at what they feel is the start of a window vs. the end.

You would want to give incentives to teams that are fringe contention...that are winning 70-80 games. Give the #1 pick to the team with the most wins under 77. That would be interesting because even when rebuilding a team might be interested in dishing out deals to be mediocre. Problem is then maybe young guys aren’t getting as many opportunities, that wouldn’t be good.

I think these incentives to win would be terrible in practice though. Either teams won’t bite because it really isn’t that big of a bonus or it would just make a ton of mediocre teams some of which would be blah for years on end. Teams bebuild for a reason, it works. I bet they would still do the same and give young guys a look.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 7:40 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4407
MrTPlush said:
Yah I don’t see that backwards draft order really making sense either. Takes too long for a MLB draftee to make an impact. I also don’t understand you guys trying to give incentives to teams that close to making the playoffs.

We are simply sharing ideas/thoughts here. I suggest avoiding the urge to insert the phrase “you guys” into an otherwise perfectly fine statement. It detracts from the point you are making and sets a combative lens for the reader.


MrTPlush said:
As we can see with the Brewers after just missing the playoffs they are trying very hard to be there next year. Obviously it’s a different case because they are at what they feel is the start of a window vs. the end.

You would want to give incentives to teams that are fringe contention...that are winning 70-80 games. Give the #1 pick to the team with the most wins under 77. That would be interesting because even when rebuilding a team might be interested in dishing out deals to be mediocre. Problem is then maybe young guys aren’t getting as many opportunities, that wouldn’t be good.

The Brewers and the Cardinals were the anomaly last year as the only two teams with a winning record that missed the playoffs. In 2017 a total of 18 teams finished below .500. The goal of the reverse draft among non-playoff teams isn’t necessarily to ensure they will be better at the MLB level the next year, but more to motivate organizations to put together a competitive roster even if it isn’t necessarily likely to be a World Series contender.

Part of the premise here was, “what factors could continue motivate a larger number of teams to submit offers to free agents?” This was just one interesting idea being shared, it would obviously be a drastic measure that would attract plenty of fair criticism. It could also be argued that the market may correct itself if too many teams try to rebuild at the same time and diminish their overall likelihood for success via the rebuild process.


MrTPlush said:
I think these incentives to win would be terrible in practice though. Either teams won’t bite because it really isn’t that big of a bonus or it would just make a ton of mediocre teams some of which would be blah for years on end. Teams bebuild for a reason, it works. I bet they would still do the same and give young guys a look.

If you don’t think teams should be incentived to be average, and prefer the system the way it is, I completely understand that and agree there are plenty of virtues to the current the system. The idea was simply brainstorming a way to change the dynamics that encourage rebuilding in its current form.

I agree with LouisEly’s thoughts that there may be other ways to alter market variables and encourage teams to sign free agents that either present a more immediate payoff, or else reduce the risk associated with an albatross contract. Allowing exceptions to the luxury tax similar to the NBA’s salary cap exemptions would be interesting, but likely wouldn’t do any favors for small market teams.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 8:30 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 7818
Agents seem to think that teams aren't making fair offers and are crying foul, collusion, whatever. I hope those same agents would also tell their clients to reject any offer that is above what they feel they are worth. Fair is only fair if it's fair for both sides.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 8:42 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2975
Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union.

So complaining about the size of the 1-2 megacontracts that get signed every offseason is not really relevant.

jerichoholicninja said:
Agents seem to think that teams aren't making fair offers and are crying foul, collusion, whatever. I hope those same agents would also tell their clients to reject any offer that is above what they feel they are worth. Fair is only fair if it's fair for both sides.


This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 10:17 PM Post
Posts: 7473
SRB said:
This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.


This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 10:27 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5525
SRB said:
Most of the people disagreeing with agent39 in this thread seem to be missing the point. The issue is not Eric Hosmer failing to secure a 10-year megacontract, it's that there are "lower tier" free agents who are getting stonewalled by teams in a manner that is evidently very suspicious to both the agents and the players/union

No, I think the opposite - the point is that, to quote an infamous poster in other threads, "you don't spend your nickels on gumballs when you think you can get a candy bar". You don't sign the lower tier guys if you think you have a decent shot at a Darvish, JD Martinez, Hosmer, etc.

For example - just throwing names out there, don't judge the names or $ amounts - why would you sign Jose Bautista for a hope-he-bounces-back 1-year $6M deal when you have an offer out for JD Martinez? Those guys play the same position, so you can't sign Bautista until you know you can't get Martinez. Why would you sign a Mike Napoli or Mark Reynolds on a one-year deal if you have a legitimate offer on Eric Hosmer? Why would you sign a Jaime Garcia on a one-year bounce-back deal when you have offers out on Arrietta or Lynn? You don't, until you those guys make a decision.

Also, to quote Doug Melvin, "Free agents know where they want to play."


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: DDSM (Double Diamond Sports Management)
Posted: February 10, 2018, 10:30 PM Post
Posts: 947
Location: Ohio
DHonks said:
SRB said:
This argument would be weird even if MLB weren't a de facto monopoly that uses its power to force players to give up 6+ years of their careers to teams they have no choice over at prices they have no control over.


This is a bunk argument. MLB and the MLBPA have collectively bargained these terms. This isn't a one-sided negotiation like teachers here in AZ, this is fairly bargained. It's the most fair and prosperous free agency model in all of sports as well. European soccer, the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL...sorry, their free agency models are nowhere near as generous as MLB.


I know some on this board would disagree with you DHonks, but I would not be part of that group. The CBA was fairly bargained. The merits on how well each side did can (& will be) debated over and over.

That said, in the next round of negotiations for the players to get changes or concessions from the owners, they will need items to bargain with or areas they can agree to give back some ground. Each CBA is built upon the one before so there is always give and take.

Are there any areas you think the players would be able "to give" in order to receive either additional salary earlier in the career (in minors and the 6 control years) or earlier free agency or lessening of a penalized ceiling/ creation of a minimum floor???


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next  [ 656 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
Test
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test