• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The 2020 Cleveland Indians

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Derek said:
Site policy is no politics talk outside the subforum dedicated to it.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am not clear what was political then - the mention of Hollywood when it comes to the $$$'s they are rewarded for their star power or the fact that I mentioned social justice and the 1% that seems to be the fixation of that movement.

And I mean that in all honesty - not trying to flaunt the rules, just not sure where that envelope exists I guess. A little guidance will be appreciated.
 
jup said:
Maybe I am not clear what was political then - the mention of Hollywood when it comes to the $$$'s they are rewarded for their star power or the fact that I mentioned social justice and the 1% that seems to be the fixation of that movement.

And I mean that in all honesty - not trying to flaunt the rules, just not sure where that envelope exists I guess. A little guidance will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I'm not a political guy. I don't even have posting privileges in the subforum. I was just clarifying what @BMAN was pointing out.
 
Derek said:
I don't think you read my post at all, nor does it seem like you understand the economics of the NBA
Click to expand...
I read your post thoroughly, twice in fact Derek. I am very diligent. And I actually do understand the dynamics of players salaries pretty thoroughly as I have been involved in my share of arbitration cases on the baseball side and have worked with many that handle the NBA side.
 
jup said:
Maybe I am not clear what was political then - the mention of Hollywood when it comes to the $$$'s they are rewarded for their star power or the fact that I mentioned social justice and the 1% that seems to be the fixation of that movement.

And I mean that in all honesty - not trying to flaunt the rules, just not sure where that envelope exists I guess. A little guidance will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Just was trying to help you not go too far with the whole social justice and top 1% thing.
 
Derek said:
I'm not a political guy. I don't even have posting privileges in the subforum. I was just clarifying what @BMAN was pointing out.
Click to expand...
Just responded to yours before his showed up Derek. Nothing personal
 
jup said:
I read your post thoroughly, twice in fact Derek. I am very diligent. And I actually do understand the dynamics of players salaries pretty thoroughly as I have been involved in my share of arbitration cases on the baseball side and have worked with many that handle the NBA side.
Click to expand...
Then you realize I said that the cap could be $250 million, which is higher than any team's payroll at the moment?

The main point was that they could structure it in such a way in order to establish max contracts because there has been a recent issue with non-stars getting paid.

I just figured you weren't much of an NBA guy because your quip about dealing Lindor and others to clear room for Betts didn't make any sense in the landscape of any sport.

I even ended my post by saying I don't think I would be for max contracts because of what it has led to in the NBA.
 
jup said:
So we will now trade players in baseball like they do in the NBA !!! REALLY

Then change all the baseball stat databases to financial because you won't need the playing field stats anymore. Because all they do in the NBA is trade contracts to get under this or that cap not production.

Lets see, we will trade Lindor and 5 other players for enough cap space to fit Mookie in. Sounds right in line with hundreds of years of baseball tradition.
Click to expand...

I dont think it will end the same as in basketball, even if they both have a similar system. Basketball is straight into the pros with large contracts and whatnot. Baseball will always have its minor league system so we won't have large contracts straight.

Baseball I don't think will get rid of the 5-6 year control system, all a salary cap/max contract will do is keep contracts from getting too out of hand.

Also for me, I would implement a minimum cap as well. So teams cannot spend over lets say 150, but then they have to spend at least 100 mil, if they don't then players get paid extra money per game suited via the percentage under equally.

So a quick one would be, lets say they are 10 under at 90 mil, then each player on the 25 man roster will get like 2.4k per game on the 25 man roster so by the end of the season the team pays out 100 mil.

There is a lot of different ways we could do this, but getting something more equal to all teams to have the ability to sign players in theory is why anyone suggests a hard cap. We don't want only a few teams just signing all the best players.
 
Derek said:
Then you realize I said that the cap could be $250 million, which is higher than any team's payroll at the moment?

The main point was that they could structure it in such a way in order to establish max contracts because there has been a recent issue with non-stars getting paid.

I just figured you weren't much of an NBA guy because your quip about dealing Lindor and others to clear room for Betts didn't make any sense in the landscape of any sport.

I even ended my post by saying I don't think I would be for max contracts because of what it has led to in the NBA.
Click to expand...
Well I guess I don't see where 250 million changes anything for the Indians, and that is where this seemed to start - Lindor staying in Cleveland. If the premise of the cap is to clear up the whole "big market" advantage ....

But how long will 250 million be above any teams current salary ??? And once the players agree, it is forever. I just don't see the players ever being short sighted enough to agree. And I think most team execs view it the same way. The fight for a hard cap is a historic story I think.
 
sportscoach said:
I dont think it will end the same as in basketball, even if they both have a similar system. Basketball is straight into the pros with large contracts and whatnot. Baseball will always have its minor league system so we won't have large contracts straight.

Baseball I don't think will get rid of the 5-6 year control system, all a salary cap/max contract will do is keep contracts from getting too out of hand.

Also for me, I would implement a minimum cap as well. So teams cannot spend over lets say 150, but then they have to spend at least 100 mil, if they don't then players get paid extra money per game suited via the percentage under equally.

So a quick one would be, lets say they are 10 under at 90 mil, then each player on the 25 man roster will get like 2.4k per game on the 25 man roster so by the end of the season the team pays out 100 mil.

There is a lot of different ways we could do this, but getting something more equal to all teams to have the ability to sign players in theory is why anyone suggests a hard cap. We don't want only a few teams just signing all the best players.
Click to expand...
Now a minimum cap is something you could catch the players attention with. But good luck on the management side for that one. However, the floor is the problem for the disparity not the top end.
 
jup said:
Well I guess I don't see where 250 million changes anything for the Indians, and that is where this seemed to start - Lindor staying in Cleveland. If the premise of the cap is to clear up the whole "big market" advantage ....

But how long will 250 million be above any teams current salary ??? And once the players agree, it is forever. I just don't see the players ever being short sighted enough to agree. And I think most team execs view it the same way. The fight for a hard cap is a historic story I think.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it would change anything for the Indians! I just said that it could be a possibility to help remedy a situation that the player's union has vocally shown disdain for. If I were trying to help the Indians, it would be with a lower cap and no max contracts.

As with any sport with a cap, it would be tied to year by year revenue, and at least in the scenario I laid it out, it would be beneficial in both the short and long-term to all but maybe 15-20 players.

I think the max contract would be bad for competitive balance but could be something the MLBPA pushes for in the next CBA.
 
Derek said:
I didn't say it would change anything for the Indians! I just said that it could be a possibility to help remedy a situation that the player's union has vocally shown disdain for. If I were trying to help the Indians, it would be with a lower cap and no max contracts.

As with any sport with a cap, it would be tied to year by year revenue, and at least in the scenario I laid it out, it would be beneficial in both the short and long-term to all but maybe 15-20 players.

I think the max contract would be bad for competitive balance but could be something the MLBPA pushes for in the next CBA.
Click to expand...
Well we won't have long to wait to see if that (pushes for a max contract) is true Derek. My guess is no chance that is what the MLBPA focuses on or uses as a bargaining chip.
 
jup said:
Well we won't have long to wait to see if that (pushes for a max contract) is true Derek. My guess is no chance that is what the MLBPA focuses on or uses as a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...
I have no sources, so I have no idea if it'd be a priority or not, or even discussed. I just know that it would fix a problem they've been very vocal about in the last few years.
 
jup said:
I read your post thoroughly, twice in fact Derek. I am very diligent. And I actually do understand the dynamics of players salaries pretty thoroughly as I have been involved in my share of arbitration cases on the baseball side and have worked with many that handle the NBA side.
Click to expand...

I think one of the more important things some type of cap would give MLB is revenue sharing. Lots of inequalities exist because some teams have 3 or 4 times the revenue as other teams.
 
I think revenue sharing on a "large scale" is not realistic.

Think about it this way. The big bucks in owning a sports franchise is the capital gains. Buy the Yanks for 100 million and watch it climb to 100 billion. But that can only be achieved by having a revenue stream and brand that supports the value. If you start forcing "sharing" of that revenue stream, you set up a disincentive to ownership. Not sure how you get agreement by owners to that one on a "large scale".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top