RedRamage

That's pretty interesting if true... and pretty smart of them (Watson and his agent) as well. The thing is when you trade that much future capital away you're kinda in the "win now" mentality. If Watson could miss a half season or more that makes it hard to win now. I guess Watson is still pretty young (only 26) so there's time, but without a first round pick for the next three years (or two if they get one back for Baker-Mayfield), that's going to be a bit of a talent drain.

That's why I said "At the very least." Most owners view this as a business and expect a profit. Some might be willing to shave the profit line down because they really want a winner, but most won't. Every once in a great while you'll see someone like Mike Ilitch who seemingly was willing to take a loss (maybe) because they want to win very badly. Your comment, while true, does nothing to support or counter my comment that most owners, while capable of running their teams at a loss, won't do that.

Sure they can... but that doesn't mean most will. The vast majority of sport's team owners do not dump money into the team without expect (at the very least) for it to break even on revenue. Just because fans want owners to be willing to operate the team at a loss doesn't mean it'll happen.

Do the Marlins have any power hitters from middle America?

Yeah... the owners see it as an ok way... and obviously the players do as well because they wanted it and fought for it to be bigger. I just don't see it as a decent want to address the problem because I don't think MLB teams regularly tank for a higher pick. I'm sure a team isn't going to be unhappy getting a higher draft pick, but I just don't see teams deciding to be bad so they'll get the #1 pick the following year. Draftees generally take a while to move up to the majors so it's not an instant boon like in football or basketball. I'm not sure when the last time... if ever... a rookie draftee was on the opening day roster of the major league club. Add in the timing of the draft and it's even less likely. What I mean is if there's college football star teams are seeing that during that year, seeing the hype, seeing the production and can tank that year to get a better pick. In baseball if there's a college or highschool guy who's lighting it up during this spring... well, draft order is already set from last fall. Obviously I'm just some sport fan on the interwebs so maybe I'm completely wrong. I just can't see a team tanking primarily for a draft pick slot. At best the it's the 3rd biggest drive imho.

It's probably more accurate to say tanking for draft picks doesn't really happen in baseball. A team won't try to deliberately lose in order to draft that star player. Instead I think MLB teams are just more likely to not spend much on payroll to make more money for the owners. This is why I think a draft lottery is a silly way to address the problem.

I'll bet you 1 million rubles.

I get the feeling that the anti-trust exemption is more of a figurative trophy than a real-life treasure. That's not to say that things might not change if MLB is stripped of it, but I don't think it will radically change the majors nor will it radically change the bottom line for the MLB teams. The other major leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL) have obviously shown that a major sports league can be successful without the anti-trust exemption. It feels more to me like something that congress and threaten MLB with if they want MLB to do something, and then the MLB (appears) to do the thing to make congress happy. It's just a show... congress gets to appear like they're doing something, MLB pretends to be majorly worried about it so congress can feel like they have all the power still. The fans just sit back and roll their eyes.

Interesting things I found in the CBA (or at least the summary on this page). YES! I'm happy with both of those things. Not a fan of this very much... I mean I don't anticipate major changes to the game play during a season, but in theory this could happen. I would hope that discretion on this would be used, but I'd hate to see a team build their roster a certain way and have success, then suddenly the other owners don't like that they succeeding and change the rules half way through the season. Meh on the base size... I could take it or leave it. I like the pitch clock though we'll have to see how it's implemented. Hate the rule against shifts... though it theory I dunno how much of a real change it'll be. If the SS in a shift normally plays five feet from second base, now he just plays right on the other side, then scoots over a few steps as the pitcher throws. I don't see this as being very effective. I guess depending on where those picks are it might make a difference but I can't see any team saying: "I can either manipulate service time and keep this player longer at a lower cost... or I can promote him and maybe he'll do good enough to earn me some picks that maybe will turn into something like 5 years from now... maybe." Not a fan of the lottery personally. I just don't think there is enough incentive to NOT tank because I might not get the 1st draft pick. I don't see the draft as being as important in MLB as in the other leagues. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe this will be a driving force but I don't see if right now. Maybe if draft position also applied to the international that is, the same lottery results for amateur hit for international... heck maybe in Rule 5 draft as well.

I don't watch NBA, so no reference. I suspect that in a year or two I won't ever notice it anymore as odd but for a while I'll feel the "purity" of baseball has been shattered.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/mlb-mlbpa-reach-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html Can't say that this makes me happy. 🤢

Yeah, I guess I'd agree with that.... going in if they are of the opinion that they MUST get a QB in the first round... use the first pick for it. However, I strongly hope that they are NOT going into the draft thinking that they MUST get a QB in the first round. Locking yourself into a situation like that is how you end up losing the draft. I can foresee a situation where they take Hutch or Thib at 2... and then like the 3rd best QB falls to 32 and they grab him, not because they MUST have a QB in the 1st but rather because they're surprised he fell there and he's the best option to help the team.

I wouldn't mind him not being in the division anymore. What the chargers offering? They picks next century? Do you think that maybe the Chargers will just keep trading away future picks and then just fold up and quit? Can a team declare talent bankruptcy and just not have to pay off their trades?

Not that I think athletes are saints... I mean give a 20 year old millions of dollars and make 'em think they are kings of the world and I think most of them will do at least a few stupid things... But something are stupid, and somethings are pretty despicable. I don't think I'd want someone on my team who has a pattern of repeated sexual abuse. It's gonna be interesting... he's got 22 suits filed against him. How many are real and how many are people just looking for a pay day? If all the cases are dismissed, then what? He's assumed innocent until proven guilty, but I have a hard time thinking 22 women are all making it up. Watson's lawyer has stated that some of his interactions with massage therapists did involve sexual contact but that it was consensual. At the very least we know that Watson, on multiple occasions, fooled around with massage therapists. At the very least we know that he has a hard time keeping it in his pants. Looking at it from the outside... it wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson tried to coerce a number of therapists into "happy endings" and probably didn't take the first 'no' for an answer. I'm not saying he straight up rape anyone... I don't think anyone is accusing him of that. But I suspect he probably did put some pressure on them both verbally and though "accidental" touches. All this said, according to his wikipage there are "18 professional massage therapists have since expressed support of his character, saying that the allegations contradict their experiences with Watson."

That's probably a valid argument. IIRC there were rumors that Bronco's where trying to get Stafford so there's inevitably going to be some idea that: "Holmes should have traded to Denver... look at how much more he would have gotten!" But this obviously assumes that they would have offered anything close to this last year.

I guess I wouldn't be opposed to soft cap depending on the penalties... I'd want them pretty stiff personally. But then I'd also be pretty stiff with the rules for that money as well: I would spread the tax to the other teams... maybe on a graduated basis... and that money would need to be used on salary AND that money would not count towards the floor (or maybe only count half of it towards the floor). If we're spreading out money (and I think we should) to make a more even/competitive league, we have to ensure that money is being spent to making teams more competitive and a salary floor is the easiest way to police that AND it benefits players collectively, making the ceiling more palatable.

Yes and no. There are rules about where some players have to line up, but only some. I'm not sure what the roots of the rule are but I suspect part of it for recognition... so that the defense knows what players are eligible receivers and which aren't. And the rule is that only 7 offensive players must be on the line, not all 11. And that's only in terms of "vertical" placement... they can be anywhere on the line left or right. No rules on the defense. There's also rules in the MLB about offensive placement... batter's must be in the batter box, runners have to follow the base path... So both Football and Baseball somewhat limit offensive placement but don't (currently) limit defensive placement.

I think the media deals are where you attack this, along with a floor and ceiling. I totally get that a minimum payroll doesn't always make the most sense for a team rebuilding (better to use assets towards development/ scouting/ coaches/ facilities/ etc) but a floor would make a ceiling more palatable for the players. If you can attack the problem by saying: "Yeah, a salary cap will means players, as a whole will lose x-amount of dollars, but the floor means that players will gain y-amount of dollars and y > x, therefore net gains" it might be able to get passed. Along with this, I would argue that media deals should be shared. In a perfect world I'd say all media gets polled together and divided out... the logic I'd use is that no one is paying to watch the Yankee's go out and "practice" for 9 innings. They are going out to watch them play against another team. Without the other team the Yankees sell no tickets, get no eye-balls on TVs, etc. That said I think a 100% sharing won't pass with the big market owners, so I'd say do a 50/50 split. The team gets 50% of any local media deal, the other 50% goes into a pool. The pool is split evenly among all teams. That's still going to be a big blow to the big market owners, but I'd try to soften it by saying a hard cap will reduce your spending and prevent "arms races" between big market teams so even though you'll get less media money your spending will hopefully be lower. Additionally the long term hope here is that the floor plus more media money for small market teams will help them get more competitive and, which means better media deals for them in the future, which means a bigger media cash pool which benefits all teams.

Looked up the players on pro-football-reference and none of them seem like anything major, other than Fant seems like he's had decent production at TE. But still, 2 first and 2 second. Unless Goff comes back as a productive QB I'd say the Seahawks scored much better in this trade. Time will tell if Wilson ends up being a key asset for the Broncos but looking at it now they WAY overpaid imho.

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2022/03/seahawks-to-trade-russell-wilson-to-broncos Did Seattle get a better haul than the Lions did for Stafford? Just on the face of it, it feels like they did.

If you're suffering from Lions withdraw, take a look at this video: Starting around 20 minutes is footage of old time NFL games (30s era) featuring the Lions when they were actually good!

Exactly. Someone would be: "Oh, I just have this little thing so I should be allowed to take it and go... the rule is for those people who have big luggage that's hard to get out or that takes up a lot of room so my little bag is no big deal... Let's see... where was it? Ah, here it... oh, someone's suitcase is in the way... who's is this? Could you get this out of the way for me a minute please? Yes, okay... thank you... oh, wait, wrong area, my bag is in here."

This is the one area where I take exception... I really don't fly that often, but when I do my back is usually killing me from sitting for so long. I like to stand to just change positions. Yes I know I'm not getting off any sooner, but I just need to change positions for a bit.

Yeah, when did this 7-inning crap start??

I know I've already promoted this but after listening/watching nearly all the current episodes, it's just really enjoyable... If you like sports history this is a great program talking about the 30s of sports history in Detroit. The deep dive they go into on these topics is so interesting.