gehringer_2

right - and also the ratios involved are so huge. If you are working for Amalgamated Widget, and the guy in the next cubicle doing a similar job gets a bigger raise then you do, it's not likely to be to 30x what you are making like it is between a future HOF player in his rookie yr versus a washed up unproductive player that got lucky like Cobb.

any player in the MLB who is worried about himself or other guys being paid what they are actually worth in the years they are worth it is going to be having a very hard time emotionally. I'm sure any pro baseball player who hasn't already lost his mind over it has made his peace with the fact that what guys are being paid at any given time in MLB has almost nothing to do with how much they are contributing to the team or whether the guys he sees when he looks down the dugout bench are being paid for more or less 'value' to the club than he is.

I suppose there is no need to 'fix' as long as one understands what it's actually telling you (nor not telling you! ;))

at least the reason he isn't going to class is a good one.

too big a loophole. They are out of my channel selector.

yeah - he absolutely no authority to do this. And I would guess the networks will push back, not out of principle, but because they know no-body wants to watch Army-Navy and they don't want to lose the revenue.

IIRC, Rusty couldn't run a lick.

WAR is sort of cruel to 1Bs. He was over 2 OWar in '23 and '25 but got pulled down by DWar numbers, which we've talked about a lot for 1Bs. It's just a place where in my view the stat is detached from reality. Torkelson's play at 1B is does not cost the Tigers wins or negate his offense. He is simply not a bad 1B and whatever his dWAR thinks it is capturing, I don't care about it (e.g I'm not asking him to play SS!) and I'm willing to bet the analysis the Tigers use internally doesn't either.

signing bonuses are the end around non-guaranteed contracts, they are still counted as salary in cap calcs. Teams can move money around and into different years (and into the future were the cap is higher) to make room for players short term, but the same total eventually gets paid to players collectively. If anything, what people regard as teams cheating or using loopholes, is actually a strength in the way the system allows teams to have some roster flexibility, and still pay the correct amount of total salaries for a given year. And it's the players that are largely in control when it comes to restructuring. And it's mostly worked, you don't hear either side in football worrying about a future strike.

I don't know about 700 (which is what the cube root would give for 350M, but the US House should be expanded to at least 500 - and that requires nothing but an act of Congress. But the real problem with representation is the Senate and that's a tougher nut to crack.

If you 'incentivize' longer starts, you'll just destroy more arms. It's not the players, it's the game.

The NFL doesn't really have a cap, it has a budget the teams must spend on players, if they end up under budget on salaries, they have to make it up in payments to the NLFPA but they have to be within about 90% in direct player payments. So on every team, the players get the the negotiated cut of the team revenue. It's not really a cap or a floor, it's the player piece of team revenue. That is pretty close to an ideal construct for a sports league. MLB can't get anywhere near there for dozens of reasons, but the 1st prerequisite to moving toward balanced team salary is balanced team revenue. Taking about caps and floors seems pretty pointless to me when it doesn't address the fundamental issue, which is team income inequality. Only movement in that direction, even if incremental, begins to rationalize the MLB system. As Buddha pointed out, a cap added to any thing like the current system (i.e.absent real structural revenue reform) simply benefits the richest teams even more. I suppose you could say that if they institute a meaningful floor, that means they have to institute some additional revenue sharing, otherwise a meaningful floor is an impossibility. But that is exactly why a meaningful floor is really unlikely!

yeah - maybe something like that. BTW - what happened with Tony Clark? There seemed to be some kind of controversy brewing a few months ago but seems to have blown over? A weakened union leadership with a self-preservation agenda becomes a wild card also.

TBH, I don't think the small market teams want a cap either because any cap that emerged would almost certainly benefit the richest teams the most, unless those owners are just dumb - which is also possible! I do think the players are going to push hard to reduce years of control, and I think you could get odd bedfellows between the players and the rich teams both being in favor (even if those owners would never admit it in public) but the majority of owners being opposed.

God was using Times Roman because Calibri is too woke and 10 were all that would fit and still be legible to nomads with no bifocals. Everybody knows that.

The thing is, I don't think there is a whole lot ASP can do for the rest of this season. It's not a matter of him just picking up his game. Sometimes he's not in the right place but more often he is just physically out matched, and that isn't going to change before next season -- even if the team believes it eventually will So teams are going at him harder now and McLellan doesn't have much choice but to cut his playing time - and that can't go on for too long. In the long run, if they still think he can get strong enough to be an asset in the future,, then playing this season will be a plus for his development, but given that the Wings have put themselves in such a good position in the standings, at some point McLellan is going to be pleading with Yzerman that winning games has to take precedence. Just think how much worse it could be if JBD weren't playing decently. 😱

and we still have to worry about Larkin. Daniels made a point last night about McLellan holding Larkin to 13min against Boston so we are already seeing the team concerned about his workload.

Yup - I think Daniels noted he came out for one shift late, but that was it. IDK - maybe Yzerman thinks one of the guys at GR is close enough that they'll be ready after the Olympics. Otherwise the closer it gets to the deadline the more I worry about a them making a bad desperation deal.

some real team leadership there by Raymond, he could have had that himself - he was looking for Casper.

not really on board for 1-3, but who can argue with 4?

I think you should definitely be allowed to borrow your own Roth since you've already paid taxes on it. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the gov can tell you what you and can't do with your tax exempt money because they gave you the exemption to encourage you to use it for a particular purpose (ie retirement). I don't know how in favor I am I of this idea without seeing the fine print, which we don't have.

likewise here.

if absolute performance were the only criterion in the arbitration process, then a lot of 6th yr guys ought to have been awarded a lot more than they ever were/are. I don't know all the things they factor in, but there have to be some pretty hard rules about service time and multiples from previous salaries that figure into the process.

Proverbs 26:27 would also be advisable to keep in mind: "He that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him"

I have no complaint about how much players make, if what they do generates the income, then they are entitled to it. What I object to is my team not being able to compete on a level playing field. What the argument misses is that more 'socialism' among the owners *is* good for competition. In today's baseball world, whether you believe more competition is good for the fans comes down to whether you live in a have or a have-not city.