Blue Jays Discussion: Roy Halladay elected to 2019 Baseball Hall of Fame class

[Woodman19]

Since when is not handing out dumb contracts ruining baseball? It's a market adjustment and the agents will go down kicking and screaming.

 

[The Nemesis]

Baseball lacks characters because baseball has been superseded by basketball and football in the public consciousness. Players don't get out there because joe average public doesn't care to have them out there or know them in order to develop known personalities and pop culture icons.

The "players are just numbers" argument is dumb too because fantasy football is just as much of a driver of general public interest in that sport as stats and numbers are in baseball. But nobody says "oh man, QBs nowadays are just route patterns and completion percentages on a spreadsheet" And that's because the NFL marketing machine makes a concerted effort to get its players' faces out there because football is the far more popular sport in the US even when you ignore the segment of the populous that only follows for their fantasy teams. The statistical revolution hasn't made players less important or more disposable. That's a total crock.

Baseball, like hockey, also tends to lord its stuffy traditionalism over players to quash their personalities and stifle the kind of loud, brash, "look at me!" attitude that gets attention on players. The NFL has embraced guys with fire and swagger. But in baseball if you're Marcus Stroman or Bryce Harper out there showing emotion you get chastised by the old guard for not "respecting the game" and playing with your head down and a "yes, coach. no, coach. sure thing, coach." attitude. You get called selfish and get ridiculous threats of pitchers potentially beaning you to teach you the error of your ways.

I also agree with Buck. More and more, players are becoming statistics.

In particular, I believe the trend towards starting pitchers throwing fewer and fewer innings is a very negative trend for the sport. When it comes to pitching, anyone besides the hard-core fan cares about the starters, and the closer. Nobody tunes into baseball to see a great middle reliever. The pitchers we remember in Jays' history are Stieb, Key, Clemens, Halladay, etc., and Henke and Ward and those guys. Those are the guys people wanted to see. Now most starters are basically gone halfway through the game, followed by a merry-go-round of relief pitchers the casual fan doesn't know or care about.

If the "opener" phenomenon the Rays started takes hold, it becomes that much worse. The whole concept of a starter basically disappears, and you have only relievers. From a marketing perspective, it's a handicap in trying to create interest in the game. The "bullpen day" was bad enough, this is taking it to the next level.

It might make sense for strategy and trying to win games, but it doesn't make sense if you're trying to sell tickets and make money. This is why if anything, I want MLB to shrink rosters, not expand them. (I realize that won't happen). Shrinking rosters forces you to use less pitchers, which forces them to pitch longer. It would also likely increase offence in the league. All of this is good for generating interest and ultimately making MLB more money. Instead, they're heading in the other direction.

Okay, rant over!

What I take away from this is "I want my team to do less to win games and not care as much about my uber-valuable starting pitchers getting injured because it's more important to make guys look good and "build" stars than it is to win games and keep people healthy." when you look at it through that lens, it's an absolutely baffling sentiment. I want my team to win games. I don't care if that means the pitcher only goes through the lineup 2.5 times or never pitches past the 6th or if every couple weeks we have a bullpen game (BTW the "opener" is not the "next level" of a bullpen game. It's exactly like a bullpen game except that you have a specific pitcher in mind to be the guy who starts each of those games.) or the manager wants to shift and have all 7 non-catcher fielders lined up within 10 feet of the 1st base line. Does it help my team win the game? Then have at it. I'll have little trouble picking a favorite player if you give me an exciting team to follow. And by 'exciting' I mean winning.

Research has shown that a team's record is a far bigger and more stable driver of attendance and fan interest than marquee players. Sure you might get a spike if you acquire a big name, but big names don't stop the stands from hemorrhaging fans if the team loses a ton of games. Win with nobodies and the nobodies becomes stars. Lose with stars and the stars become nobodies.

 

[Marmoset]

What I take away from this is "I want my team to do less to win games and not care as much about my uber-valuable starting pitchers getting injured because it's more important to make guys look good and "build" stars than it is to win games and keep people healthy." when you look at it through that lens, it's an absolutely baffling sentiment. I want my team to win games. I don't care if that means the pitcher only goes through the lineup 2.5 times or never pitches past the 6th or if every couple weeks we have a bullpen game (BTW the "opener" is not the "next level" of a bullpen game. It's exactly like a bullpen game except that you have a specific pitcher in mind to be the guy who starts each of those games.) or the manager wants to shift and have all 7 non-catcher fielders lined up within 10 feet of the 1st base line. Does it help my team win the game? Then have at it. I'll have little trouble picking a favorite player if you give me an exciting team to follow. And by 'exciting' I mean winning.

Research has shown that a team's record is a far bigger and more stable driver of attendance and fan interest than marquee players. Sure you might get a spike if you acquire a big name, but big names don't stop the stands from hemorrhaging fans if the team loses a ton of games. Win with nobodies and the nobodies becomes stars. Lose with stars and the stars become nobodies.

First of all, of course winning is THE best way to attract fans. If you win, people watch (usually). However, at any one time, only so many teams are doing that. Most teams do not win and do not make the playoffs in any given year.

I want my team to win, but I also want to be entertained. Sports is entertainment! The endless parade of relievers that now starts around the 5th inning in many games is hardly interesting or entertaining. It is one of the reasons (far from the only one) my interest in the sport has waned significantly. If you're a fan who is basically going to watch no matter what, then everything you said makes sense. But that's not most fans. If you're not a committed fan of baseball or a particular team, are you watching through an hour of 5 or 6 pitching changes in the middle of the game?

In sports where I am more hardcore, I feel a lot like you do. I used to be a bigger baseball and Jays fan than any other sport, but it's gradually been losing me. It just isn't very interesting compared to many other sports out there, which yes, have noticeable "stars", and also aren't so heavily dependent on statistics.

Now none of this is the fault of the manager, or the GM. Their job is to win, period. This is an issue for the guys at the top - the commissioner, the owners.

I'm not going to be upset with our new manager if he starts using an opener because he think it's the best option for the Jays. It's an issue with the sport, not any individual team. It's MLB as a whole that should be concerned about where it's going, which was I think Buck was getting at. My example was just that, an example.

 

[dredeye]

let me fix this. Messed up the quote

 

[dredeye]

I mean, none of this is true and/or good

- Defending playing an inferior roster for zero benefit other than 'good asset management' is bad
- No player is remotely close to as rich as the cheapest owner
- We now have owners suppressing player salaries during prime years yet refusing to pay even market WAR value for free agents

MLB payrolls have more or less stayed flat over the past three years even as league revenues have steadily increased (hell each team gets $57M per year now from national TV + MLBAM deals alone, plus their regional deals). That should not be commended.

LOL. It’s not true.

Are you as rich as the owner of the company you work for? I never understood why players should make so much more money because the owners do. They own the company and take all the risk. I don’t get guaranteed pay increases because my boss made a deal that makes him more money. Your whole argument is based on how much owners make. The only true argument they should have is a floor for team salaries.

Are you kidding about zero value for waiting to bring up Vlad? I don’t even know how to respond to that. Yes it’s incredibly smart management and decision making to find ways to keep your best young players around as long as possible. That also falls within the rules of the game. Especially when your team is starting a rebuild. If we were competitive I may feel a little more desire for the jays to push the issue but I’m happy they are doing what they need to to ensure an extra year of control.

 

[dredeye]

I think people are also forgetting money is being spent differently now as well. I don't hear to many higher end relief pitchers complaining at the moment. They are the new power hitter. Owners are simply spending money differently now. Harper and Machado will both find stupid contracts and maybe now they'll just throw in an opt out clause because they don't get the term they want. If I was an owner I'd look for that same opt out clause.

 

[Larrybiv]

Baseball lacks characters because baseball has been superseded by basketball and football in the public consciousness. Players don't get out there because joe average public doesn't care to have them out there or know them in order to develop known personalities and pop culture icons.

The "players are just numbers" argument is dumb too because fantasy football is just as much of a driver of general public interest in that sport as stats and numbers are in baseball. But nobody says "oh man, QBs nowadays are just route patterns and completion percentages on a spreadsheet" And that's because the NFL marketing machine makes a concerted effort to get its players' faces out there because football is the far more popular sport in the US even when you ignore the segment of the populous that only follows for their fantasy teams. The statistical revolution hasn't made players less important or more disposable. That's a total crock.

Baseball, like hockey, also tends to lord its stuffy traditionalism over players to quash their personalities and stifle the kind of loud, brash, "look at me!" attitude that gets attention on players. The NFL has embraced guys with fire and swagger. But in baseball if you're Marcus Stroman or Bryce Harper out there showing emotion you get chastised by the old guard for not "respecting the game" and playing with your head down and a "yes, coach. no, coach. sure thing, coach." attitude. You get called selfish and get ridiculous threats of pitchers potentially beaning you to teach you the error of your ways.



What I take away from this is "I want my team to do less to win games and not care as much about my uber-valuable starting pitchers getting injured because it's more important to make guys look good and "build" stars than it is to win games and keep people healthy." when you look at it through that lens, it's an absolutely baffling sentiment. I want my team to win games. I don't care if that means the pitcher only goes through the lineup 2.5 times or never pitches past the 6th or if every couple weeks we have a bullpen game (BTW the "opener" is not the "next level" of a bullpen game. It's exactly like a bullpen game except that you have a specific pitcher in mind to be the guy who starts each of those games.) or the manager wants to shift and have all 7 non-catcher fielders lined up within 10 feet of the 1st base line. Does it help my team win the game? Then have at it. I'll have little trouble picking a favorite player if you give me an exciting team to follow. And by 'exciting' I mean winning.

Research has shown that a team's record is a far bigger and more stable driver of attendance and fan interest than marquee players. Sure you might get a spike if you acquire a big name, but big names don't stop the stands from hemorrhaging fans if the team loses a ton of games. Win with nobodies and the nobodies becomes stars. Lose with stars and the stars become nobodies.

Wow, well said. And with that said.........congrats to a well deserved HOF entry. He was a great man, a great baseball patriarch. Is that the correct word for which I am trying to give him credit for?

 

[metafour]

LOL. It’s not true.

Are you as rich as the owner of the company you work for? I never understood why players should make so much more money because the owners do. They own the company and take all the risk. I don’t get guaranteed pay increases because my boss made a deal that makes him more money. Your whole argument is based on how much owners make. The only true argument they should have is a floor for team salaries.

While that may be true, there is a lot more to this whole ordeal, such as owners exploiting loopholes that allow them to generate profits under faulty pretenses. You literally have teams purposely failing to spend to compete, while earning profits through league wide revenue sharing and TV deals...revenue that is entirely generated by the players, who are now being "cut out" of the pie that they themselves are the main ingredient in. You're talking about a business wherein these owners routinely come in and get taxpayers to pay for the stadium to be built; its pretty shady on multiple levels, and the rules are bent in a way that allows them to operate in that manner.

 

[thehockeysong]

While that may be true, there is a lot more to this whole ordeal, such as owners exploiting loopholes that allow them to generate profits under faulty pretenses. You literally have teams purposely failing to spend to compete, while earning profits through league wide revenue sharing and TV deals...revenue that is entirely generated by the players, who are now being "cut out" of the pie that they themselves are the main ingredient in. You're talking about a business wherein these owners routinely come in and get taxpayers to pay for the stadium to be built; its pretty shady on multiple levels, and the rules are bent in a way that allows them to operate in that manner.

MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA are top leagues with massive money. The athletes in other sports aren't inferior, they just don't have the facilities, marketing, broadcasting, etc that make these leagues huge revenue generators. I would say it's untrue that players entirely generate revenues.

 

[dredeye]

Navarro’s is a minor league deal.

Now melky signs a minor league deal.

 

[dredeye]

While that may be true, there is a lot more to this whole ordeal, such as owners exploiting loopholes that allow them to generate profits under faulty pretenses. You literally have teams purposely failing to spend to compete, while earning profits through league wide revenue sharing and TV deals...revenue that is entirely generated by the players, who are now being "cut out" of the pie that they themselves are the main ingredient in. You're talking about a business wherein these owners routinely come in and get taxpayers to pay for the stadium to be built; its pretty shady on multiple levels, and the rules are bent in a way that allows them to operate in that manner.

Don’t get me wrong. Teams like tb and Oakland who don’t spend or teams like the marlins who Tank heavily without spending is an issue. I also hate the competitive balance picks. There are certainly things they can do to change things. I did mention in my first post that a salary floor would do a lot to help players gain salary. I think they need to force the hands a little of cheap teams like the ones I mentioned. At the very least teams could rebuild taking on shart contracts helping offset junk years of players and picking prospects at the same time

 

[kb]

Don’t get me wrong. Teams like tb and Oakland who don’t spend or teams like the marlins who Tank heavily without spending is an issue. I also hate the competitive balance picks. There are certainly things they can do to change things. I did mention in my first post that a salary floor would do a lot to help players gain salary. I think they need to force the hands a little of cheap teams like the ones I mentioned. At the very least teams could rebuild taking on shart contracts helping offset junk years of players and picking prospects at the same time

I truly hope "shart contracts" was not a spelling error.

 

[dredeye]

I truly hope "shart contracts" was not a spelling error.

It was the by pass for shhhh it

 

[Woodman19]

Don’t get me wrong. Teams like tb and Oakland who don’t spend or teams like the marlins who Tank heavily without spending is an issue. I also hate the competitive balance picks. There are certainly things they can do to change things. I did mention in my first post that a salary floor would do a lot to help players gain salary. I think they need to force the hands a little of cheap teams like the ones I mentioned. At the very least teams could rebuild taking on shart contracts helping offset junk years of players and picking prospects at the same time

Owners won't give a salary floor without a salary cap.

 

[theaub]

The players would be dumb to not accept a cap/floor situation as long as the cap is based on a % of revenues and not arbitrarily selected like how the luxury tax threshold is right now.

Of course, considering the % of revenues allocated to MLB players right now is absurdly low (it was 42% as of the start of the last CBA and considering league TV revenues have increased by about $700M per year since then its likely only widended), if they went close to, say, the 50% revenue split per the NBA and an extremely conservative 70% floor (75% in the NHL, 89% in the NFL, 90% in the NBA) by my extremely rough calculations you would end up with a cap of $200M and a floor of $140M which probably links back to my lack of sympathy for the owners here.

(note: math was bad at first but edited. Based on Forbes likely inaccurate but best available estimate of $10.3B of revenue, indicating an average salary of $171.6M per team to get to 50% BRI to players).

e2: according to the same Forbes article, which is here MLB players are currently paid 50% of revenues but I have tried to re-calculate that a couple times and I come nowhere close so I'm not sure where they get that from.

 

[IceColdBear]

A salary cap would be a god send for the Blue Jays.

We're a big enough market team where we would probably be able to spend to the cap when the team is competitive, and it would get rid of the money advantage teams like Boston & the Yankees have over us.

I don't think it would help the very small market teams as much, as they would be forced to spend to the cap floor, and still wouldn't have the resources to compete money-wise with teams that spend to the cap.

 

[theaub]

I don't think it would help the very small market teams as much, as they would be forced to spend to the cap floor, and still wouldn't have the resources to compete money-wise with teams that spend to the cap.

I just want to stress that I still think this is a fallacy. The Rays, for example, get the base $57M from national TV deals that I noted above, and were rumoured to get an $82M per year local TV deal starting this season. So that alone get them almost exactly to a proposed $140M salary floor.

Beyond that, do the Rays currently run an operating deficit? My understanding is that they pay zero rent at Tropicana Field as they instead have a use agreement that ties them to the area until 2027. Even though their attendance is pathetic, I can't see operating costs at Tropicana being anywhere close to ticket revenues. So my answer to that question is no. There are definitely costs of executive staff + minor league players to consider but of course minor leaguers are woefully underpaid so I also don't count that as significant, although that's not a good thing.

Considering how well the Rays are run on an $80M payroll, I would have to think the extra $60M would help them quite a bit. And although MLB will claim it will cause the team to go broke I don't believe it for a second.

 

[shortfuze]

A salary cap would be a god send for the Blue Jays.

We're a big enough market team where we would probably be able to spend to the cap when the team is competitive, and it would get rid of the money advantage teams like Boston & the Yankees have over us.

I don't think it would help the very small market teams as much, as they would be forced to spend to the cap floor, and still wouldn't have the resources to compete money-wise with teams that spend to the cap.

i thought i heard that toronto's owners have more money than both boston and new york combined?

 

[AllDay28]

i thought i heard that toronto's owners have more money than both boston and new york combined.

do you understand finances? or you just wanna be a smart ass?

 

[shortfuze]

do you understand finances? or you just wanna be a smart ass?

take it easy. i was asking a question.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

I just want to stress that I still think this is a fallacy. The Rays, for example, get the base $57M from national TV deals that I noted above, and were rumoured to get an $82M per year local TV deal starting this season. So that alone get them almost exactly to a proposed $140M salary floor.

Beyond that, do the Rays currently run an operating deficit? My understanding is that they pay zero rent at Tropicana Field as they instead have a use agreement that ties them to the area until 2027. Even though their attendance is pathetic, I can't see operating costs at Tropicana being anywhere close to ticket revenues. So my answer to that question is no. There are definitely costs of executive staff + minor league players to consider but of course minor leaguers are woefully underpaid so I also don't count that as significant, although that's not a good thing.

Considering how well the Rays are run on an $80M payroll, I would have to think the extra $60M would help them quite a bit. And although MLB will claim it will cause the team to go broke I don't believe it for a second.

Operating profit of ~US$20MM in each of the last two years.

 

[phillipmike]

Committing to football full time. Stupid pick by the A's especially in the first round and so high.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Good for Kyler. Quite clearly the correct call.

Hope he put that bonus into a nice mutual fund. Pay back the principal, and buy a car with the interest.

I wonder if that angry A's reporter will lose her mind on him again on twitter.

 

[AllDay28]

smart on Kyler. Even with lower draft dollars than before, the NFL pays so much better up front than the MLB and with the NFL being less about killing QBs and more about keeping them on the field, I think his style of play can excel (Oklahoma fan).

Then, if his career winds down in 3-5 seasons cause it didnt pan out, I wouldnt doubt that a MLB team would give him a chance cause of his athleticism and shit.

 

[phillipmike]

THE BOARD! | FanGraphs Baseball

Would be extremely happy if Langeliers dropped to us.