[Goose]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

[Goose]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

[BostonCard]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

Why?  Although there is a correlation between payroll and win percentage and the probability of making the playoffs, such a correlation is far from determinant.  Using the correlation between payroll and win percentage this season, over a 162 game season, it takes about $8 million per marginal win.  That seems rather expensive.

BC



BC

[BostonCard]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

Why?  Although there is a correlation between payroll and win percentage and the probability of making the playoffs, such a correlation is far from determinant.  Using the correlation between payroll and win percentage this season, over a 162 game season, it takes about $8 million per marginal win.  That seems rather expensive.

BC



BC

[Goose]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

Why?  Although there is a correlation between payroll and win percentage and the probability of making the playoffs, such a correlation is far from determinant.  Using the correlation between payroll and win percentage this season, over a 162 game season, it takes about $8 million per marginal win.  That seems rather expensive.



BC

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

[Goose]

The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

This unfortunately matters only in so far as they don't have the willingness/ability to spend more money. It appears they haven't yet hit that point. I think this points to the idea that the so-called "salary cap" really isn't. You can spend whatever you wish. It just gets really expensive. That may need to change.

Why?  Although there is a correlation between payroll and win percentage and the probability of making the playoffs, such a correlation is far from determinant.  Using the correlation between payroll and win percentage this season, over a 162 game season, it takes about $8 million per marginal win.  That seems rather expensive.



BC

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

[Giants]

Slater is 13/41 (.317) with 2 HR, 5 RBI, and 5 runs scored in 19 games in July.  He’s 4/8 in the last two games against the Dodgers and had an RBI and a run scored tonight.

BC

Also, he had 2 ABs in yesterday's game that were rips - one to 3B, one to LF - that could easily have been hits.  Instead, a FC and a lineout to LF.  The vagaries of baseball make stats a bit hit or miss; still, I agree that Slater is playing much better recently.  And Slater had a clutch 2 out single to knock in run #4 - helll, the Giants were crazy good in 2-out hitting yesterday (not so good in one-out-hitting with runner on 3rd - Solano caught looking on strike 3 . . . doh!).  And I agree Johnny's best game.

Part of me wants the Giants to hold tight and see if this rag tag bunch can hold off the Dodgers and Padres the rest of the way.
But a bigger part of me wants them to win the division, and I suspect that will take one more arm (closer or starter), and possibly one more big stick.  

If I could only take one - it probably would be a no-doubt-about-it closer.  But McGee has been good last few outings, and Garcia has been terrific.

Fun team to watch and root for.

Agreed on all points. During the Giants' 12th shutout of the season, Slater could easily have been 4 for 4, sometimes he's really fun to watch, and he had a nice stolen base. I actually don't mind a stand-pat strategy, although I'd far prefer to have both Kimbrel and Bryant and one more starter, especially as both Gausman and Desclefani have had post-all star break issues.  Gausman says it's a mechanical issue for him.  Hope so.  I heard Krukow once opine that all pitchers have mechanical issues from time to time, but some pitching motions required A LOT of mechanical work to really be effective, and he used Vogelsong as the example.

Tyler Rogers has a lower ERA (1.88) than Melancon, and his combination of holds and saves exceeds Melancon (current MLB saves leader).  McGee looks better, of late.  If we didn't get Kimbrel I could live with it -- thought I'd still prefer to have him. 

Giants are 64-38, which projects to 102 wins.  25 games ago, they were pointing to 100+ wins, and people said that's ridiculous, the Giants won't win 100+.  Well, maybe.  But with 60 games to go, the Giants are MLB's leading team, 1.5 games ahead of Houston, 3 games ahead of the Dodgers (against whom they're 5-2 in their last 7 games).  As a team, the Giants are 4th in MLB in OPS, T2 for HRs, and 9th in runs scored.  They're 1st in WHIP and 3rd in ERA and tied for 2nd in fielding percentage and overall fielding efficiency.

I really, really like this team and its future.  Think of it this way...the Giants have six of immense proportions contracts (Posey, Cueto, Gausman, Belt, Longoria, Crawford) and five of the six come off the books at the end of this season (everyone except Longoria).  Right now, today, the Giants are $48 mms. under the luxury tax threshold of $210 million for 2021 and that's with the of immense proportions salaries.  Downside is that most player contracts are up after this year, so unless they're going to promote all their minor leaguers, the Giants will have to take on some free agents.  But most of the deadwood contracts will be gone by next year, though the Giants may pick up the $22 mms. Posey option...but should they, for a 60% player?  there are team options on Cueto, Posey, Flores and Alvarez.  Longoria, La Stella and McGee are the only ones under contract next year.  The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

Exercise the options for Alvarez and Flores
Sign Crawford to a three deal (with the third year being a team option with a buyout provision)
Exercise Posey’s option and add an additional year
Sign Gausman to a four year deal (with the fourth year being a team option with buyout provision)
Sign DeSclafani to a three year deal (with the fourth year being a team option with buyout provision)
Sign Wood to a one year deal
Say goodbye to Belt/Cueto

Sign a couple high target free agents (1 pitcher and 1 hitter)
Scour the free agent market for bargains

P.S.  As it turns out, there were not any “deadwood” contracts.  

Posey, Belt, Cueto, Crawford all produced good to great results this year.  Given the last year of long contracts are more recognition for what transpired prior to offering the deals than what is expected at the end of the deals, all the contracts were properly valued.


ADD: Kris Bryant to SF for Alexander Canario and Caleb Killian and Tony Watson to SF for Sam Selman. That is it……

[Giants]

Slater is 13/41 (.317) with 2 HR, 5 RBI, and 5 runs scored in 19 games in July.  He’s 4/8 in the last two games against the Dodgers and had an RBI and a run scored tonight.

BC

Also, he had 2 ABs in yesterday's game that were rips - one to 3B, one to LF - that could easily have been hits.  Instead, a FC and a lineout to LF.  The vagaries of baseball make stats a bit hit or miss; still, I agree that Slater is playing much better recently.  And Slater had a clutch 2 out single to knock in run #4 - helll, the Giants were crazy good in 2-out hitting yesterday (not so good in one-out-hitting with runner on 3rd - Solano caught looking on strike 3 . . . doh!).  And I agree Johnny's best game.

Part of me wants the Giants to hold tight and see if this rag tag bunch can hold off the Dodgers and Padres the rest of the way.
But a bigger part of me wants them to win the division, and I suspect that will take one more arm (closer or starter), and possibly one more big stick.  

If I could only take one - it probably would be a no-doubt-about-it closer.  But McGee has been good last few outings, and Garcia has been terrific.

Fun team to watch and root for.

Agreed on all points. During the Giants' 12th shutout of the season, Slater could easily have been 4 for 4, sometimes he's really fun to watch, and he had a nice stolen base. I actually don't mind a stand-pat strategy, although I'd far prefer to have both Kimbrel and Bryant and one more starter, especially as both Gausman and Desclefani have had post-all star break issues.  Gausman says it's a mechanical issue for him.  Hope so.  I heard Krukow once opine that all pitchers have mechanical issues from time to time, but some pitching motions required A LOT of mechanical work to really be effective, and he used Vogelsong as the example.

Tyler Rogers has a lower ERA (1.88) than Melancon, and his combination of holds and saves exceeds Melancon (current MLB saves leader).  McGee looks better, of late.  If we didn't get Kimbrel I could live with it -- thought I'd still prefer to have him. 

Giants are 64-38, which projects to 102 wins.  25 games ago, they were pointing to 100+ wins, and people said that's ridiculous, the Giants won't win 100+.  Well, maybe.  But with 60 games to go, the Giants are MLB's leading team, 1.5 games ahead of Houston, 3 games ahead of the Dodgers (against whom they're 5-2 in their last 7 games).  As a team, the Giants are 4th in MLB in OPS, T2 for HRs, and 9th in runs scored.  They're 1st in WHIP and 3rd in ERA and tied for 2nd in fielding percentage and overall fielding efficiency.

I really, really like this team and its future.  Think of it this way...the Giants have six of immense proportions contracts (Posey, Cueto, Gausman, Belt, Longoria, Crawford) and five of the six come off the books at the end of this season (everyone except Longoria).  Right now, today, the Giants are $48 mms. under the luxury tax threshold of $210 million for 2021 and that's with the of immense proportions salaries.  Downside is that most player contracts are up after this year, so unless they're going to promote all their minor leaguers, the Giants will have to take on some free agents.  But most of the deadwood contracts will be gone by next year, though the Giants may pick up the $22 mms. Posey option...but should they, for a 60% player?  there are team options on Cueto, Posey, Flores and Alvarez.  Longoria, La Stella and McGee are the only ones under contract next year.  The Dodgers, on the other hand, have $154 million committed to 11 players next year and are $66 million over the luxury tax threshold this year, not including the addition of Scherzer or any others.

Exercise the options for Alvarez and Flores
Sign Crawford to a three deal (with the third year being a team option with a buyout provision)
Exercise Posey’s option and add an additional year
Sign Gausman to a four year deal (with the fourth year being a team option with buyout provision)
Sign DeSclafani to a three year deal (with the fourth year being a team option with buyout provision)
Sign Wood to a one year deal
Say goodbye to Belt/Cueto

Sign a couple high target free agents (1 pitcher and 1 hitter)
Scour the free agent market for bargains

P.S.  As it turns out, there were not any “deadwood” contracts.  

Posey, Belt, Cueto, Crawford all produced good to great results this year.  Given the last year of long contracts are more recognition for what transpired prior to offering the deals than what is expected at the end of the deals, all the contracts were properly valued.


ADD: Kris Bryant to SF for Alexander Canario and Caleb Killian and Tony Watson to SF for Sam Selman. That is it……

[BostonCard]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

[BostonCard]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

[Mick]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

Philosophically, I've always thought of Stanford football as a small-market team that occasionally competes.

---

ADD:  Kris Bryant to SF for Alexander Canario and Caleb Killian and Tony Watson to SF for Sam Selman. That is it……

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/30/k...sf-giants/

Bryant clearly looks delighted when he receives the news...tears of joy and all...

[Mick]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

Philosophically, I've always thought of Stanford football as a small-market team that occasionally competes.

---

ADD:  Kris Bryant to SF for Alexander Canario and Caleb Killian and Tony Watson to SF for Sam Selman. That is it……

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/30/k...sf-giants/

Bryant clearly looks delighted when he receives the news...tears of joy and all...

[DC 86]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

You have MLB's problems backwards.

1. Fans aren't turned off by a few teams having large payrolls; they are turned off by the number of teams refusing to compete by prioritizing profit, pocketing over $100,000,000 per year in revenue sharing and CBT payments while maintaining payrolls as low as $40,000,000. The Pirates are the worst offender but the As aren't far behind. No coincidence that these are the teams with attendance problems. What MLB needs - if broad competitiveness is the goal - is a salary floor, not a stricter salary cap.

2. Teams aren't overspending to remain competitive, see #1 above. Again, the problem is that there is no mechanism to prevent teams from pocketing revenue share payments while minimizing payroll. Even large market teams owned by billionaires (see Cubs) are downscaling payroll instead of fielding the best possible team within the CBT constraints.

3. No team is in financial distress or in danger of folding, again see #1 above. Accounting maneuvers can manipulate P&L statements but dramatically increasing franchise values across the board tell the real story. There is no shortage of buyers whenever a team is up for sale. National TV rights distributions alone prevent any team from facing financial hardship.

4. Parity is at an all-time high. In the last 20 years there hasn't been a single repeat champion and the free-spending Yankees and Dodgers have won one World Series each. Compare the percentage of MLB teams that have qualified for the playoffs in the last two decades to the salary capped NFL and NBA. There is a lot more payroll parity now than in the golden era of the 50s and 60s when teams such as the Yankees and Dodgers exponentially outspent smaller market teams. The Kansas City As were basically a farm team for the Yankees; these days the Royals are a competitive team that has reached two World Series (and won one) in the last seven seasons, while the Yankees haven't been in the WS since 2009.

Since the advent of the free agency era in 1976 people have lamented that large market teams are going to dominate the sport, and that small market teams will have to be contracted, however the sport has thrived. The dangers to the game have to do with an aging fan base, with problems with the product itself (pace of play, etc) and with a financial system that rewards teams that don't put the strongest possible team on the field.

We shall see if the next CBA addresses the competitiveness issue by instituting a salary floor, because a hard salary cap is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist (or at least hasn't manifested itself.)

[DC 86]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

You have MLB's problems backwards.

1. Fans aren't turned off by a few teams having large payrolls; they are turned off by the number of teams refusing to compete by prioritizing profit, pocketing over $100,000,000 per year in revenue sharing and CBT payments while maintaining payrolls as low as $40,000,000. The Pirates are the worst offender but the As aren't far behind. No coincidence that these are the teams with attendance problems. What MLB needs - if broad competitiveness is the goal - is a salary floor, not a stricter salary cap.

2. Teams aren't overspending to remain competitive, see #1 above. Again, the problem is that there is no mechanism to prevent teams from pocketing revenue share payments while minimizing payroll. Even large market teams owned by billionaires (see Cubs) are downscaling payroll instead of fielding the best possible team within the CBT constraints.

3. No team is in financial distress or in danger of folding, again see #1 above. Accounting maneuvers can manipulate P&L statements but dramatically increasing franchise values across the board tell the real story. There is no shortage of buyers whenever a team is up for sale. National TV rights distributions alone prevent any team from facing financial hardship.

4. Parity is at an all-time high. In the last 20 years there hasn't been a single repeat champion and the free-spending Yankees and Dodgers have won one World Series each. Compare the percentage of MLB teams that have qualified for the playoffs in the last two decades to the salary capped NFL and NBA. There is a lot more payroll parity now than in the golden era of the 50s and 60s when teams such as the Yankees and Dodgers exponentially outspent smaller market teams. The Kansas City As were basically a farm team for the Yankees; these days the Royals are a competitive team that has reached two World Series (and won one) in the last seven seasons, while the Yankees haven't been in the WS since 2009.

Since the advent of the free agency era in 1976 people have lamented that large market teams are going to dominate the sport, and that small market teams will have to be contracted, however the sport has thrived. The dangers to the game have to do with an aging fan base, with problems with the product itself (pace of play, etc) and with a financial system that rewards teams that don't put the strongest possible team on the field.

We shall see if the next CBA addresses the competitiveness issue by instituting a salary floor, because a hard salary cap is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist (or at least hasn't manifested itself.)

[Phogge]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

[Phogge]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

[DC 86]

Philosophically, I've always thought of Stanford football as a small-market team that occasionally competes.

I think of Stanford football as a large-market team that has chosen a business model that results in occasionally competing (sort of like the Mets under the Wilpons' ownership).

Stanford (and its wealthy alumni base) has the financial resources to compete on any operational level (facilities, staff salaries, marketing etc) as well as to be a major player in the NIL era (see Phil Knight/Kayvon Thibodeaux). It's a conscious decision to operate as a "small-market team". Admissions is a legitimate issue that also may keep Stanford in the "small-market" cohort, but again it's Stanfords choice to maintain the standards that it does.

[DC 86]

Philosophically, I've always thought of Stanford football as a small-market team that occasionally competes.

I think of Stanford football as a large-market team that has chosen a business model that results in occasionally competing (sort of like the Mets under the Wilpons' ownership).

Stanford (and its wealthy alumni base) has the financial resources to compete on any operational level (facilities, staff salaries, marketing etc) as well as to be a major player in the NIL era (see Phil Knight/Kayvon Thibodeaux). It's a conscious decision to operate as a "small-market team". Admissions is a legitimate issue that also may keep Stanford in the "small-market" cohort, but again it's Stanfords choice to maintain the standards that it does.

[Goose]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

OK, fair enough. However, as a "small market" team, the Padres are spending lots and lots of money. Apparently they have it. The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

[Goose]

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

OK, fair enough. However, as a "small market" team, the Padres are spending lots and lots of money. Apparently they have it. The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

[DC 86]

The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

Except that the As don't lack funds, they have chosen not to spend said funds. They aren't an example of financial disparity, they are an example of ownership choosing to maximize short term profits.

In the last CBA the revenue sharing system was expanded to provide much larger revenue sharing payments to low-revenue teams, with language that indicated that revenue sharing payments were to be reinvested into making their team more competitive. However the language was vague enough that teams have simply pocketed these payments. If the Athletics abided by the spirit of the CBA their payroll would be up to $50,000,000 higher, that is my point.

[DC 86]

The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

Except that the As don't lack funds, they have chosen not to spend said funds. They aren't an example of financial disparity, they are an example of ownership choosing to maximize short term profits.

In the last CBA the revenue sharing system was expanded to provide much larger revenue sharing payments to low-revenue teams, with language that indicated that revenue sharing payments were to be reinvested into making their team more competitive. However the language was vague enough that teams have simply pocketed these payments. If the Athletics abided by the spirit of the CBA their payroll would be up to $50,000,000 higher, that is my point.

[Mick]

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. 

Even better, he just had 9 walks in 84 innings and a 0.815 WHIP.  Kilian could really pitch, especially after surgery for a torn labrum.  Should be an effective reliever.  He doesn't have overwhelming stuff (whiff rate at AA is only 22.6%), but has a deceptive motion and an improving cutter (89-90 mph).  Still, his strikeout rate was declining.  Be interesting to see if he progresses with the Cubs.  Canario was hitting .235 in San Jose.  Not too worried about that loss.

---

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

OK, fair enough. However, as a "small market" team, the Padres are spending lots and lots of money. Apparently they have it. The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

[Mick]

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. 

Even better, he just had 9 walks in 84 innings and a 0.815 WHIP.  Kilian could really pitch, especially after surgery for a torn labrum.  Should be an effective reliever.  He doesn't have overwhelming stuff (whiff rate at AA is only 22.6%), but has a deceptive motion and an improving cutter (89-90 mph).  Still, his strikeout rate was declining.  Be interesting to see if he progresses with the Cubs.  Canario was hitting .235 in San Jose.  Not too worried about that loss.

---

It may need to change because of human behavior. Fans aren't going to take into account the fact that buying a championships isn't easy. That it is even possible will turn many fans off. Worse still, many teams will agree with my read about the fans and will be driven to spend more than they can afford to stay competitive. That will undermine the financial stability of at least a few teams. Having franchises fold is not a good look. Fortunately, I think MLB is aware of their  own behavior problems and will tweak the luxury tax to the point that there is a such a penalty for exceeding X dollars that nobody can afford it. That isn't to say teams can't get in trouble anyway by overspending. A progressive tax can still cost a lot of money before it becomes prohibitive. However, as long as it appears there is a real limit the "buying a pennant" threat will not be viewed as a serious problem.

Meh.  Let a team declare bankruptcy and reorganize under a bankruptcy court, then find a new buyer who can keep payroll under control.  Baseball has a lot of problems, but I don't think disparate spending is the biggest.  I think as long as small market teams can occasionally compete (eg Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Diego this year), that's enough.  And I say that as a long-suffering Padres fan.

BC

OK, fair enough. However, as a "small market" team, the Padres are spending lots and lots of money. Apparently they have it. The Athletics have been a great example of the financial disparity problem. They get kind of good and then lose everybody to free agency or trade to avoid getting nothing. Rinse and repeat. One would like to believe that by being smarter a team can overcome lack of funds. Unfortunately, that is indeed the rae case.

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

[DC 86]

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Most people use MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) rather than city populations for these comparisons. It's misleading to simply compare San Francisco's and San Diego's populations since their sports teams draw from a wider fan base, and the SF Bay Area is significantly larger than the San Diego area. Of course the SF Bay Area supports two MLB teams while the Padres have the SD market to themselves. And I also agree that San Diego is by no means a small market, even though it's MSA ranks 17th in the US.

[DC 86]

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Most people use MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) rather than city populations for these comparisons. It's misleading to simply compare San Francisco's and San Diego's populations since their sports teams draw from a wider fan base, and the SF Bay Area is significantly larger than the San Diego area. Of course the SF Bay Area supports two MLB teams while the Padres have the SD market to themselves. And I also agree that San Diego is by no means a small market, even though it's MSA ranks 17th in the US.

[Phogge]

I would expect that 2022 attendance in the City will explode next year if the pandemic is truly behind us. It will be helped by this season’s success, a couple of major free agents and Buster’s resurgence.

[Phogge]

I would expect that 2022 attendance in the City will explode next year if the pandemic is truly behind us. It will be helped by this season’s success, a couple of major free agents and Buster’s resurgence.

[BostonCard]

There are 24 MLB teams in larger Nielsen TV markets than the Padres:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba-mar...n-ratings/

Obviously, some split a market, but San Diego’s media market is less than half the size of the Giants/A’s market.  If San Diego were a good TV market opportunity, surely there would be an NFL, NBA, or NHL team there, but there is not.  In contrast, the Bay Area supports the Niners, Warriors, and Sharks.

BC

---

One further add about the Giants media market.  The Bay Area is a divided market, but it is divided asymmetrically, and the Giants have the better half.  Witness the fact that the Giants have repeatedly blocked the A’s from moving to San Jose, claiming the South Bay as part of its home market.  That’s also why the A’s are generally considered a small market team and the Giants are not (though no one considers them a mega-market like NY, Chicago, or LA).

BC

[BostonCard]

There are 24 MLB teams in larger Nielsen TV markets than the Padres:

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nba-mar...n-ratings/

Obviously, some split a market, but San Diego’s media market is less than half the size of the Giants/A’s market.  If San Diego were a good TV market opportunity, surely there would be an NFL, NBA, or NHL team there, but there is not.  In contrast, the Bay Area supports the Niners, Warriors, and Sharks.

BC

---

One further add about the Giants media market.  The Bay Area is a divided market, but it is divided asymmetrically, and the Giants have the better half.  Witness the fact that the Giants have repeatedly blocked the A’s from moving to San Jose, claiming the South Bay as part of its home market.  That’s also why the A’s are generally considered a small market team and the Giants are not (though no one considers them a mega-market like NY, Chicago, or LA).

BC

[lex24]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

[lex24]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

[Mick]

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Most people use MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) rather than city populations for these comparisons. It's misleading to simply compare San Francisco's and San Diego's populations since their sports teams draw from a wider fan base, and the SF Bay Area is significantly larger than the San Diego area. Of course the SF Bay Area supports two MLB teams while the Padres have the SD market to themselves. And I also agree that San Diego is by no means a small market, even though it's MSA ranks 17th in the US.

Don't forget the massive 1.8 million Tijuana / 2.2 million Tijuana MSA population.  Just need to market effectively to TJ residents... ;)

[Mick]

The Padres are a small market team?  It's the 8th largest city in America.
List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia

They also have the fifth highest attendance in MLB, about 50% north of SF's attendance.  SF, BTW, is the nation's 17th largest city and #17 in MLB in attendance:
2021 MLB Attendance - Major League Baseball - ESPN

Most people use MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) rather than city populations for these comparisons. It's misleading to simply compare San Francisco's and San Diego's populations since their sports teams draw from a wider fan base, and the SF Bay Area is significantly larger than the San Diego area. Of course the SF Bay Area supports two MLB teams while the Padres have the SD market to themselves. And I also agree that San Diego is by no means a small market, even though it's MSA ranks 17th in the US.

Don't forget the massive 1.8 million Tijuana / 2.2 million Tijuana MSA population.  Just need to market effectively to TJ residents... ;)

[Phogge]

Is the Blue Fox still operating in TJ?

[Phogge]

Is the Blue Fox still operating in TJ?

[Giants]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

I found a couple articles that detail the Giants 2015 Top 30 prospects and 2010 Top 20 prospects.

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/4...pects-2015

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/11/...nts-top-20

Some very familiar names, some names that have faded into the background and some never made a dent.

I think the most consequential “never made a dent” guy was #6 (2010) Tommy Joseph - he was sent to Philly for the incomparable Hunter Pence…

[Giants]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

I found a couple articles that detail the Giants 2015 Top 30 prospects and 2010 Top 20 prospects.

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/4...pects-2015

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/11/...nts-top-20

Some very familiar names, some names that have faded into the background and some never made a dent.

I think the most consequential “never made a dent” guy was #6 (2010) Tommy Joseph - he was sent to Philly for the incomparable Hunter Pence…

[qwerty49]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

I found a couple articles that detail the Giants 2015 Top 30 prospects and 2010 Top 20 prospects.

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/4...pects-2015

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/11/...nts-top-20

Some very familiar names, some names that have faded into the background and some never made a dent.

I think the most consequential “never made a dent” guy was #6 (2010) Tommy Joseph - he was sent to Philly for the incomparable Hunter Pence…

Yeah, prospects always seem to be a crapshoot.  A friend of mine played LL in Pasadena with Darrell Evans.  He said Evans was a man among boys at age 12.  OTOH one of the best athletes to ever come out of my HS was a 3-sport star who was drafted by the Cubs as an infielder and found himself forever warming the pine behind Santo, Kessenger, Beckert and whatever other new guy they had signed.  He played parts of 3 seasons in the bigs, hit .260 in 450 ABs and spent 11 years in the minors before calling it quits.

[qwerty49]

Helps the 40 man problem. Watson and Bryant come off it at years end.

Funny moment on MLB Net when Bryant's price is revealed. Bart and Wade. Harold Reynolds and the others can't believe it and they shouldn't because it was a false tip from the host's sportswriter pal.

Killian has fantastic strikeout to walk ratio. He's 24 and in AA. Canario 21, with power. Who knows. Longoria not going to rehab yet and some wonder if he ever will. Bryant to play third. Who goes when LaStella and Belt return? Estrada is a hitter but he has options.

Canario is the more coveted prospect.  Both have a long ways to go.  I’d love to see see how many of each teams top 30 has made the Show over the last 15 or so years and how many actually made an impact. My guess about 7 on average.

I found a couple articles that detail the Giants 2015 Top 30 prospects and 2010 Top 20 prospects.

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2015/4...pects-2015

https://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/11/...nts-top-20

Some very familiar names, some names that have faded into the background and some never made a dent.

I think the most consequential “never made a dent” guy was #6 (2010) Tommy Joseph - he was sent to Philly for the incomparable Hunter Pence…

Yeah, prospects always seem to be a crapshoot.  A friend of mine played LL in Pasadena with Darrell Evans.  He said Evans was a man among boys at age 12.  OTOH one of the best athletes to ever come out of my HS was a 3-sport star who was drafted by the Cubs as an infielder and found himself forever warming the pine behind Santo, Kessenger, Beckert and whatever other new guy they had signed.  He played parts of 3 seasons in the bigs, hit .260 in 450 ABs and spent 11 years in the minors before calling it quits.