I still don’t think the players fully get it. The increased CBT thresholds are going to lead to even bigger contracts for the top tier free agents, but aren’t going to trickle down that much. Club controlled players are still an uber bargain, even more so when you factor in the roster flexibility of having remaining options.
Call me a fan of this and IMO it's largely due to the universal DH. No more concern as to any home field advantage, one way or the other.
Here's the expected value of draft picks through the first round. Yes it's from 2007 but it's the first one I found and the curve still holds true.
I'm not sure what youre trying to say - that higher picks are better? Of course they are. This just proves the order of magnitude we're talking about. Fangraphs came up with the below for the value of the top 10 picks a few years back after regressing projected performance of the slots, $/WAR, and discounting it back - each slot is worth $1.5M other than the absolute top couple of picks or about a $20M difference between pick 10 and pick 1.
| Pick | Present Value of Pick ($/M) |
1 | $45.5 M |
2 | $41.6 M |
3 | $38.2 M |
4 | $34.8 M |
5 | $31.9 M |
6 | $29.3 M |
7 | $27.4 M |
8 | $25.9 M |
9 | $24.5 M |
10 | $23.3 M |
https://theathletic.com/3176936/2022/03/12/gammons-through-the-long-negotiations-andrew-millers-measured-caring-approach-proved-invaluable/
You said, "I'm not at all convinced that the difference in draft position means much of anything compared to the massive economic incentive to drop payroll - its not the NBA/NFL where a top 5 pick can be a significant contributor immediately and/or be franchise altering."
I was making a comparison, which it seems like you agree with from your last sentence. If you are saying the draft provides some incentive to lose for teams that dont have good rosters, I dont think anyone would disagree with you. Its also not particularly unique or quite frankly something that I, as a fan, particularly care about. Some teams with once good rosters (e.g., the Cubs) are going to be bad while their roster turns over. Not committing a ton of cash in that period doesnt seem hugely problematic - theyre there in every league and if its only 3-4, it doesnt change the product that much. Teams that just dont ever try means you suddenly have 10 (or choose your number) that dont care. That's what destroys the product and also has a significant chilling effect on pay.
View: https://twitter.com/StelliniTweets/status/1501581330043318288
Heyman is such an enormous shit stain. The Giants were like $100M UNDER the tax before this deal what is he even talking about.
Oh. That’s an understatement
If you are rich enough to own a sports team you should be forced to spend money to Make said team competitive.
Miami has a bigger metropolitan area population than does Boston. It shouldn’t be my problem if the fans don’t care and the team can’t market.
They're going to have to put some kind of work-around in place such as a temporary unvaxxed reserve or IL list or something, akin to paternity/bereavement leave. Either that or petition the Canadian government for exemptions.
So teams whose players have done the right/smart thing (for both their team and their community) should forfeit games in "solidarity" with teams with more conspiracy theory idiots?
Or how about pressure all players to get vaxxed? There not getting vaccinated will now put their teams at a disadvantage.
I agree that all the players should get vaxxed, for their families, for their teammates, and for the community, but
Then those teams are just going to have to pay the price for their players decisions. And those unvaxxed players are going to have to deal with their choices in the clubhouse and in contract negotiations.
Yes. It is certainly a big deal.
It's a disadvantage of their own making, though, so no one should be crying for them.
It’s their own making that they’re in the same division as the only Canadian team and that the schedule was unbalanced?
No, it's their own making because they have a clear and easy path to avoid the disadvantage altogether and choose not to take it.
Well .. I beg to disagree … until the government limits or eliminates the restriction for everyone else, giving an exemption to a bunch of rich, self entitled idiot athletes because Baseball is stupid. The restriction is in place for the NHL and that’s not an issue.
I didn't say that MLB was going to get the exemption, just that they could try to petition for it. Personally, I'd rather see MLB do absolutely nothing to accommodate the players/teams that will be affected by this. Teams can either get their players vaxxed or play short-handed at Rogers Centre.
Suspended list without pay for the games they are not able to play through choices of their own.
I wonder if this will become a factor for teams close to luxury tax lines, for instance 9/162 games for Aaron Judge on a $17M salary is around $1M.
Unvaxxed players won't be paid nor will they get service time for games missed due to being unvaccinated.
Or best/worst case scenario where the Sox are in a playoff with the Blue Jays.
You literally said who gives a fuck if they (teams with unvaccinated players) don’t make the playoffs
If every team has unvaccinated players, then teams with unvaccinated players are going to make the playoffs. Vaccination status is only going to keep players out of Toronto, not the post-season. If teams don't make the post-season because they lose short-handed games in Toronto, I agree with lexrageorge: I don't give a fuck.
But some teams play more games in Toronto than others. Houston plays 3 games in Toronto and Boston plays 10. They both have unvaccinated players AFAIK. It's inherently unfair in the wildcard race as long as there's an unbalanced schedule.
It's only unfair if players remain unvaccinated. There's a choice involved here. If the Sox get on the roster everyone vaxxed, then they play 10 games in Toronto at full strength while the Astros play short-handed. Who's at a disadvantage then?
How could it be "every" team? Top 12 teams make the playoffs.
