Originally posted by Mixwell
View Post
-
It's like the least important thing in their metrics is to actually dominate in the regular season. Much better to just sneak in and hope to get lucky in the Post Season. -
I suspect the A's start the conversion with Volpe. Perhaps they may be willing to work a deal involving Peraza but the Yankees have said they're reluctant to trade either prospect SS so I don't see much chance for a deal to be found. The Cubs wanted Peraza included in a deal for ContrerasOriginally posted by Zimmer's Helmet View PostYou wanna know what? You gotta problem with Luis Cessa, you gotta problem with me. And I suggest you let that one marinateComment
-
I’m sure they hashed out a lot in the 15 minutes they met on Thursday. Good job!Baseball is life;
the rest is just details.Comment
-
IKR. It takes 10 minutes for everyone to take their coats off and sit down. Now people are high-fiving and making Opening Day plans because the owners "offered" to meet daily, as if that's a big thing. Charlie Brown and the football have a lot of company.Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post
I hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd, when they said "sit down" I stood up.Comment
-
Which I acknowledged with my "Yes" qualifier. But you also framed mediation as a good idea, offered by the owners and rejected by the players, which is devoid of the readily available context. Mediation may indeed be a good idea, but not prior to any good faith negotiations between both parties. It is my view that the owners did not partake in good faith negotiations in the last CBA which the MLBPA succumbed to and the owners are trying to double down on that here in an egregious fashion.Originally posted by Strategerie View Post
I appreciate this, and try to also practice this. I get dragged in the political threads quite often for this exact trait. So I have no issues with this in general, and it may just be me, but your specific position seems to lack substance.Yes, I am trying to be objective. I'm in general not a big fan of polarized opinions on any subject/debate (eg, one side is good and the other is evil). I'm more of a fan of trying to understand both sides of a debate. I've spent more of my words representing my perception of the owners side of things since the other side is getting over represented both here and in the media in my view (it seems pretty obvious that most side with the players if they were to pick sides).
As an avid baseball fan, and a resident of a state that enjoys the entertainment and financial benefits of spring training baseball, I care a lot. Not about which side "wins" but about labor peace. It seems rather obvious the owners are not even attempting to give the players - the ones who ultimately fans pay to see - a fair shake in a fair negotiation. That jeopardizes the game. It has already flushed a spring training season down the drain (games in AZ in March are amazing). I'd like them to come to a fair accord, not only to prevent a damaging strike but also to reduce the probability of another damaging CBA negotiation in full view of fans in a few years.As I've said before, I don't really care who gets their way more - the owners or the players. I also think both sides probably have reasonable stances and I don't currently have an opinion as to who is more right. I do care about changes that could be made that may really take away from the game overall and also the Yankees' long term chances to win (like expanding the playoffs, instituting an international draft, or instituting a de facto hard salary cap).
So anyone who disagrees with your take is simply overly emotional? Nah. I get your position, I think. I just believe that your view of the owners' view is based somewhat naively on the limited information we have on the full financial benefits of ownership (which I absolutely think are wildly and very intentionally opaque, hence the Marlins selling for $1.2B) and that owners right now are counting on fans like you to give them a pass for holding the line. "We're losing money, how can we pay the players more?" Hogwash.I get the impression that my representation of the probable point of view of the owners gets read as me being pro owners and creates a negative emotional response amongst some (eg, how could he possibly be pro owners?). It's not even true that I'm pro owners as I explained in the above paragraph. It is true that I'm trying to bring balance to this conversation by explaining the likely owners' point of view (which I aimed to do in a reasoned way by working thru the math/logic of the investment thesis that I believe any business person would work through on a multi-billion dollar asset).Comment
-
Relax. Opening day will start on time. With Gardner probably in LF.Originally posted by HelloNewman View PostComment
-
...and batting leadoff...LOL...Originally posted by ymike673 View Post"The Yankee is one who, if he once gets his teeth set on a thing, all creation can't make him let go." Ralph Waldo EmersonComment
-
They won’t need to include Volpe, but if Cashman isn’t willing to include Peraza to acquire one of the game’s top LH bats, then he’s a bigger fool than I already believe him to be.Originally posted by fredgmuggs View Post
A package headlined by Peraza and Austin should do the trick."Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)Comment
-
I agree that the financial info is opaque. Ive acknoweldged that from the outset and am not naive/blind to that situation. That's why I almost doubled the highest number I could find on MLB team operating profit when I did the IRR math. Is doubling enough? Maybe, maybe not. Is it too much? Maybe, maybe not. As you said, it is opaque.Originally posted by False1 View Post
But, if it's opaque, that means none of us (including you) can understand the true financial picture. You seem convicted that you somehow know more than me about the true financial picture despite being subject to the same opaqueness. Your point on the Marlins is correctly an indicator (but not definitive) that there is iffyness with the public numbers (one just needs to look at the stock market, private equity market, etc to see that companies with poor earnings can have big valuations).
What is not opaque to me is the concept of opportunity cost. To me, it is a business/financial/mathematical truism. I'm guessing many don't fully realize the massive financial opportunity cost to having assets sunk in a multi billion dollar asset at this risk level (I had not, myself, thought much about it until this last week). I have enough expertise in this area to know my take on this is not "naive" ( other than purposefully not going into big factors such as tax treatment, unrealized gains, estate tax laws, wealth gap/crypto impacts on valuations, ...).
Based on knowing generally what the hurdle rate would have to be to meet the opportunity cost of capital, it seems highly probable to me (but not certain) that the true financials (which are opaque to all of us) do not meet that hurdle rate, especially when viewed on a go forward basis. Now, all of the above is financial in nature (because most of this wrangling between owners and players is about financials and economics). As I (and others) have pointed out, most owners probably see non-financial benefits to owning a team which may make the whole endeavor worth it even if the true financials do not meet the opportunity cost of capital.
The players' core point of view seems much simpler - they don't feel like they should be getting a declining percentage of revenue. That makes sense too (and is much easier to convey to the court of public opinion). The players have the added advantage of the public being inclined to be on their side (fans draw connections and buy jerseys of the players and not the owners). I don't know (or care) who is more right (especially since I am not privy to full information). In general, I'm just a believer in balanced discourse and representation of both sides (and, much more broadly, I view opinion polarization towards one side or the other of a debate as an extremely disturbing and dangerous trend in the US and the world). As it relates to baseball, I just want things to move forward in the best interests of the game of baseball and the Yankees, in particular.
Comment
-
That's a misunderstanding of my point. I think it's human nature to have an initial negative response when someone makes a point contrary to your core belief. For example, if I identify as a Republican and someone says to me "the Democrats did a great thing by ...", I think it's typical for my first emotion to be negative and for the other person to lose some credibility in my eyes. Same would go if I identify as a Democrat and someone says "the Republicans did a great thing by ...".Originally posted by False1 View Post
You can substitute any of the great debates for Republicans and Democrats in the above scenario (pro-life versus pro-choice, Vax mandates versus no Vax mandates, pro-Cashman versus anti-Cashman, players versus owners, ...).
I am not aiming to make a judgement as to how influenced you, personally, may or may not be to this dynamic . I'm just saying in general I think this dynamic is a real thing and inhibits diversity of opinions and promotes polarization.
The relevance here is that I posted a pro owner point of view (even though, net of everything, I'm not pro owner) on a message board that seems to be heavily pro player. Therefore, I expect many of the readers to have a negative visceral reaction since it is providing support for a side (the owners' side) that they are against.
On a semi-related point, I would love to see discourse in the world on debates migrate towards side #1 has these 4 great points, side #2 has these 4 great points, and I tend to favor side #1 since their points resonate more to me than those of side #2. Unfortunately, discourse in the world seems to be migrating the other way due, in my opinion, to the management of normal human visceral reactions coupled with the increasing customization of media (eg, we used to just have the news but we know have right-leaning news, left-leaning news, ... which feeds polarization).Comment
-
Glad, we agree on the importance of objectivity.Originally posted by False1 View Post
I'm sorry you feel like my position lacks substance. I've offered very specific arguments and analysis to aim to provide what I would define as "substance".
Perhaps, it's because, at present, net of everything, I am Switzerland when it comes to whether the players or the owners are more right. Perhaps me not picking a side is what causes a lack of substance for you? Because I have (a) incomplete info and (b) no real ability to affect the outcome, I think it's okay to land in the middle (versus being strongly opinionated on something that is hard to fully understand from my seat and that I haven't overly tried to understand).
Comment
-
How about some expansion talk?
How about a balanced schedule (6 games against 15 teams in your league = 90 games + 4 games against the 16 teams in the other league = 64 games = 154 game season)?
16 teams in each league based on geographics:
*********************************************************
League 1 - NYY NYM BOS PHI WAS BAL TOR DET MIA TBR ATL HOU PIT MIL STL MONTREAL
*********************************************************
League 2 - CLE CIN CHW CHC TEX ARI KCR MIN LAD LAA SDP OAK SEA SFG COL LAS VEGAS
*********************************************************
Post-Season Play:
Round 1 - 7 seeds in each league. The league winner gets a 1st round bye while the next 3 seeds play at home vs. the last 3 seeds in a best-of-three series.
Round 2 - The 4 remaining teams then play a best-of-five series.
Round 3 - The 2 remaining teams then play a best-of-seven League Championship series.
Round 4 - The 2 league champions then play a best-of-seven World Series
***********************************************************
Best records get home field advantage in rounds 2, 3, & 4
13 wins needed to win the whole thing, or 11 wins for the League winners in each league.
Lots to discuss here."Somebody once asked me if I ever went up to the plate trying to hit a home run. I said, 'Sure, every time.'" -- Mickey MantleComment
-
I’ve been for something like this for a long time.Originally posted by sjb23 View PostBrian Cashman: "I have no idea."Comment
-
You tell me to relax and then you tell me Gardner's going to be in left field????Originally posted by ymike673 View Post
But seriously, I'm plenty relaxed. At this point in my life I can survive fine without baseball. I'm just cynically suspicious of everything these parties do, and I can't help but wonder if this owner "offer" to meet every day is just public posturing. My spidey sense is that public sympathy right now is more with the players and they may sense that, too. What better maneuver than to say let's meet every day, offer the same garbage every day in the meetings, then when the players' reps finally have enough and storm out, say "See?? We're trying to negotiate, THEY'RE the ones who won't talk!"
It's a conspiracy theory, I know, but one I'm quite comfortable with, knowing what I know about the parties involved.
I hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd, when they said "sit down" I stood up.Comment
-
I was going to say "too much interleague" but since you're mixing up the leagues anyway, yeah what the heck.Originally posted by sjb23 View Post
Montreal is the clear choice for an eastern expansion team if they can get the stadium built. For the western team I'd prefer Portland to Las Vegas (probably not as profitable right off the bat but better long-term potential to develop a devoted fan base after the novelty wears off IMO). Or even San Jose, though there would be territorial issues there with the Bay Area teams.
I hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd, when they said "sit down" I stood up.Comment
Comment