nate82

Not to be a downer but don’t expect the Brewers to be playing in FA until their arbitration players are signed or the arbitration numbers are known.

You have August 8th 2022 in the rules section. Do you mean March 31?

They were a lock before. So still a lock now. The conference tournament would have only helped their seeding nothing more. They are probably an 8 seed at best right now and maybe a 10 at the lowest.

And the Bears get fleeced again. Not really. A 2nd round picks and a 6th is pretty good value wise. Also should give the Bears some more cap room next year.

I would rather keep as many streaming services as possible otherwise it will turn out just like cable. Consumers tend to win when there are multiple companies competing for their money. It sucks for MLB viewers in this instance but I would rather have this inconvenience than going back to cable.

If the 4 $200m is correct which it may or may not be but if it is the Packers could be in real trouble if Rodgers retires after the 2022 season. Basically the Packers will be like the Saints are right now.

MLB is trying to get the next generation of fans and the next generation of fans on average do not have cable. These fans all have streaming services and they have multiple of them. Sometimes they carry one or two one month and then cancel the next and only have one or none. From the 20 something's that I work with none of them have cable. They all have Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Hulu or YouTube. Some have HBO and others but it is mostly just a combination of Netflix, Disney+ or Hulu. They usually carry one or two in a given month. This is very smart by MLB on a business standpoint. The cable market viewers will be decreasing as the baby boomers, genx and to a lesser extent millennials start to fall off. Millennials and genx tend to have both cable and a streaming service or two. The way American's consume entertainment is changing and if MLB doesn't change with this change the sport may start to die out. I wouldn't be surprised if the regional sports for the small market teams start to get dropped in the next 5-10 years or less and less games are televised think like the early to mid 90's where there was only a handful of games televised. If MLB continues down the cable route this is what will happen. MLB has to pivot to the streaming services as this is where the viewership is heading to. These are smart decisions that MLB is making now you may disagree with it and find it annoying but this is not a dumb decision by MLB.

To go off of this there was a trade in place between the Bears and the Seahawks last year that Carrol killed at the last minute. It was supposedly Mack, 2 1st's, and other picks to Seattle for Wilson and picks. That deal being killed last year I wonder which one would have been better for Seattle? Seattle probably has a top 5 pick this year and another in the 10-15 range with the Bears pick. I think pick wise it would be a wash. Now the players that the Seahawks got back now is that better than Mack?

ESPN is still a subscription if you just got basic cable and it doesn't come with ESPN are you still able to watch? Majority of people in the US have multiple streaming services. Yes older people will have a harder time but this is obviously not being geared towards older people. MLB is trying to capture a younger audience who are going to be around for a lot longer than the older audience. MLB already has this older audience and the inconvenience of the older audience doesn't matter to MLB. The few games that it will impact on this audience is going to be minimal but the possible increase in new and younger fans from these services far out weights the negative from a dying off older audience. This is the reality here younger people tend to not carry cable and instead carry streaming services. This is all about getting to that younger audience.

I don't see this as that big of a deal. It is the same as ESPN having exclusive games. ABC, CBS and NBC don't want to cover MLB games as the revenue is small and it is not worth the contract MLB would be looking for. It would be nice if MLB.TV allowed you to watch without blackout restrictions. I haven't used MLB.TV in awhile but it would be nice if MLB Network was included with the subscription. If MLB would pick a streaming service and put all of their games on that service I would sign up the next day.

My guess is a 2nd round pick. Not even close at best 3rd round pick and realistically it would be a late 4th or 5th round pick. Love hasn’t really shown anything he is worth more than a 3rd round pick.

[sarcasm]But what if they are constipated then what?[/sarcasm]

I don't think there is a single 1-4 seed team that are overly dominant where they can't be upset. All four of the current 1 seeds can be beaten and are not overly dominating but a preferable matchup would be with either Auburn or Arizona. For a number 2 seed I think Marquette matches up fairly well with Kentucky or Duke. Quick edit I got the midwest and east mixed up for the seedings as a #7 Marquette would probably play Auburn or Kentucky depending on where they put Kentucky or Auburn probably Auburn in the East region. If Marquette is a #8 then they will be in the Midwest region and the #1 there should be Baylor or Kansas.

Apparently the $50m a year deal for Rodgers is real. There have been some reports of the Packers offering Rodgers a deal that will alter the market for QB's whatever that is supposed to mean. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/aaron-rodgers-just-received-a-market-altering-contract-offer-from-the-packers-per-report/

I believe Marquette is in but they are hanging around the 8-10 seed territory. If they can win one or two games I think they will get an 8 seed in the tournament. Marquette is going to be a dangerous team in the tournament if they get hot. I think Marquette is going to be the popular upset pick and I wouldn't be surprised to see them go on a run where they get two or three wins in the tournament.

I think the Badgers are locked in at either a 3 or 4 seed. Currently they are a 3-seed according to the latest CBS polls. I don't think they can get a 2-seed so either a 3 or 4 seed right now depending on how well they play in the Big Ten tournament an early loss could drop them to a 4 seed but that is as low as the Badgers will go with the seedings. I think if the Badgers win at least one game in the Big Ten tournament they are a 3-seed. That is all they have to do to get a 3-seed but if they lose their first game I can see the committee knocking them down to a 4-seed with an early exit in the Big Ten tournament.

I never said it was anything in this post. In previous posts I have stated that the floor offer was nothing from the owners it had nothing in it that would help the players or what would happen if a team were below the minimum. It was a dumb offer by the owners and they knew it was a dumb offer. The players never countered with it and they won't bring a floor proposal to the owners either. Please reread what I wrote the players union is ran by the top tier free agents and they don't want to see a floor or a ceiling for spending. They want everything to be uncapped as they see it as a better opportunity to gain more. If the players were interested in more revenue sharing they would make an offer where we see this. They haven't made this offer so I don't believe revenue sharing with the players is even on their minds. The MLBPA looks to be more interested in getting the CBT as high as they can to help out the top tier free agents more so than helping out the fringe and career minor league players. If the MLBPA really wanted to help all of their members and not just the top tier free agents they would be negotiating for a floor but they are not. They just want the CBT to increase so the top tier free agents can get more. That is all they want.

Except MLBPA has not put forward a proposal for a floor. The only thing they really care about is increasing how much the cap is at. MLBPA is not interested in a salary cap at all and they don't see a revenue split as something that is beneficial to them. If the MLBPA could get the CBT removed from MLB that would be there perfect end game scenario. I repeat the MLBPA is not interested in shared revenues with the owners as it would cut into the salary figures of the top tier free agents. The MLBPA doesn't care about the players who are on the fringes of a teams roster as they don't matter as there are others in the minors that will take their place. The only thing the MLBPA cares about is the top tier free agents and those free agents getting the biggest contracts in free agency. Again if the MLBPA could get rid of the CBT that would be a huge win for them and they wouldn't care what it did to the league at all. If it means the large market teams only handing out big free agent deals as long as they keep on increasing the MLBPA doesn't care. This stance is obvious as the MLBPA has not come forward with a proposal for a floor. They have not and they will not make a proposal for a salary floor as that means there will be a hard salary cap and the top tier free agents do not want this. The top tier free agents see this as a cap on their potential earnings and they really do not care about anyone else.

With the biggest sticking point for the players union right now being the CBT increased I don't see how that helps the non premiere free agents at all. If the players union were truly unhappy about some of the other teams spending then they should have proposed a salary floor which they did not. The owners were the only ones to propose a salary floor. The players know that if they propose a salary floor that will essentially put a salary cap in place in MLB and the players union will not allow that to happen. With the CBT increase this is all about the premiere players getting more and not about the players union as a whole.

No it will always be on as long as it is connected to the TV. The remote is to navigate through the menus when you have your source as the Amazon firestick.

There is this thing called ad blocker it works wonders. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-%E2%80%94-best-ad-blocker/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom?hl=en-US

The St Paul Saints are the Twins AAA affiliate. MLB may or may not like it but they do allow it. I doubt MLB will allow for an expansion team to have a AAA affiliate and an MLB team in one city it just doesn't make any sense at all. It also makes more sense for MLB to grant a new AAA city especially after MLB gutted the minors in 2021.

I think the MLB wants to return to the 2 divisions in the AL and NL. There could be some realignment based on regions but I am not sure how that will work as MLB isn't really set up all that well for this. There have been some rumors where it will be split up like the following adding two more teams would even this out more one in Nashville for the AL south and one in Vegas to the NL West: AL East: Yankees Red Sox Blue Jays Orioles Mets Phillies Nationals Pirates AL South: Braves Marlins Rays Astros Rangers Royals Diamondbacks Nashville (Expansion) NL North: White Sox Guardians Reds Tigers Twins Brewers Cubs Cardinals NL West: Dodgers Giants Angeles Padres A's Mariners Rockies Las Vegas (Expansion) This would suck for the Pirates but it is where they belong geographically and it is not like they have been all that competitive in the NL Central either with one large market team and one mid market team. The Diamondbacks, Cardinals and Rockies could be in different divisions ideally I think MLB would want to keep the Diamondbacks in the West but that would then mean either moving the Rockies to the North and the Cardinals to the south. Like I said previously MLB isn't really set up for this but it is something that MLB has discussed as a possibility of 2 divisions in the AL and NL. This would help with the playoffs as you only have two auto spots and the rest would be dependent on record. But if that is the case it would probably just be best to go the NBA route and just remove the divisions and just go with the best 7 records and that is how the seeding is determined. Only use the divisions to plan out the schedule and that is it so travel isn't a nightmare for the teams.

Good news, for sure. I've somewhat resigned myself to expanded postseason. I don't like it but I don't really hate it, either. But I hate the idea of nearly half the league (14 teams) making the postseason. That's just nonsensical in baseball. Twelve teams in the postseason would actually be pretty reasonable if the league stops exhorting existing cities to buy teams new stadiums and just adds two new expansion teams. It has been almost 25 years since the last expansion, it's probably time to add two more. There is definitely going to be expansion. What MLB is waiting on is for the Rays and A's stadium issues to be resolved first. The A's look like they are close to either moving to Vegas or staying in Oakland. The Rays situation is going to take a little bit longer. If the Rays don't get a new stadium they will definitely get moved from Tampa Bay as MLB is going to force them to move. The stadium the Rays are playing in is just not up to MLB standards. MLB would like to keep two teams in Florida so Orlando or Jacksonville would be in play here. I don't see either city building a new stadium for the Rays so that may rule out the two teams in Florida. The next options are Charlotte and Nashville. Currently Nashville has the best chance to get a team followed by Las Vegas, Montreal and Mexico City. Yes MLB does want to expand to Mexico and they are very serious about getting a team in Mexico. If the Rays and A's stay where they are at then I think the two cities that will be added will be Nashville and Las Vegas. This could then add new AAA cities as both Nashville and Las Vegas are currently AAA cities and I doubt MLB will allow for a MLB and AAA team in the same city. Hopefully there a deal can be completed today as this has dragged on for far to long already.

The NFL has too much parity if that is a thing but I find the NFL extremely boring right now. The NBA looks like it has parity but it doesn't really have parity. In the NBA you have about 4-teams that have a realistic chance at a championship and then 6-10 teams that have absolutely no chance at winning. The NBA is a superstar driven league where one player can completely dominate the game. There are also super teams where players gather together to increase their chances at winning a championship. In the NBA you need that superstar and at least one or two almost superstars on the team. The NBA you also need less players and can put 70% of your teams payroll in 3-players. MLB and even the NFL that is not going to work as you need more players to fill out the team and having 3 or 4 players taking up 70% of the teams payroll and you are probably not going to be a playoff team unless you have a really good farm system churning out all star players playing on pre arbitration contracts. The NFL is also completely different than MLB and if you have an above average QB you are going to be a playoff team. If you have an elite QB you are basically almost guaranteed a playoff spot and probably a NFC/AFC championship game. While there are other areas that need to be at least average or above average you don't necessarily have to pay a high amount. I am not sure how a cap would work in MLB and if a cap would even get to more parity. Even if you put the cap at $150m the A's and Rays wouldn't even spend that much to get to the $150m mark would they even get close to $100m? So do you put the minimum at $100m? Then what? Does that really create parity in the league? I think with a cap there will still be parity issues with the large market teams. Even when the Pirates were good they only pushed their payroll up to $99m. Lets say the cap that season was $125m would there have been more parity? I don't believe there would be as player salaries would shrink in this scenario and you are probably getting closer to the NBA where players go and form super teams. Pittsburgh wouldn't be a place where players would go around making a super team that is probably a destination where stars want out and will go to a large market team. I just don't see how a salary cap is going to bring parity to MLB. Teams like the Dodgers are still going to be good even with a salary cap. If there isn't a salary floor with serious consequences for going below the floor like losing draft picks or revenue sharing then I just don't see the point of adding a salary cap. What stops the A's and Pirates from only spending $50m a year in payroll and thus just being whoever's whipping boy? Maybe they get a good first round pick and that player then comes onto a team that tops out at just below the salary cap or just above the salary floor. Will that team be competitive or just better than the 90+ loss team previously? The problem with MLB right now in terms of parity is not a few teams spending too much it is the bottom 10 teams not spending more. These 10 teams are the problem in MLB for parity: Tampa Bay Rays ($75,421,213) Kansas City Royals ($72,925,000) Oakland Athletics ($71,773,334) Minnesota Twins ($71,742,857) Seattle Mariners ($71,350,000) Arizona Diamondbacks ($66,610,000) Miami Marlins ($55,700,000) Pittsburgh Pirates ($34,450,000) Baltimore Orioles ($29,416,666) Cleveland Guardians ($29,050,000) Bottom 10 teams in payroll NBA: Houston Rockets ($127,342,732) Detroit Pistons ($125,295,170) San Antonio Spurs ($120,320,886) Dallas Mavericks ($120,219,547) Orlando Magic ($119,945,554) New York Knicks ($118,202,331) Charlotte Hornets ($115,954,781) New Orleans Pelicans ($114,929,039) Memphis Grizzlies ($112,867,709) Oklahoma City Thunder ($78,179,900) Bottom 10 teams in payroll NFL (ACTIVE): Detroit Lions ($76,519,893) New York Jets ($88,174,985) Carolina Panthers ($96,749,377) Philadelphia Eagles ($101,610,988) Denver Broncos ($107,269,390) New Orleans Saints ($107,680,541) Washington Football Team ($108,019,140) Baltimore Ravens ($113,199,729) Houston Texans ($115,736,939) Minnesota Vikings ($117,978,121) There is a $50m gap between MLB's lowest payroll teams compared to the NFL and NBA. That is the parity issue right there. It is not the top 5 teams in payroll it is the bottom 10 that are causing the biggest issue with parity. If you take the bottom three teams in MLB payroll wise you get about $95m which that total puts higher than only these three teams the Lions, Jets and the Thunder. This is a huge problem that needs to be fixed far more than what the top 5 payroll teams in MLB spend. The bottom 4 teams in MLB payroll would equal to about the 8th or 9th team in NFL payroll. This is a huge problem and a salary cap would not fix this.