Underachiever

I guess I assume that the pitch clock goes both ways. It's actually a "ready for play" clock that both the batter and pitcher need to abide by. At least it's that way in my head. Back in the seventies, Mike Hargrove was called the Human Rain Delay for his routine. He would be speedy compared to the Ryan Brauns of the world. Daniel Vogelbach steps out and has an entire conversation with himself between pitches.

Why would you have a problem with splitting (new) revenue? The players are the product, not petulant babies, as you seem to think. Part of the inequity in the current CBA is exactly that. The players aren't getting their share of new revenue streams. If the owners didn't have to share new and increased revenue that arises in the middle of an agreement, they could sandbag this CBA, agree on dollars, then announce a "new" contract with Netflix or Fubo or something for a billion dollars soon after.

Just asking, if they get an eight seed, they would play a 1 in the second round. Is there a potential one-seed that you think Marquette matches up best with? If they were a 7, is there a two you would like to see?

I hope that "banning the shift" means no more softball rover in right field. I have no issues with shifting, but I hate that guy in shallow right. And will a bigger base shorten the distance from 90 feet? That's pretty major.

Please expand on that. What else is there? They'll get something for ads on uniforms, but just pertaining to the CBA, what other revenues are the owners getting that makes up for what the union is asking for? I'm admittedly uninformed on this stuff, but to my knowledge the owners asked for more playoff games (xis' $130M number) and ads on uniforms. Were they getting anything other than that from the the recently nixed CBA? Meanwhile, the players were asking for what seems to be far more than a 50/50 split of the new revenue streams. That's why I think the union is trying to make up for past failures. They're trying to get far more out of this CBA than the owners would receive, so they're not just trying to win this negotiation, they are trying for such a landslide victory that they will make up for decades of losses. Sure. Revenue from streaming services wasn't a thing when the last deal was negotiated. We don't really know what teams are making from that. There is a new TV deal kicking in in 2022 that guarantees teams $100 Million per team. From Forbes.com: "Should the reported term length of the Turner Sports extension and annual media rights fee prove accurate, the total value of the deal would be approximately $3.29 billion, or an increase of 45% over the current eight-year, $2.6 billion contract, which comes out to $325 million annually." That has nothing to do with the revenue from the new round of playoffs referenced earlier. And remember, the sharing of the playoff money goes like this: Owners and players split the revenue from all series for the minimum number of games (Wild card games, First three of a best of five, first four games of a best of 7). Owners get all the revenue from additional games. That is why the owners want more playoffs, and also why canceling a month or two off the beginning of the year works so well for them. From this article: https://dodgerblue.com/average-mlb-team-payrolls-declined-despite-increasing-revenue/2021/12/29/#:~:text=Revenue%20in%20MLB%20has%20risen,in%202019%2C%20according%20to%20Forbes. "Major League Baseball payrolls dropped 4% in 2021 compared to the league’s last full season, and the $4.05 billion total was the lowest in a fully completed year since 2015. … Payrolls are down 4.6% from their record high of just under $4.25 billion in 2017, the first year of the just-expired CBA, according to information sent to clubs by the commissioner’s office and obtained by The Associated Press on Monday. Spending on big league players has not been this low since a $3.9 billion total in 2015." If the article is correct, that means that payrolls in 2021 were 200 million lower than in 2017.

If this is true, and if xis' # of $130MM from the extra playoff games is true, then it sounds like there would be around $130M of new revenue stemming from the new deal, and $100M of that would be going to the players. The union seems to realize that they screwed up so badly in the past few negotiations that they feel that they need to make up for past mistakes this time around. Selig may not have been able to "keep up with the Joneses" as an owner, but he sure kicked the snot out of the union in labor negotiations. The arbitration/pre-arby system is horrible for the players, but rather than being mad at the owners for taking advantage of that system, the current players should be furious at the MLBPA for ever agreeing to it in the first place. If that 130 million was the extent of the increased revenues, you could have a point. But it's not the extent of it.

Owners are getting rid of payroll for some (mostly) lightly-attended regular season games. Their message has been very clear in stating that the games would not be made up and that players would not get that money back. So far, in exchange, they have gotten more playoff games that, as we know, are more lucrative for them. They have very little incentive to save April and the approximately 700 million in payroll that they would be laying out. We will see if the players follow through with their threat to pull the expanded playoffs off the table. Manfred makes me laugh. "If it was solely within my ability or the ability of the clubs to get an agreement, we'd have an agreement," Manfred, who often touts his deal-making ability, said Tuesday. "The tough thing about this process is we have to get an agreement from both parties." Really, Rob? A negotiated contract is tougher than a unilaterally-imposed one? If it weren't for those meddling players...

Okay, IF the Badgers win their last two games: They would be undisputed Big Ten champions with a record of 25-5. They would be 8-3 in Quad 1 games. 12-2 in road and neutral site games. They have a low NET, but would have a 6-2 record against the teams ahead of them in the NET. The Big 10, depending on the ranking you use, is either the 2nd or third strongest conference. KenPom has UW with the 14th strongest schedule. In almost every other year, that is the resume of a 1-seed. And it should comfortably put them ahead of Purdue, since they would be two games clear of them in the conference with a 2-0 head-to-head. If they lose tonight, then they are probably in the 2-3 range. If they win, I consider a 2-seed their floor. I hope the committee reads Brewerfan. They can PM me for more bracketology gold.

Eh, I don't think that's as true and you want it to be. I remember sitting near the SkySox bullpen a few years ago and overheard [sarcasm]Brewer's great[/sarcasm] Mike Zagurski say "I really don't like baseball but I like what it pays me." To varying degrees, I'm sure this is the feeling of the vast majority of players. Ryan Braun told me he wasn't a baseball fan at spring training one time. It made me sad but but it also made me realize for the first time at age 30whatever that many if not most of the players don't love the game anywhere near as me. It's an even bigger problem in basketball where simply being tall can be enough to push people to play. The guys who spend most of their life working toward an uncertain payoff don't love the game as much as you? I don't care if Ryan Braun doesn't watch a lot of baseball or have a couple of fantasy teams. You love baseball in a different way because it is a pastime for you, not a living. I used to work with performers, and I felt like I knew more about their movies/shows than they did. One guy, who starred in a favorite sitcom, flat out told me, "I did over 100 of those episodes. I don't remember any of them that well." Others I spoke to had a tough time watching other shows and movies because they were so damn busy (and self-absorbed). On a Saturday where I might go to a movie, they were reading a treatment or a script for their next project. It never occurred to me that they didn't love what they were doing. They just had way more of a stake in it than I did. That alone can make you enjoy something less.

Eh, I don't think that's as true and you want it to be. I remember sitting near the SkySox bullpen a few years ago and overheard [sarcasm]Brewer's great[/sarcasm] Mike Zagurski say "I really don't like baseball but I like what it pays me." To varying degrees, I'm sure this is the feeling of the vast majority of players. Well, if you heard one guy say it, it must be true. Extending an overheard comment to the "vast majority" of players is a ridiculous reach, even in "varying degrees". Guy could have been having a bad day and feeling sarcastic. Or a really good day and feeling sarcastic.

Really makes you start to question the MLBPA's argument that the players aren't getting their fair share, doesn't it? No. Not at all. Using an individual case to make that argument is silly.

Can you explain to me how they got signed? And what is not right about it? I am curious, I really don't know the answer here.

I watch live sports. It's what I do. I don't like the Winter Games. My dislike stems from the fact that rarely do competitors face off. Watching anonymous, helmeted competitors do near-identical runs down a mountain, bobsled track, or luge track, is just not fun for me. Give me track and field where the first person to the tape gets the gold. Now, side by side downhill? Sign me up to watch! But when the gold-winning time is 1:41.35, and the pathetic loser who takes silver lolligags across the line .077 seconds later, it's not compelling for me as a viewer. Give me hockey, speed skating, curling, where your performance has an effect on an opponent. In case not obvious, the "pathetic loser" comment is a joke. These people train so hard and lose by the equivalent of a hiccup.

Not beat the negative drum repeatedly, I still think that percentage of revenue is the thing that will draw this out. A friend sent this link to me with the comment, "Since you like to panic, I thought you might like this." I don't like to panic, but it definitely paints a bleaker picture.

I was at the Ohio State game and thought it was a great atmosphere. It always sounds quiet on tv, but if I'm not there, it's hard to complain about the noise.

I don't understand why the Packers would bring back an expensive QB such as Carr when they can get out of cap hell a lot quicker with a cheap quarterback. I don't believe Carr is good enough to take a team to the Super Bowl, especially if they still have to cut/trade the usual suspects on the defense that have been discussed to death. Carr, even with Adams, playing with a defense without Campbell, Douglas, Smith Brothers, etc. is not a recipe for success. Even less so without Adams. unless they get picks that turn into the Micah Parsons and TJ Watt of the 2022 draft.

Hey! Don't take away my brain-dead talking points. Like the Packers at home in January, they never fail. I mean nobody wants to play the Packers in GB in January. Except for the 49ers, Bucs, 49ers again, and again, the Giants, Vikings, or the Falcons.

I am not optimistic, for this reason. The players will want the owners to open the books, and that alone is probably a bigger issue than any single item on the table.

Drop it to 50, and that's 130 teams x 35 recruits, or 4,550 fewer players on scholarship over a rolling four year period. Those people don't dry up and go away. They will perhaps walk on, and at that point, NIL takes over, as Oxy brought up. It really doesn't change the advantages that certain programs already enjoy. In fact, it bakes them in (Texas A&M). Since these players have no realistic other option if they want to play football during the first three years out of high school, all the scholarship limit does is discourage college attendance for those who could use the scholarship for, well, scholarly purposes. And at least before, those 4,550 players were getting some value out of playing football and representing a school. Now they will have to walk on to put themselves on the line to maintain any dream of playing as a pro. And as walk-ons, I don't think they have access to the same training tables, academic support and perhaps medical care that a scholarship player receives.

I'm still not over the overwhelming sentiment during baseball season that Brewer fans wanted St. Louis and LA to play in the wild card and have someone knock off the Dodgers because the Brewers were a better matchup with the Giants and then the Brewers lost to the Braves. If you fear Tampa as an opponent the most, why would you want to play the team that beat them? If Philly punishes TB with a ground game, that would seem to be a nightmare scenario for the Packers. NFL has a number of recent examples of Wild Card teams winning it all: six in the last 20 years. I worry about everybody.

Oh, please, let it be him. I think that would be an awful hire.

Bengals have been my AFC team for years, ever since I went to college in Cincinnati. It is hard for me to imagine that they might actually win a playoff game. I will be watching the game, waiting expectantly for the inevitable disaster. Burfict will jump out of the stands and tackle Derek Carr, or the Raiders will sign Kimo von Oelhoffen to shred Burrow's other ACL. Something.

My weekly “Wentz is awful” post.

I keep thinking that's a for sure call in sick tomorrow. Their nipples look healthier than Zimmer’s nose.

What will Aaron do with three weeks off after tonight? (Okay, he’ll have to practice some that third week)