The Mets Changed the Game

[Matt Braun]

With one clean move, Steve Cohen altered baseball. After already assembling a hivemind of talent capable of thumping a challenging NL East, the man richer than God signed Carlos Correa, and we all have to live with the consequences.

Image courtesy of Frank Becerra Jr. / The Journal News / USA TODAY NETWORK

 

Steve Cohen is a man outside of MLB. He views his team as a fan, not a businessman. Other franchises may penny-pinch, cry poor, or slice on the margins in a twisted strategic game dressed as analytical wisdom yet ultimately rooted in the almighty bottom line. Cohen is a different beast. He will stop at nothing to acquire the best talent the Lord placed on this Earth. “If it’s a few percent more, what’s the difference?” said the man who had just pledged to pay a guy over $300 million. He probably puffed a cigar while saying it.

The natural reaction is one of disgust; the man just broke the sport, after all. Once the George Steinbrenner spending of the 90s and 00s gave way to the few remaining albatrosses left in MLB—enjoy retirement, Albert Pujols—teams finally saw through the free-agent haze, seeing it as fools gold. Contracts became wiser. It took four months for people to realize signing Manny Machado was a good move. An occasional Stephen Strasburg or Anthony Rendon wave will rock the boat, but its aim is true; smart teams are too savvy to crash.

A man bombarding in, guns blazing, to sign a historic amount of elite free agents in reaction to losing to the Padres in the NLDS sets off alarms. This isn’t how teams are supposed to act.

As we all know so well, franchises are supposed to Know Their Role, sign Their Guys—an appropriate amount of them—then play each other under a gentlemanly façade that this is The Best They Can Do. The Yankees stopped making the A’s their development team because it became uncouth in the public eye. That hurts business. People must somehow believe in a fair baseball league. 

The state approving one’s ability to drive coincides with the precise moment a rational being realizes that baseball is dementedly unfair, but the game’s beauty has tranced us all; we’re content with rationalizing the immense inequality as long as the product supplies its thrills.

Cohen’s ultimate sin is that he would rather play a different game: if spending rules exist solely as tax, then why would you do anything other than spend as much money as you have? Who cares about spending $30 million a year when it takes 33 such contracts to hit $1 billion—a scratch against any owner’s vast wealth? 

Are his actions good for baseball? In the immediate future, no. Cohen’s Mets will win a thousand games in 2023 and—with permission from the baseball gods—bulldoze other powerhouses with such ease that it’ll be a joke to tell across generations. The Dodgers are speed bumps when Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are your 1-2 punch, and your lineup has Mark Canha hitting 8th. Not even one of those good speed bumps either; they’re that worn-down crumble someone installed in a school parking lot 40 years ago that hasn’t received a fix since all funding goes to a new scoreboard for a perpetual 3-9 football team. 

But Cohen could be in for a long-term play; while he sees his actions as buying great players to add to his human trading card deck, he’s also applying pressure to other owners. This is the age of social media. Teams are more visible than ever. Any average dolt can hurl insults directly at a franchise’s social media account, bringing them closer to the people’s will than in the medieval times when talking with the king was impossible. Fans don’t have enough time to affect this off-season, but who knows what kind of weird pressure points they’ll press when a team lowballs a free agent in the age of a team possessing a nearly half-billion-dollar payroll. 

Or teams may ignore the noise until their bottom-line falls. Franchises are funny like that. 

This isn’t Cohen’s fault. Any of us poors would love to own our favorite team, churning through cartoon piles of money while our net worth remains iron-clad. The only thing Cohen broke was tradition; Baseball created spending rules based on inequality, added new ones for eye wash, then relied on their closed community of ownership to keep others in line so that the veneer remained intact. An outsider stomped on those rules; it’s up to baseball to react.

 

 

View full article

[D.C Twins]

VERY well written Matt!!!!!!

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

It will be interesting to see where this time of haves and have nots ends up. I hope baseball responds appropriately, but given that they introduced differing baseballs to different teams I am not confident that they will.

[Doctor Gast]

Cohen has broken the façade that MLB is fair and the luxury tax is curbing unrestraint. I hope this will wake up the other owners to unite & establish a more rigid fine. That a champion team shouldn't be bought but developed through scouting, drafting, coaching & trading.

A fine should be invoked that'll help the other teams to compete with increased profit sharing.

[dxpavelka]

Worth noting that he has not yet bought a championship.  Such things are earned, not bought.  He might and he might not.  Here's to rooting against him.

[mickster]

A hard cap would help as well

 

[Heiny]

Like it or not, they should be kinda fun to watch.

[BuxtonBonanza]

Much has been made recently about how broken the MLB is compared to the NFL with respect to revenue sharing. National deals (ESPN, BamTech etc.) are split equally while RSNs are a cash printing machine for many but not all. The luxury tax acts as a soft cap but the lower revenue teams who receive it don't use it to spend up to any type of soft floor. 

Despite this inequality leading to multiple 100 loss teams and long suffering fandoms, the optimist in me sees the possibility of a lot of creative ways to skin the cat. The Dodgers/Yankees blow the doors out on payroll almost yearly but you also have the Rays who operate on the edge of talent assessment and payroll. Yes Cohen/Seidler go all in on FA and trades but you also have the Braves who lock up talent at a young age to team-friendly (but not wholly inequitable) contracts. You also have a few teams a year (like the Orioles and the Guardians last year) who go full out young and hope to catch lighting in the bottle. 

If it were up to me, I would institute a floor and completely reconfigure revenue sharing but since the likelihood of that is remote to say the least, the current model at least gives a team several ways to navigate toward a championship. For the Twins who sit in the middle of payroll, there seems to be no clear direction they are charting although we all wish that they would be more like Cohen than Fisher. Offering $285M to Correa is an encouraging sign of spending more but who knows whether the game has truly changed for the FO/owners or not. 

[mikelink45]

Quote

An occasional Stephen Strasburg or Anthony Rendon wave will rock the boat, but its aim is true; smart teams are too savvy to crash.

This is the issue.  If you are  Cohen these are not a problem, but the Nationals finished last - a terrible team, and the Angels were 20th - two below the Twins.  If the Twins were carrying those two on their payroll we could all tune out and come back in 10 years.  

Could the Pohlads afford it?  Sure.  But they are not playing that game and we are not in NY of LA.  

The problem is that MLB is divided between 30 owners (all massively rich) but each independent personalities.  Did Steinbrenner's spending change the league?  No. Others did not follow. 

We rank 9th in Payroll (almost the same as our standings among all 30 teams. 

Of course our division winner Cleveland Guardians rank 26th in payroll.  And Tampa Bay is 28th.  

No matter what we want, each team choses their own path, but they have to be smart in the path that they choose.  We cannot afford to DFA players who still have rich contracts, but the big teams can.  Again, it is the owner that chooses the path.  But our owners have their path and our FO has their wisdom.   The rest of us just react. 

[LewFordLives]

There will be a reckoning in the next couple years. The RSNs are getting hit hard by cord cutting, and many teams will see their largest revenue source dry up. Of course, Cohen could probably care less. When you have that much money it doesn't matter.

[EGFTShaw]

What I think, and take this a few grains of salt, some lime and tequila, is that this is a bump in time.

If, (and look at the LAD), these big spenders win a WS then they might compete against each in the stratospheric spending world.

But with all their spending in from 2010 to now, LADs won only one world series.  KC won one in that time.  SFG won 3.

A baseball nerd friend of mine and long die-hard fan of the NY Metropolitans told me; NYM may have an awesome collection of talent, but not necessarily the best team.  He's not sure the signings have made them a better team.

If this spending guaranteed a trip the WS then maybe it would be more embraced by the owners.  

But it doesn't.

I don't remember who wrote this, (maybe one of our illustrious Twins beat writers on The Athletic), but you can have a very good regular season team with a pitching staff made up of all #2 and #3 pitchers.  But come the playoffs, the team that has a clear cut #1 who can shut down the opposition will fare better in the post season.

So, I am amused the Cohen has outspent the NYYs.  I would love to see these two teams go at each other in the free market.

I am also amused at the SD Friars spending regardless of their needs because of their obsession with the LAD.

All this does point to something needs to balance it a bit more. 

Maybe Hard Floor and a Soft, (But more punitive), Cap.  Maybe a % of the new contract gets paid to the former team, (ala the Japanese posting).  Something. 

I think the Braves are smart, paying their young talent more when they are most productive.

[Unwinder]

I think the game only changes if Cohen's spending results in a salary cap. Otherwise, prices on free agents just go up, more owners have to bite the bullet and spend on them, and the eventual result is that every team ends up with the same free agents they would've signed anyway, but at three times the salary,

[h2oface]

".... richer than God", eh? Pohlads could do the same thing. So could Dolan of Cleveland. So could most owners. They just whine about baseball being a business. But may there be more owners that make baseball their favorite hobby and an avenue to spend the money that can't be taken to the grave, money that they got lucky to get. Money for money. Spend it. I have more a problem with the billionaires that won't spend it, than those that do. One could say the ultra rich that don't spend are ruining the game as much as the reverse presented here. Spend, Baseball is a game. Stop making it a business. SPEND SPEND SPEND. Personally, I like a guy that wants to have fun with his wealth rather than pinch pennies, or millions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125149/wealthiest-mlb-teams-owners/

[Doctor Gast]

5 hours ago, BuxtonBonanza said:

Much has been made recently about how broken the MLB is compared to the NFL with respect to revenue sharing. National deals (ESPN, BamTech etc.) are split equally while RSNs are a cash printing machine for many but not all. The luxury tax acts as a soft cap but the lower revenue teams who receive it don't use it to spend up to any type of soft floor. 

Despite this inequality leading to multiple 100 loss teams and long suffering fandoms, the optimist in me sees the possibility of a lot of creative ways to skin the cat. The Dodgers/Yankees blow the doors out on payroll almost yearly but you also have the Rays who operate on the edge of talent assessment and payroll. Yes Cohen/Seidler go all in on FA and trades but you also have the Braves who lock up talent at a young age to team-friendly (but not wholly inequitable) contracts. You also have a few teams a year (like the Orioles and the Guardians last year) who go full out young and hope to catch lighting in the bottle. 

If it were up to me, I would institute a floor and completely reconfigure revenue sharing but since the likelihood of that is remote to say the least, the current model at least gives a team several ways to navigate toward a championship. For the Twins who sit in the middle of payroll, there seems to be no clear direction they are charting although we all wish that they would be more like Cohen than Fisher. Offering $285M to Correa is an encouraging sign of spending more but who knows whether the game has truly changed for the FO/owners or not. 

My sentiments exactly, I'd hope that after this, the majority of non big market teams could get together to level the playing field,

[DocBauer]

In the short term, is Cohen good for baseball? The answer is NO. He is adding to the problems with baseball, and the vast inequity that exists in the game itself. And please, no tired arguements that EVERY ownership could just match the Mets and every team could have a $300M payroll, pay luxury taxes, etc. 

IF Correa indeed signs on the dotted line, the Mets will pay close to $500M in total payroll and taxes in 2023. The Braves, being publicly owned, are the ONLY team in MLB that are forced to open their books. They earned something like $530M in 2022. So if they matched the Mets, almost their entire earnings would be spent on payroll before paying managers, coaches, front office personnel, scouts, trainers, milb players and personnel, improvements to facilities, etc. And that's while having a TBS as their flag station nation wide.

We are NOT talking about an even playing field, regardless of how you feel about billionaire ownership.

Is Cohen good for baseball long term? Probably YES. Why? Because he...and to a lesser degree the Yankees, Dogers, Giants, etc...are going to force real change in the game itself. OR, the game will irreparably broken.

Cohen is playing within the parameters of the rules, as they have been written by ownership/MLB. But we are headed toward what should be a cataclysm event in about 4yrs when the next collective bargaining takes place.

Remember, we're still talking about 30 ownership groups here. At some point...possibly firmly nudged by lack of attendance and dwindling interest in such a maddening uneven sport...the majority of owners are going to be fed up. They will not be competitive. Profits will shrink. Egos will be bruised. Even billionaires will cry out "this isn't right or fair!"

Said owners will continue to see the wealth and growth of the NFL...and even college football's popularity in the mainstream of public consumption...and realize they are "losing", despite the $ pouring in.

EGO is not a bad thing. It's about pride, confidence, and a feeling of quality and worth, as long as it doesn't become something tainted by pure conceit. I dare say every sports team owner has purchased their team not merely as a future sales investment, not as yet another source of income since their other business ventures undoubtedly earn far more, but because they had the EGO to want to have something to "play with" and be a part of.

Personally, I've never begrudged players making $M's, nor owners making $ off their teams. BUT, if you're going to own a pro team, in any sport, you should try to make your "hobby" a fun and winning hobby...even making some profit from it...or you just picked the wrong investment to have fun with. Start a bridge club, play poker, or learn to play D&D if you don't want to "pony up" to try to compete.

But yet again, we're not talking about a level playing field. MLB ownership needs to step up, FINALLY, in a few years to realize how crazy this is all becoming. Hence, EGO in their investment in which their very name is attached! MORE EQUITABLE revenue sharing. A solid, quality FLOOR that EVERY TEAM needs to be at. You might even have a floating floor for teams as players age and move and trams re-build. And then you need some sort of CEILING to CAP what is allowed for competitive balance. Said ceiling might STILL include some "soft cap" flexibility for existing talent to be retained, similar to the NBA.

Like the NFL...the juggernaut of American sports...some teams will still be more profitable due to various media deals, attendance, merchandise, etc. But it will be up to ownership to hire the right people to run the franchise, make moves, draft and develop smart, sign the right FA, and provide the best team possible to win and compete.

So YES, Cohen could be good for the future of MLB as the "other" owners see their investments shrink, their EGO's bruised, lower fan interest due to lack of competitive interest, etc, and say "enough is enough". We need a change or see our sport shrink.

Either that, or baseball is going to start a slow death spiral that none of us wants to see, and I doubt ownership wants to see either.

[h2oface]

16 hours ago, DocBauer said:

In the short term, is Cohen good for baseball? The answer is NO. He is adding to the problems with baseball, and the vast inequity that exists in the game itself. And please, no tired arguements that EVERY ownership could just match the Mets and every team could have a $300M payroll, pay luxury taxes, etc. 

IF Correa indeed signs on the dotted line, the Mets will pay close to $500M in total payroll and taxes in 2023. The Braves, being publicly owned, are the ONLY team in MLB that are forced to open their books. They earned something like $530M in 2022. So if they matched the Mets, almost their entire earnings would be spent on payroll before paying managers, coaches, front office personnel, scouts, trainers, milb players and personnel, improvements to facilities, etc. And that's while having a TBS as their flag station nation wide.

We are NOT talking about an even playing field, regardless of how you feel about billionaire ownership.

Is Cohen good for baseball long term? Probably YES. Why? Because he...and to a lesser degree the Yankees, Dogers, Giants, etc...are going to force real change in the game itself. OR, the game will irreparably broken.

Cohen is playing within the parameters of the rules, as they have been written by ownership/MLB. But we are headed toward what should be a cataclysm event in about 4yrs when the next collective bargaining takes place.

Remember, we're still talking about 30 ownership groups here. At some point...possibly firmly nudged by lack of attendance and dwindling interest in such a maddening uneven sport...the majority of owners are going to be fed up. They will not be competitive. Profits will shrink. Egos will be bruised. Even billionaires will cry out "this isn't right or fair!"

Said owners will continue to see the wealth and growth of the NFL...and even college football's popularity in the mainstream of public consumption...and realize they are "losing", despite the $ pouring in.

EGO is not a bad thing. It's about pride, confidence, and a feeling of quality and worth, as long as it doesn't become something tainted by pure conceit. I dare say every sports team owner has purchased their team not merely as a future sales investment, not as yet another source of income since their other business ventures undoubtedly earn far more, but because they had the EGO to want to have something to "play with" and be a part of.

Personally, I've never begrudged players making $M's, nor owners making $ off their teams. BUT, if you're going to own a pro team, in any sport, you should try to make your "hobby" a fun and winning hobby...even making some profit from it...or you just picked the wrong investment to have fun with. Start a bridge club, play poker, or learn to play D&D if you don't want to "pony up" to try to compete.

But yet again, we're not talking about a level playing field. MLB ownership needs to step up, FINALLY, in a few years to realize how crazy this is all becoming. Hence, EGO in their investment in which their very name is attached! MORE EQUITABLE revenue sharing. A solid, quality FLOOR that EVERY TEAM needs to be at. You might even have a floating floor for teams as players age and move and trams re-build. And then you need some sort of CEILING to CAP what is allowed for competitive balance. Said ceiling might STILL include some "soft cap" flexibility for existing talent to be retained, similar to the NBA.

Like the NFL...the juggernaut of American sports...some teams will still be more profitable due to various media deals, attendance, merchandise, etc. But it will be up to ownership to hire the right people to run the franchise, make moves, draft and develop smart, sign the right FA, and provide the best team possible to win and compete.

So YES, Cohen could be good for the future of MLB as the "other" owners see their investments shrink, their EGO's bruised, lower fan interest due to lack of competitive interest, etc, and say "enough is enough". We need a change or see our sport shrink.

Either that, or baseball is going to start a slow death spiral that none of us wants to see, and I doubt ownership wants to see either.

Is EGO an acronym here for something I am not aware of, or should I just shout it everytime I read it? 

Just because someone freely spends their money.... and gives their city and fans something to cheer about... seems that is more in the selfless arena than conceit. Giving away and even losing $ to make others happy? I could use more of that ego. Excuse me now..... I'm getting tired and need a nap.

[DocBauer]

5 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Is EGO an acronym here for something I am not aware of, or should I just shout it everytime I read it? 

Just because someone freely spends their money.... and gives their city and fans something to cheer about... seems that is more in the selfness arena than conceit. Giving away and even losing $ to make others happy? I could use more of that ego. Excuse me now..... I'm getting tired and need a nap.

EXCUSE ME HERE!  I CLEARLY STATED that EGO can be a GOOD THING. I stated it can be about pride in one's self worth and a place in the world. I also CLEARY stated that EGO is ONLY  a problem if it leads to conceit. Where did I state ANYONE was filled with conceit? You might want re-read what I posted. I even stated Cohen is playing within the current rules.

I was VERY CLEAR as to the value of MLB changing their future to make a better, more profitable future for the sake of baseball. And that includes the EGO of the owners to have a franchise who can compete.

I CLEARLY stated a YES and NO for the affects of Cohen and his future on MLB. As well as a hopeful affect on the future of MLB. 

So you either didn't either actually read what I said, OR, you're just bitter about something that I don't understand. 

.

[weitz41]

Cohens spending is not good for my love or the game.

The Twins lack of spending is even worst for my love of the game. The Pirates have spent more on FA's then the Twins.

Hopefully the Mets wins a world series or two and the other owners will be forced to do something real to address inequality of the sport. With the new labor agreement I don't see much changing until this one has run it course...I'm preparing for four years of disappointment.

[old nurse]

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Cohen should know that. 2.5 million attendance when they have had 3.5 in the past

Per Statistica average Yankee ticket is $51. Average Mets $27. There is money to be made there

The Mets own 65% of their cable station, there is money to be made there.  

All the Mets have to do is win a few Series while the Yankees only make the playoffs

There is a romantic notion that Cohen is doing this for a hobby.  BS. High stakes gambling

[Riverbrian]

Change is slow.

To make it happen faster, it usually takes something extraordinary. This might be that something extraordinary. 

An owner that makes the Yankees and Dodgers declare unfairness may be just what the doctor ordered to produce change. 

 

[Doctor Gast]

2 hours ago, weitz41 said:

Cohens spending is not good for my love or the game.

The Twins lack of spending is even worst for my love of the game. The Pirates have spent more on FA's then the Twins.

Hopefully the Mets wins a world series or two and the other owners will be forced to do something real to address inequality of the sport. With the new labor agreement I don't see much changing until this one has run it course...I'm preparing for four years of disappointment.

I'm not for anyone to monopolize anything just because they can. Things have gotten way out of line for too long. If Baseball can't fix it, then the government needs to.

[UpstateNewYorker]

14 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

My sentiments exactly, I'd hope that after this, the majority of non big market teams could get together to level the playing field,

I'm not sure how many owners would have to vote in favor of a salary cap. It might be 2/3 (20 out of 30). (Does anyone on TD know?) And then the players' union would also have to agree to it, and they have shown no inclination to do so. (FWIW, the owners tried to implement a salary cap in 1994, the players went on strike, and the season was cancelled:  https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/08/12/baseball-strike-in-1994-95-began-25-years-ago/)

[Doctor Gast]

1 hour ago, UpstateNewYorker said:

I'm not sure how many owners would have to vote in favor of a salary cap. It might be 2/3 (20 out of 30). (Does anyone on TD know?) And then the players' union would also have to agree to it, and they have shown no inclination to do so. (FWIW, the owners tried to implement a salary cap in 1994, the players went on strike, and the season was cancelled:  https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/08/12/baseball-strike-in-1994-95-began-25-years-ago/)

I'm sure what a salary cap entails, I'm not in favor of directly limiting one's payroll. There should be a much stiffer fine & the monies are then redistributed through out the rest of the teams with strict stipulations that it'd be use for payroll. That'd curb this situation & would motivate the other teams to raise their payroll that'd some what equalize things more gives more teams to compete.

[IA Bean Counter]

I foresee a hard cap and a hard floor coming.   You might even find the Yankees and Red Sox leading that charge.  When the Padres and Mets continue to outspend it makes it difficult for even the historic big market teams to keep up.  Players union will be ok with it because by increasing the floor you will increase the overall dollars going to players.  

[h2oface]

14 hours ago, DocBauer said:

EXCUSE ME HERE!  I CLEARLY STATED that EGO can be a GOOD THING. I stated it can be about pride in one's self worth and a place in the world. I also CLEARY stated that EGO is ONLY  a problem if it leads to conceit. Where did I state ANYONE was filled with conceit? You might want re-read what I posted. I even stated Cohen is playing within the current rules.

I was VERY CLEAR as to the value of MLB changing their future to make a better, more profitable future for the sake of baseball. And that includes the EGO of the owners to have a franchise who can compete.

I CLEARLY stated a YES and NO for the affects of Cohen and his future on MLB. As well as a hopeful affect on the future of MLB. 

So you either didn't either actually read what I said, OR, you're just bitter about something that I don't understand. 

.

OKAY then. I will keep TRYING. THANK YOU. 

 

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, old nurse said:

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Cohen should know that. 2.5 million attendance when they have had 3.5 in the past

Per Statistica average Yankee ticket is $51. Average Mets $27. There is money to be made there

The Mets own 65% of their cable station, there is money to be made there.  

All the Mets have to do is win a few Series while the Yankees only make the playoffs

There is a romantic notion that Cohen is doing this for a hobby.  BS. High stakes gambling

I have been thinking about Cohen's approach for a while.  I am not so sure he does not believe that he can lose a couple hundred million over the next 4-5 years and in the process build revenues to a level that increases the franchise vale by 3 or 4 times that amount.  Your post illustrates why that is possible.  Not to mention he can write off the operating losses and not realize the gains until he sells.  

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, IA Bean Counter said:

I foresee a hard cap and a hard floor coming.   You might even find the Yankees and Red Sox leading that charge.  When the Padres and Mets continue to outspend it makes it difficult for even the historic big market teams to keep up.  Players union will be ok with it because by increasing the floor you will increase the overall dollars going to players.  

Be prepared for a strike.  I could be wrong but didn't the league propose a more aggressive tax.  I know they proposed a lower threshold.  There were still a lot of players that did not want to accept the deal they got which was far more than I thought would be offered.  Keep in mind, the floor would have to be set so that the lowest revenue team could hit it.  Is that going to have any impact beyond the bottom 4-5 teams?

Will a floor serve fans.  Remember when we were out of in previous years?  Did we want a mediocre veteran get AB or IPs?  No, we wanted players that could possibly be part of the solution.  Then, those teams could load up on high end free agent RPs and trade them at the deadline or other such shenanigans. 

They could have made the current system work.  The penalties needed to escalate faster and the threshold should have gone up more modestly.  Instead of a floor, they could have done something like a penalty for not spending revenue sharing.  Perhaps they could distribute 50 of the penalty to prearb players and the other 50% to the teams that spend the largest portion of their revenue sharing.  Obviously, that's not easy to figure out but doable.  None of it matters unless we are willing to go through a strike because they players are not having it.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

The union always has high priced veterans involved in the negotiation process and they always favor themselves so we get league contracts that favor the huge player contracts for the few and a good portion of players get little to nothing.  Have you noticed how many players who still have a few years left do not get signed or get signed for peanuts.  I think they are getting squeezed out in favor of the few super stars and the younger guys who make less because they have not hit FA.

Whatever the next contract does, it should equal out the pay so that all players are fairly compensated.

[gman]

I don't foresee any cap on spending. Fans at a game make little difference to the owners. They gave up caring about who could afford to go to a game more than 20 years ago. Baseball will go the way of other made in America corporations have.

Instead of 30 teams on U.S. shores they will be bought and moved offshore. Japan instead selling players to the U.S. teams may buy the Seattle Mariners and move them to Tokyo. Whats to stop it from happening?  Several Chinese billionaires will buy out the Reds, Guardians and maybe Twins. Move the teams over seas. After 20 years there will only be teams in NY, LA, and maybe SF & Chicago. We will get to watch a real World Series on TV for $100 dollar per broadcast team.

The billionaires will compete against each other.

                                                                                  The End            

[old nurse]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I have been thinking about Cohen's approach for a while.  I am not so sure he does not believe that he can lose a couple hundred million over the next 4-5 years and in the process build revenues to a level that increases the franchise vale by 3 or 4 times that amount.  Your post illustrates why that is possible.  Not to mention he can write off the operating losses and not realize the gains until he sells.  

Cohen also gets to depreciate the players on the roster when he bought them. I do not know if that includes extensions. I don’t know if it includedes the differed monies owed