Does Spending Even Matter? 

Dude. I really REALLY want to get into this but the lack of enthusiasm along with the calming jazz (jazz for baseball?!) makes it really hard. Use some inflection every once in awhile. I think you make good points but damn homie. Sell your point! I listen to a lot of sports podcasts. Especially Braves podcasts. This is the podcast I would choose to listen to if I wanted to fall asleep. Don't just tell people the facts. WAKE THEM UP! with the facts if you know what I mean. That doesn't mean scream everything like Steven A Smith. Just inflect in a way no one can ignore when the fact is important.

@@matthew01234 I literally start the video by screaming

​​@@nomorefielders LOL. I said DON'T be like Steven A Smith! Well I guess you were being more like SpongeBob SquarePants so that's slightly different. My only issue with spending money is that I think it's much more fair to have an NFL style revenue sharing system to increase parody with a cap/floor system. The teams who don't spend money are at least as bad as the ones who spend way more than almost anyone. The rules of the league should support the league as a whole the same way the NFL does because a rising tide lifts all boats. If there were at least the appearance that all teams were trying fans of all teams would want to show up more which would increase total revenue which players should in theory love because in a revenue based system an increase in revenue automatically causes an increase in player salaries. Having teams like the A's make it obvious they won't contend by spending nothing lets the fans know they shouldn't show up before the season even starts. If the A's had fans showing up that would be more total revenue for the league as a whole. That should really be the ultimate goal of the league itself. So that's why a salary floor should exist. Unfortunately an salary floor is completely useless without a salary cap. Without a cap the lower teams will barely meet the floor while the higher payroll teams will just spend more. Everything is relative and without a cap the relative difference between payroll would stay around the same. The real question is what amount is "too much" and what amount is "too little?" The only real way to determine that is base the payroll limits off of revenue like the NFL does. When the league makes more money, so will the players. When the players make less money it will be because the product they put on the field made less money from the fans. I really can't think of a more "fair" system than that. And like I said, in theory it should increase total revenue more which means everyone makes more money. As far as guys like Cohen go the only issue I really have with it is if it artificially inflates the market. That could end up effecting other teams ability to sign or keep their own players because in negotiations those players will always point to the highest paid comparable player and demand that much money. The Scherzer contract for instance was pretty ridiculous in my book. No player that age is worth anywhere near that salary on a multi-year deal. Then of course Verlander demanded the same thing in his negotiation with Houston and they were forced to just let him walk. If Cohen doesn't pay Scherzer that ridiculous contract Verlander's agents would have never even asked for it. The thing is it has become very obvious now both of those contracts were a terrible idea. People are saying Cohen would have to pay at least half if not all of those contracts just to trade those guys for next to nothing. Now players and agents will point to those contracts and say, "Look at what Scherzer and Verlander get paid. I'm much better than them so I deserve a lot more." The Lindor contract is going to have a similar effect. The fact that guy is somehow the highest paid infielder of all time is pretty ridiculous. There are infielders more than twice as valuable as Lindor. They now have a legitimate argument to demand close to twice Lindor's contract. That would be something ridiculous like over $680M! It's already had a trickle down affect. Look at Xander Boegarts. The Padres had to pay that guy $280M. He's not worth anything close to that. The only thing is it didn't look so bad compared to Lindor's $341M contract. I'm sure Xander's agents used Lindor's contract as a reference in negotiations though and that's probably the only reason he got so much money. Not because of anything he did on the field but because of what Lindor ISN'T doing on the field while getting paid even more. The only other contract that sticks out to me as negative to other teams at the time was the Tatis contract. Now everyone knows Acuna's contract is a steal for the Braves but we have to keep in mind he had only played around 162 games in his career at the time and no player with such limited experience had every received even close to his guaranteed $100M before. So Acuna's deal was actually record breakingly high in terms of the amount of money he received. Tatis's contract was the next contract except he had played even less games at that time. Less than 142 games in fact. What did the Padres pay him when they still had all that controlled service time left? $340M! They more than tripled Acuna's record breaking contract less than a year later! Why? No one had ever gotten more than $100M before Acuna. How is the next logical step $340M a few months later? That's just insane. In fact... It IS the reason Lindor was paid so much. That's why he was able to demand $341M. Because Tatis already got $340M and played the same position. Tatis was the highest paid infielder of all time and he hadn't even played 150 games yet! So I think contracts like those are bad for the sport because they become a reference point and even a reason for other agents and players to demand similar or larger contracts even though those contracts are bad for the teams who signed them. In a revenue based system you would still be able to give contracts like that out of you want but if the player goes bust so does the team. Players would be paid based on how much they earn for the league instead of how much other players are paid. With the lopsided payrolls it's a little unfair because the big money teams can afford to make mistakes like that and then just buy their way into fixing the mistake. When other teams make a mistake like that it ruins their franchise for a decade. Typical MLB total revenue is around $10B per year. Typically half of that would go to the players. Then a good portion would go to expenses, managers, coaches, GMs, Presidents and all the other employees. The rest would go to the owners (which would be a far far smaller share than the players get). So if you split that up that's about $160-170M in player payroll for each team. Floor it at around $160M and cap it at around $170M for every team. That would at least increase the appearance of parity and likely parity altogether. The end result will be more fans spending money because more fans will believe their team has a shot to win. That would increase revenue even more which would mean both the floor and the cap go up just as revenue does. It's more money for everyone and especially the players as a whole. That would force the Athletics, Royals Guardians, White Sox, Rays, Orioles, Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Marlins and other teams to all pump their payrolls up at least into the $160M range. That money goes straight into the players pockets. Can you imagine how many more fans would invest in those teams if they started spending like that? That's even more money in the players pockets. So I do agree that high payrolls don't create as big of an advantage as some people think but it does create SOME advantage. What hurts the sports as a whole is the payroll disparity. It's not just about the high payrolls but the low payrolls too. A revenue based system like I just described would fix that. The thing is the MLBPA will never agree to a revenue system which is the only problem I have with them. A revenue system would actually make the players MORE money but they still won't agree to it because they would rather only pander to their highest paid player base instead of all the players as a whole. It seems unfair to most of the players in my eyes. Sure it's great if you are the Lindor's and Trout's and Ohtani's of the world but if you aren't one of the precious few players considered at or near that very top echelon the MLBPA is basically screwing you and hurting the growth of the league as a whole by supporting a system that results in less parity and therefore less fans and therefore less revenue and therefore less total money in the players own pockets.

That’s awesome I love hearing that!

I hope Rachel Luba doesn’t see this

100% I’m also going to start making music playlists for all my videos in the near future so look out for That as well.

This season is proving quite the opposite

I actually thought about this while making the video. Most teams experience bloat as their once successful roster becomes expensive and old, and it most likely skewed the results.

Thank you!

I’ve been told I’m a bit of a content machine

Thank you!

Thank you! Sick name btw

No, thank you :)

Thank you! I’m proud to call you a fan.

Yes, she deliberately targeted him too.

The funny thing is thats pretty much what the Dodgers are. Andrew Friedman was a product of the Rays system, so he took their approach to team building and combined it with a large market budget.

well… this didnt age super well haha

Just remember I have a strict a deadline

Huh, thought I put in a stamp but here you go: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nFnA3q9jAMc.html

Rhyme so well you think it was a thought crime

Thanks Witgiz, I always look forward to your comment.

100%

Tbh I was struggling with how to convey that a team made it to the Wild card game and lost. So I decided to just say ‘Won WC’ even if they lost in the wild card game. Apologies for the confusion I def could’ve handled it better

@@nomorefielders NP! I really enjoy your content but you could of said “Lost In WC” amazing video however!

@@dortdiplo good call

Shhhhh don’t spoil the ending

@@nomorefielders Honestly I disagree with your conclusion slightly. There should be a rule of salary floor of $145 mil per team and not spending the minimum should be punished with draft picks.

@@mukitulislam3533oh dude I 100% agree. I took the 137 mil number from the median 2022 payroll, but that’s a solid idea that I hope is brought up in the next collective bargaining agreement.

@@nomorefielders My numbers come from one of my discussions with one of my professors many years back, btw I'm a ride and die Yankee's fan and I hate cheap owners and water down contracts like those from Braves and Nats.

It’s the most unsatisfactory conclusion, but sometimes baseball just be like that.

If anything this year is proving that spending doesn’t matter as much as we thought. The highest payroll in the history of the game is sitting closer to last place than 2nd in their division while one of the lowest payrolls is comfortably dominating the strongest division in baseball. It doesn’t matter what you spend, just how well you spend it.

@@nomorefielders Whats funny about it also is when we think our team overspends to underperform, we're really crying about some billionaire's money.

I actually wanted to address that in more detail. Lower payroll teams obviously can’t risk giving 10 years to someone who will only be valuable for 3-4, so it takes them out of signing big names yet they can still give a good 25 mil to their arb3 MVP. Good catch.

I’m very glad you have school pride but I can’t really defend a university that hires professors who have no idea what they’re teaching and instead opts to use RU-vid videos as a substitute for lecturing.

@@nomorefielders I used KSU as a launchpad to UGA so I feel you

@@Nuclear_CxNT_Potato the only reason to go to KSU tbh

Pendulum lyric?

Oh lmao the Willy Wonka bit

Nah dude that’s one of my favorite poems period. I’ll always find an excuse to throw that in a video.