Arte Opposes Raising Luxury Tax

[HanfordGuy]

17 hours ago, Taylor said:

Is "Arte" a pseudonym?

I prefer “nom de plume”.

[Second Base]

8 hours ago, Blarg said:

They would still tank. There is a finite number of game changing players and the rest are pretty much interchangeable. You can take the league's top third players and put them aside and the rest you can make teams out of and they would all pretty much play the same. The talent there is a mix of mid level and lower level players. 

But it is not as though there is a supermarket of better players sitting on the shelf, available to pick and choose from. Good players are generally are not sitting out unless they demand more than their value. So paying more for the same guys doesn't improve any team. 

That still oversimplifies the issue at hand, though. Homegrown players are still the way of creating a sustainably winning culture. And right now, tanking is the most efficient way of stockpiling those assets. But if you remove the incentive, you force teams to win in different ways, namely excellent scouting, or spending the money allotted more wisely than the next team. It also encourages teams to lock up homegrown talent early, leading to more lucrative rookie deals. 

Think about it, a small market team needs their payroll above a certain level. They can either invest more money on a lesser player or more money on a young homegrown player that figures to only increase in productivity. They'll choose the latter every single time and you'll begin to see quality players spends more time on teams that aren't the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers.

Conversely, a large market team needs their payroll under a certain amount and they've got a stud prospect blocked by quality but well compensated veteran. Lower market teams would suddenly be in position to afford quality talent they otherwise wouldn't because the large market team would need to eat a portion of the contract. And furthermore, the large market team needs to seriously consider whether they can retain the services of the stud prospect after his first couple years in the league, leading to a much wiser approach to spending and team building. 

The system as it stands, means the Dodgers can afford 30 million on dead weight on the roster (Angels game can relate) while teams like the Pirates either can't afford this, or simply refuse to spend. 

The biggest issue in baseball right now is tanking. There's a lot of noise about other stuff, but the reality is, in the current system, you've got 10 teams legitimately pushing for a championship, 10 more teams in the middle hoping they might get lucky, and 10 teams that have no chance and aren't even trying to compete, and won't, for at least another five years. It lasts to severely uninteresting baseball being played largely by two teams with no chance at the playoffs or winning. There's no buy-in from fans. Most divisional races are decided before the 4th of July, leading to three months of games they're just trying to get out of the way before more interesting games occur in October. 

A cap and floor with severe penalties goes a long way in fixing that. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Second Base

[Docwaukee]

I think more playoff spots will decrease the number of teams tanking.  I think teams will be more inclined to fill their roster out with a couple extra free agents than they have been in the past.  The lure of all that playoff money is just too tantalizing.  

[Taylor]

I'm a fan of whichever deal influences Arte into making the team a perennial contender.

[Inside Pitch]

18 hours ago, Taylor said:

I'm a fan of whichever deal influences Arte into making the team a perennial contender.

Contraction of every team that finished ahead of them it is!

[Docwaukee]

just employ the relegation system.  

[Dtwncbad]

On 3/4/2022 at 9:05 PM, Taylor said:

Is "Arte" a pseudonym?

Maybe “Arte” is an acronym.

Another Rich Tyrant Executive?

(Just helping you out in your infatuation with hating wealthy people.)

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

Maybe “Arte” is an acronym.

Another Rich Tyrant Executive?

(Just helping you out in your infatuation with hating wealthy people.)

If I hated wealthy people I'd have to hate myself. The average American is wealthy by the world's standards.

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

If I hated wealthy people I'd have to hate myself. The average American is wealthy by the world's standards.

I am so glad you said that.  We all live lives better than 99% of all the humans who ever walked the earth.  This is one of the reason I get annoyed at people being envious or jealous of other people’s wealth.

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

I am so glad you said that.  We all live lives better than 99% of all the humans who ever walked the earth.  This is one of the reason I get annoyed at people being envious or jealous of other people’s wealth.

You have to understand that much of the criticism of extremely wealthy people isn't motivated by jealousy but out of compassion for people who are struggling to make ends meet. Some people are jealous and entitled, but it's a strawman simplification to say that's the driving motivation for these conversations and arguments.

Just like saying extremely wealthy people are all Henry Potter types who count every penny while gleefully screwing over their subjects. The truth is somewhere in between.

[Dtwncbad]

6 minutes ago, Taylor said:

You have to understand that much of the criticism of extremely wealthy people isn't motivated by jealousy but out of compassion for people who are struggling to make ends meet. Some people are jealous and entitled, but it's a strawman simplification to say that's the driving motivation for these conversations and arguments.

Just like saying extremely wealthy people are all Henry Potter types who count every penny while gleefully screwing over their subjects. The truth is somewhere in between.

I understand.  But the additional motivation to be critical of wealthy people you mentioned (compassion for those who struggle) still makes no sense.

Someone being wealthy does not cause someone else to struggle.  I wish schools would actually teach some basic economic concepts that would help people understand that one person becoming a billion dollars richer does not result in a billion dollars being cumulatively removed from other people’s wealth.

So being highly compassionate for those who struggle still isn’t a logical, valid reason to loathe wealthy people.

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, Taylor said:

You have to understand that much of the criticism of extremely wealthy people isn't motivated by jealousy but out of compassion for people who are struggling to make ends meet. Some people are jealous and entitled, but it's a strawman simplification to say that's the driving motivation for these conversations and arguments.

Just like saying extremely wealthy people are all Henry Potter types who count every penny while gleefully screwing over their subjects. The truth is somewhere in between.

And 97.4% of those people who criticize the rich out of compassion for the poor do absolutely nothing to help those people. 

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Lou said:

And 97.4% of those people who criticize the rich out of compassion for the poor do absolutely nothing to help those people. 

Yup.  But they can be very loud that the easy, obvious answer is for rich people to just pay for stuff.  And I ask this question.  Isn’t that pretty much the greediest you can possibly be, on two fronts?

1). “Give me all the attention for being the compassionate one”

2). “I want to get my hands on someone else’s money”

The “greed” accusation against the rich is so ironic to me when it is itself often rooted in its own, arguably more disgusting version of greed.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Taylor]

30 minutes ago, Lou said:

And 97.4% of those people who criticize the rich out of compassion for the poor do absolutely nothing to help those people. 

How do you know this? 

[Taylor]

25 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yup.  But they can be very loud that the easy, obvious answer is for rich people to just pay for stuff.  And I ask this question.  Isn’t that pretty much the greediest you can possibly be, on two fronts?

1). “Give me all the attention for being the compassionate one”

2). “I want to get my hands on someone else’s money”

The “greed” accusation against the rich is so ironic to me when it is itself often rooted in its own, arguably more disgusting version of greed.

 

Sigh. Keep on strawmanning.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

Sigh. Keep on strawmanning.

It is not strawmanning to point out things that are real.  It is the opposite of strawmanning.

 

[Lou]

9 minutes ago, Taylor said:

How do you know this? 

It's science.

[Taylor]

33 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

It is not strawmanning to point out things that are real.  It is the opposite of strawmanning.

 

Simplifying an entire argument and group of people into "jealousy and greed" and that their only solution is for rich people to pay for everything ... that's the definition of a strawman.

You once told me you admire aspects of liberalism because they're rooted in kindness and generosity. Maybe this is one of those aspects? Or at least, that can guide your understanding of where the other side is coming from? 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

Simplifying an entire argument and group of people into "jealousy and greed" is the definition of a strawman.

You once told me you admire aspects of liberalism because they're rooted in kindness and generosity. Maybe this is one of those aspects? Or at least, that can guide your understanding of where the other side is coming from? 

You can be kind and generous without slamming others. 

[Chuck]

On 3/5/2022 at 7:37 PM, Dochalo said:

I think more playoff spots will decrease the number of teams tanking.  I think teams will be more inclined to fill their roster out with a couple extra free agents than they have been in the past.  The lure of all that playoff money is just too tantalizing.  

This may have already been brought up, I haven't been paying attention as much as I'd like... but why not have a salary floor to be a big part of their offer?

One of the biggest issues in MLB is that there are teams who spend nothing and just keep the revenue sharing.

[Angels 1961]

8 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

This may have already been brought up, I haven't been paying attention as much as I'd like... but why not have a salary floor to be a big part of their offer?

One of the biggest issues in MLB is that there are teams who spend nothing and just keep the revenue sharing.

Why would you need a salary floor when teams like Tampa compete with a low payroll. It's not how mush money you spend but how you spend your money. 

[Dtwncbad]

18 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Simplifying an entire argument and group of people into "jealousy and greed" and that their only solution is for rich people to pay for everything ... that's the definition of a strawman.

You once told me you admire aspects of liberalism because they're rooted in kindness and generosity. Maybe this is one of those aspects? Or at least, that can guide your understanding of where the other side is coming from? 

I do admire kindness and generosity.  I hate when that pivots into conveniently expecting rich people to pay for everything.

Being “generous” with somebody else’s money isn’t generosity.

[Inside Pitch]

13 minutes ago, Angels 1961 said:

 It's not how mush money you spend but how you spend your money. 

The Angels have spent a ton on mush.

[Taylor]

33 minutes ago, Lou said:

You can be kind and generous without slamming others. 

I agree. But sometimes people need to be called out.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

I agree. But sometimes people need to be called out.

Why? Because they aren't doing as much to help as you want them to? 

People should focus on doing what they can do and not calling out others. It really is a shitty thing to do.