I have too much going on, which I do to myself often. Life would be so much easier if I just quit my job, right?
45 thoughts on “November 28, 2016: Spread Thin”
Because of the winter wonderland outside, I did not leave town as I had planned. Thus, "Winter Wonderland" is back today rather than at the middle of the week.
I was in on Thursday night to say hi, spooky, but you were nowhere to be found. But, considering what a zoo that place was, you could have been anywhere. That is the last time I ever shop on Thanksgiving.
Welcome to the online shoppers community.
I was shopping on Thursday and it was a pleasant experience.
I noticed as I left that the small-town grocery was going to close at 1pm that afternoon.
Sorry to have missed you. Lunches are scheduled on that day, and mine was at about 7 or 7:30, if you were in then. Otherwise, chalk it up to the sea of humanity.
A lockout is still a possibility as the league and the union negotiate the next CBA in advance of Thursday’s deadline, but there are strong hopes it can be avoided after MLB offered to remove the current system of draft pick forfeiture associated with the qualifying offer, Jon Heyman of Fan Rag Sports writes. Such a change would make MLB free agency “the freest free agency in sports,” in the words of one of Heyman’s sources. In return, the league wants the players to agree to an international draft.
I was not pleased when the qualifying offer system replaced the old Type A/B free agent model, and I think in retrospect the old model looks better, both for players and in terms of equity for small- & mid-market teams. Those small- & mid-market teams will be hosed if the league does completely away with free agent/draft-pick compensation.
Brian Cashman will be happy though, and that's really what matters.
I wonder how many players are seriously affected by this particular provision. A handful every year who receive a qualifying offer but have trouble getting a contract. They usually end up on one year deals and then have a good shot at more the next year, right? It seems an odd place for the union to put its efforts, but maybe my perception is off. The union isn't looking at competitive balance, I guess, so whatever. If they feel like they can get traction there and not other places, then that's where you focus?
Yes, and the union seems to care more about their veterans than their rookies or (for certain) their minor leaguers. I think it's more than just difficulty of negotiating.
I really can't see a lockout. Does anyone believe the players' association would get the backing of the fan community? Yes, the owners have $$$, but the players' salaries are published and they certainly already have $$
I don't believe there will be a significant lockout if there is one at all. It's negotiating brinksmanship.
The old system of how players got ranked was worse. My recollection, which may be wrong, was that players had the type A or B label applied to them but had no power in the process. Furthermore, it was based on stats that poorly correlated to pay, especially for mid-level relievers.
In the new system, the qualifying offer can hurt both sides. If the team makes the offer to a marginal player, that player can accept a decent one-year salary. The amount tracks salaries and if the player accepts, they cannot be offered the following year*. To me, I think the teams figured out the breakeven point immediately but players took a few years to adapt.
* This is what I recall but can't find anything justifying that the QO is for a single year.
Matt Wieters was offered a QO last year and all the reports this year were that the Orioles decided not to offer him one, not that they couldn't.
I'm not saying the old system was my ideal system, but in general I think a tiered classification of free agents is more equitable for teams on both ends of the free agent equation (teams losing a FA, teams signing a FA) and the player, at least in terms of marketability rather than salary. Players who might've been classified as Type B free agents can be fringe-y QO-eligible recipients. The QO has been a millstone for some players. Yes, they receive a decent single-year pillow contract if they accept a QO, but they lose the flexibility of signing a longer-term deal for okay money if they reject a QO by their former team.
Ideally, we'd have an A/B free agent classification that fed into two levels of QOs ("Star" & "Role Player," or something like that) tied to stats with better correllation to performance, or a combination of stats & leaderboard position, or whatever. That would fairly compensate teams for departing FAs without depressing the market as drastically for non-elite free agents who reject QOs.
Maybe QO and QO/2. The first the signing team forfeits the draft pick to the original team. For the second the signing team doesn't lose the pick, but the original team gets a compensation pick. This would be identical to the previous system of team compensation.
I like using the benchmark of "would you be willing to pay X a large chunk of money next year" to free it from the stats. We have better metrics than the previous system but I don't like tying it directly to known metrics. This lets teams advance at their own pace.
I'm not sure that either the old or the new system is really enough to move the needle for competitive balance. Draft picks are worth something, but giving a team a helping hand 6 years down the line for a player that they are losing today isn't really putting everyone on equal footing.
What they really need is a salary cap, but no one wants to agree to that, apparently. I think they should go to a system where they combine revenue sharing with a cap. Every team gets a salary budget, which is funded by revenue sharing (pick your poison on how everyone contributes.) Everything under the salary budget is paid for by the league, so any money that's not spent gets put back into the league pot for next year.
Then on top of that, every team gets to have, say, 4 players that are off-budget. They can be paid as much as a team can afford, but they each count, say, $15M toward the cap.
This way, high end free agents have no limit to what they can get paid, but the big teams can only outspend for a limited number of players. I don't think this works as well as it would in the NBA (where I would limit to 1 off-budget player per team), but it's a way to have a soft cap that could help spread talent around the league.
I love that he even bothers to catch his helmet that's falling off
A (very) different context, but this reminds me of a quote from a guy I knew briefly a long time ago:
"If you aren't getting scammed sometimes, then you aren't being generous enough."
The Twins announced on Monday that they’ve hired Torii Hunter, Michael Cuddyer and LaTroy Hawkins as special assistants in the team’s baseball operations department. Each of the three will be in Spring Training this year and will serve “as a resource for players and coaches in the mental and fundamental aspects of the game,” according to a team press release. The trio will also be visiting Minnesota’s minor league affiliates throughout the season, where they’ll work in an instructional capacity with the team’s young talent. Hunter, Cuddyer and Hawkins will also work with Twins executives and coaches 'to ensure development in player understanding of culture, talent evaluation and organizational vision.'
At the introductory press conference for new chief baseball officer Derek Falvey and new general manager Thad Levine, the latter spoke highly about the impact that former Rangers star Michael Young had on the organization upon joining the Texas front office in a similar capacity to the roles that Hunter, Cuddyer and Hawkins will be taking on with the Twins. While both Falvey and Levine were billed as more modern, statistically savvy executives to help bring the Twins up to speed in that department, the duo also emphasized the importance of veteran leadership and organizational culture in their first formal sit-down with the Twin Cities media. Today’s hirings certainly mesh with those principles.
I haven't kept my distaste for i-i – specifically, his personality & his opinions – a secret. He is not someone I would want mentoring young players. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but I'm not happy about bringing either i-i or Cuddyer back. It without a doubt cements the Strib narrative that Mauer is a selfish wet noodle.
LaTroy unfortunately does not offset Cuddy + ii
I guess Bradke, Koskie, & Silva were all too busy? (Doesn't Silva still live in Medina?) Jacque & LeCroy both have positions within the Nationals' org (Nationals' hitting coach & AA manager); they also would have been excellent people to try bringing back to the organization. What's Terry Mulholland up to these days?
Besides the issues with i-i being a questionable dude, I'm just as worried about Cuddyer being a player mentor. "Remember, it's all on you. If it's an important situation and there are two strikes on you, you need to swing at absolutely everything."
It's that time of year where people complain about college football rankings and whether or not a champion is crowned.
I think it's pretty simple. Either traditions are important, or having a playoff is important, because a playoff is not a tradition, so just admit if you want a playoff that you're breaking with tradition. The conferences appear to be more powerful than the NCAA but they are really all that is in the way of coming up with a reasonable playoff system. It wouldn't be difficult and it wouldn't require a bunch of extra games.
First off, there are too many teams that are considered division 1 for the purposes of a national championship. The ACC, Big12, Big10, Pac12, SEC, and 4 independents makes 68 teams. Add in 4 of the mid-majors to get to 72 and keep it there.
From 72 teams, make 8 (regional) divisions of 9 teams. If schools really were that interested in the sanctity of their long-term rivalries, there wouldn't have been so much conference realignment in recent years. Any reasonable committee can make sure that the "important" rivalries continue to exist. Regional divisions should help keep costs down.
Everyone plays 3 official out-of-division games. These games don't really matter except to prepare a team for the regular season, so there would be no real incentive (other than maybe team psychology) to avoid playing a team that might challenge you.
Everyone plays 8 in-division games (all the other teams in their division once each), 4 home/4 away. With an odd number of teams, everyone gets a bye week built in (or they could play one of their non-division games on a bye week.)
The 8 division winners are placed into regional "conference championship" games--you could use existing bowl games for this purpose if you like, but you would probably have to reschedule them.
The 4 conference championship winners would be placed into national semifinal games--you could use existing bowl games for this purpose if you like, but you might have to reschedule them.
The 2 semifinal winners would play each other for the national title.
A winner in this system would play the exact same number of games that a Pac12 conference champ would play to win the national title under the current system.
The only downside is that there would potentially be more "meaningless" games by, you know, arranging an actual championship system.
I prefer the disquietude of the current system.
It makes my head hurt. I need order. I couldn't even stand it when MLB had the 5/6/5 divisions in the NL and 5/5/4 divisions in the AL.
Oh, now the MLB, that's a different story
[selig shrug.jpg]
Yeah, I liked that, too. Better than 5-5-5/5-5-5 constant interleague anyhow.
I'm with Rhubarb on the current system.
The problem is you think a College Football season's raison d'etre is to crown a champion. It solely exists to generate $$$ for its members schools. Not sure if your systems maximizes the ability of the NCAA to monetize the college football brand.
It solely exists to generate $$$ for its members schools affiliated athletic departments.
If a dime of NCAA money makes its way out of any athletic department and into the university proper, I'll eat my hat.
Nevermind. That happened in 2014. I blame my brother for reacting to a 2-year-old post on facebook. And not myself, for failing to look at the date.
Still, the punch landed on you this year
Here is where I note that one of the Kratts (Chris) is a graduate of the Alma Mater.
Here's where I note Martin pulls the heavy weight of the duo. 😉
I'm upset that show isn't on Netflix any more.
Zoboomafoo or Wild Kratts?
err, the latter.
You can stream Wild Kratts directly from PBS apps. My kids are big fans. I can always tell when they've watched a new (to them at least) episode, when they start peppering me with facts about some specific animal. It was vultures yesterday.
Oh yeah, I've been meaning to download that for awhile. Do you happen to know if it's Chromecast friendly or not?
Because of the winter wonderland outside, I did not leave town as I had planned. Thus, "Winter Wonderland" is back today rather than at the middle of the week.
I was in on Thursday night to say hi, spooky, but you were nowhere to be found. But, considering what a zoo that place was, you could have been anywhere. That is the last time I ever shop on Thanksgiving.
Welcome to the online shoppers community.
I was shopping on Thursday and it was a pleasant experience.
I noticed as I left that the small-town grocery was going to close at 1pm that afternoon.
Sorry to have missed you. Lunches are scheduled on that day, and mine was at about 7 or 7:30, if you were in then. Otherwise, chalk it up to the sea of humanity.
This rumor about the new CBA negotiations displeases me:
I was not pleased when the qualifying offer system replaced the old Type A/B free agent model, and I think in retrospect the old model looks better, both for players and in terms of equity for small- & mid-market teams. Those small- & mid-market teams will be hosed if the league does completely away with free agent/draft-pick compensation.
Brian Cashman will be happy though, and that's really what matters.
I wonder how many players are seriously affected by this particular provision. A handful every year who receive a qualifying offer but have trouble getting a contract. They usually end up on one year deals and then have a good shot at more the next year, right? It seems an odd place for the union to put its efforts, but maybe my perception is off. The union isn't looking at competitive balance, I guess, so whatever. If they feel like they can get traction there and not other places, then that's where you focus?
Yes, and the union seems to care more about their veterans than their rookies or (for certain) their minor leaguers. I think it's more than just difficulty of negotiating.
I really can't see a lockout. Does anyone believe the players' association would get the backing of the fan community? Yes, the owners have $$$, but the players' salaries are published and they certainly already have $$
I don't believe there will be a significant lockout if there is one at all. It's negotiating brinksmanship.
The old system of how players got ranked was worse. My recollection, which may be wrong, was that players had the type A or B label applied to them but had no power in the process. Furthermore, it was based on stats that poorly correlated to pay, especially for mid-level relievers.
In the new system, the qualifying offer can hurt both sides. If the team makes the offer to a marginal player, that player can accept a decent one-year salary. The amount tracks salaries and if the player accepts, they cannot be offered the following year*. To me, I think the teams figured out the breakeven point immediately but players took a few years to adapt.
* This is what I recall but can't find anything justifying that the QO is for a single year.
Matt Wieters was offered a QO last year and all the reports this year were that the Orioles decided not to offer him one, not that they couldn't.
I'm not saying the old system was my ideal system, but in general I think a tiered classification of free agents is more equitable for teams on both ends of the free agent equation (teams losing a FA, teams signing a FA) and the player, at least in terms of marketability rather than salary. Players who might've been classified as Type B free agents can be fringe-y QO-eligible recipients. The QO has been a millstone for some players. Yes, they receive a decent single-year pillow contract if they accept a QO, but they lose the flexibility of signing a longer-term deal for okay money if they reject a QO by their former team.
Ideally, we'd have an A/B free agent classification that fed into two levels of QOs ("Star" & "Role Player," or something like that) tied to stats with better correllation to performance, or a combination of stats & leaderboard position, or whatever. That would fairly compensate teams for departing FAs without depressing the market as drastically for non-elite free agents who reject QOs.
Maybe QO and QO/2. The first the signing team forfeits the draft pick to the original team. For the second the signing team doesn't lose the pick, but the original team gets a compensation pick. This would be identical to the previous system of team compensation.
I like using the benchmark of "would you be willing to pay X a large chunk of money next year" to free it from the stats. We have better metrics than the previous system but I don't like tying it directly to known metrics. This lets teams advance at their own pace.
I'm not sure that either the old or the new system is really enough to move the needle for competitive balance. Draft picks are worth something, but giving a team a helping hand 6 years down the line for a player that they are losing today isn't really putting everyone on equal footing.
What they really need is a salary cap, but no one wants to agree to that, apparently. I think they should go to a system where they combine revenue sharing with a cap. Every team gets a salary budget, which is funded by revenue sharing (pick your poison on how everyone contributes.) Everything under the salary budget is paid for by the league, so any money that's not spent gets put back into the league pot for next year.
Then on top of that, every team gets to have, say, 4 players that are off-budget. They can be paid as much as a team can afford, but they each count, say, $15M toward the cap.
This way, high end free agents have no limit to what they can get paid, but the big teams can only outspend for a limited number of players. I don't think this works as well as it would in the NBA (where I would limit to 1 off-budget player per team), but it's a way to have a soft cap that could help spread talent around the league.
Words to live by:
I love that he even bothers to catch his helmet that's falling off
A (very) different context, but this reminds me of a quote from a guy I knew briefly a long time ago:
"If you aren't getting scammed sometimes, then you aren't being generous enough."
Seems applicable in many areas of life.
It's official – in addition to LaTroy, Falvey & Levine have hired i-i & Cuddy as special assistants.
I haven't kept my distaste for i-i – specifically, his personality & his opinions – a secret. He is not someone I would want mentoring young players. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but I'm not happy about bringing either i-i or Cuddyer back. It without a doubt cements the Strib narrative that Mauer is a selfish wet noodle.
LaTroy unfortunately does not offset Cuddy + ii
I guess Bradke, Koskie, & Silva were all too busy? (Doesn't Silva still live in Medina?) Jacque & LeCroy both have positions within the Nationals' org (Nationals' hitting coach & AA manager); they also would have been excellent people to try bringing back to the organization. What's Terry Mulholland up to these days?
Besides the issues with i-i being a questionable dude, I'm just as worried about Cuddyer being a player mentor. "Remember, it's all on you. If it's an important situation and there are two strikes on you, you need to swing at absolutely everything."
It's that time of year where people complain about college football rankings and whether or not a champion is crowned.
I think it's pretty simple. Either traditions are important, or having a playoff is important, because a playoff is not a tradition, so just admit if you want a playoff that you're breaking with tradition. The conferences appear to be more powerful than the NCAA but they are really all that is in the way of coming up with a reasonable playoff system. It wouldn't be difficult and it wouldn't require a bunch of extra games.
First off, there are too many teams that are considered division 1 for the purposes of a national championship. The ACC, Big12, Big10, Pac12, SEC, and 4 independents makes 68 teams. Add in 4 of the mid-majors to get to 72 and keep it there.
From 72 teams, make 8 (regional) divisions of 9 teams. If schools really were that interested in the sanctity of their long-term rivalries, there wouldn't have been so much conference realignment in recent years. Any reasonable committee can make sure that the "important" rivalries continue to exist. Regional divisions should help keep costs down.
Everyone plays 3 official out-of-division games. These games don't really matter except to prepare a team for the regular season, so there would be no real incentive (other than maybe team psychology) to avoid playing a team that might challenge you.
Everyone plays 8 in-division games (all the other teams in their division once each), 4 home/4 away. With an odd number of teams, everyone gets a bye week built in (or they could play one of their non-division games on a bye week.)
The 8 division winners are placed into regional "conference championship" games--you could use existing bowl games for this purpose if you like, but you would probably have to reschedule them.
The 4 conference championship winners would be placed into national semifinal games--you could use existing bowl games for this purpose if you like, but you might have to reschedule them.
The 2 semifinal winners would play each other for the national title.
A winner in this system would play the exact same number of games that a Pac12 conference champ would play to win the national title under the current system.
The only downside is that there would potentially be more "meaningless" games by, you know, arranging an actual championship system.
I prefer the disquietude of the current system.
It makes my head hurt. I need order. I couldn't even stand it when MLB had the 5/6/5 divisions in the NL and 5/5/4 divisions in the AL.
Oh, now the MLB, that's a different story
[selig shrug.jpg]Yeah, I liked that, too. Better than 5-5-5/5-5-5 constant interleague anyhow.
I'm with Rhubarb on the current system.
The problem is you think a College Football season's raison d'etre is to crown a champion. It solely exists to generate $$$ for its members schools. Not sure if your systems maximizes the ability of the NCAA to monetize the college football brand.
If a dime of NCAA money makes its way out of any athletic department and into the university proper, I'll eat my hat.
Brother, you're going to starve.
He can eat his hat anyway, can't he?
It's a free country, innit?
The 2016 punches keep coming.
Nevermind. That happened in 2014. I blame my brother for reacting to a 2-year-old post on facebook. And not myself, for failing to look at the date.
Still, the punch landed on you this year
Here is where I note that one of the Kratts (Chris) is a graduate of the Alma Mater.
Here's where I note Martin pulls the heavy weight of the duo. 😉
I'm upset that show isn't on Netflix any more.
Zoboomafoo or Wild Kratts?
err, the latter.
You can stream Wild Kratts directly from PBS apps. My kids are big fans. I can always tell when they've watched a new (to them at least) episode, when they start peppering me with facts about some specific animal. It was vultures yesterday.
Oh yeah, I've been meaning to download that for awhile. Do you happen to know if it's Chromecast friendly or not?
It is; I use it with Chromecast regularly.