The Rangers game on Friday vs Cleveland Guardians is on Apple TV. Here is a link for a 30 day free trial.
https://redeem.services.apple/roktappletv-amr-v2

WestTexasAg said:

---

Tksymm7 said:

---

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

I think he's trying not to have to medically retire.

---

Correct. He has back issues that he will live with the rest of his life. Those aren't going anywhere.

---

That's sad. You can tell something isn't right.

---

I don't think it's his back to be honest with you. I think he is massively in his own head about hitting and is not relaxed. Really think if they send him down for a month or two he will regain the contact hitter that he was.

Yeah I want to specify that I don't think he's dealing with a back flare-up right now or anything like that. I was just pointing out that he will deal with back related issues or injuries the rest of his career and his life because of the injuries he's had and the issues he had coming out of HS.

Tksymm7 said:

---

Yeah I want to specify that I don't think he's dealing with a back flare-up right now or anything like that. I was just pointing out that he will deal with back related issues or injuries the rest of his career and his life because of the injuries he's had and the issues he had coming out of HS.

---

Agreed. He will be a 100-120 games a season.

Jimtim1216 said:

---

WestTexasAg said:

---

Tksymm7 said:

---

Quincey P. Morris said:

---

I think he's trying not to have to medically retire.

---

Correct. He has back issues that he will live with the rest of his life. Those aren't going anywhere.

---

That's sad. You can tell something isn't right.

---

I don't think it's his back to be honest with you. I think he is massively in his own head about hitting and is not relaxed. Really think if they send him down for a month or two he will regain the contact hitter that he was.

---

I think it's both. Although the specific goal of the procedure (i.e. - nerve tissue ablation, scar tissue ablation, etc.) was never publicly reported, the vast majority of ablation procedures performed are to destroy the sensory nerves. Decreasing the pain makes it more comfortable but the pain is likely still present to some degree and the underlying cause (stress reaction) has not been corrected. The only thing that is going to fix a stress reaction is long term rest which would probably end his career. Love Evan Carter but I'm not optimistic about his chances of ever becoming an everyday, productive member of the batting lineup.

This is strictly just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt lol, but I think injuries and his expedited development are the biggest reasons for his lack of success now.

Major injuries as a young, up and coming, top prospect are KILLER. You miss absolutely critical at-bats, reps, practice and time in the gym developing yourself physically. I think this has set Carter on the back foot in a major way.

So you have him already missing time, reps and the like because of injuries. Then in 2023 because of need you call him up, he plays extremely well, you think he can stick in the bigs because of XYZ and then he's hurt again.

Those two factors combined led to him not getting what I think is enough reps and development in the double A and triple A levels.

hawk1689 said:

---

Owners wanting to control costs is also the free market. They are doing so on behalf of their customers, which is you and I. They understand that at some point, the customer base won't want to keep up with the rising cost of consumption.

---

I don't really understand your point here. The owners have proposed a controlled market that forces high spending teams to spend less and low spending teams to spend more. Note the word "forces" here. I'm not sure how a compulsory capped system fits into a definition of a free market. Maybe we can argue their proposal would be good for baseball, but it is not debatable that their proposal is not a free market proposal.

One solution I was thinking about last night is what if the owners give up on the idea of a cap in exchange for one extra year of team control via arbitration. Right now teams get 7 (6 in some cases with super 2s). If we bump that to 8/7 I think what ends up happening is that you have even more young players that sign long term deals early that buy out arb and free agent years. The system itself is still uncapped but it becomes more favorable for teams trying to lock up their own home grown stars which I think is really one of the core concerns of fans.

We'd still have outlier free agents like Soto and Harper that get to free agency young enough to command mega deals on the open market, but a lot of free agents would end up being 32-33 year olds and command much shorter term deals that even small market teams could swing.

I think that as long as the negotiations are in good faith and don't become too heated, both sides could see the advantages of this solution. Witt, Rodriguez and Tatis have all signed mega deals early without testing free agency that got them huge guarantees of cash early in their careers mitigating the risk of their performance falling off in a contract year. But also nothing would stop a truly elite player from getting to free agency after 8/7 if they wanted, and compensation via arbitration has been pretty lucrative as well. For the owners they don't get a cap, but the players giving up 1 year of free agency is a big compromise that does help control costs.

The owners want a cap because the cost certainty makes their franchises more valuable. Parity is a talking point.

cmiller00 said:

---

The owners want a cap because the cost certainty makes their franchises more valuable. Parity is a talking point.

---

This is consistent with every professional sport. All owners, of every professional franchise in every single sport, want to make their franchises more valuable. I'm not quite sure why it seems to be such a much more awful thing when it's baseball owners.

I didn't say it was awful. I don't blame them. But their public stance is we need a cap for competitive balance.

NBA and NFL franchise values have grown at a faster rate than MLB. MLB owners think that's because of the cost certainty of a salary cap. Are they willing to give up games for that? Just something to keep in mind when seeing proposals traded back and forth.

cmiller00 said:

---

I didn't say it was awful. I don't blame them. But their public stance is we need a cap for competitive balance.

NBA and NFL franchise values have grown at a faster rate than MLB. MLB owners think that's because of the cost certainty of a salary cap. Are they willing to give up games for that? Just something to keep in mind when seeing proposals traded back and forth.

---

This is 100% what I've been getting at, the owners have a clear ulterior motive driving their desire for a salary cap, yet publicly they have somehow convinced a good amount of fans that their desire for a salary cap is some altruistic pursuit of equality for all fan bases.

What they are counting on, is that these fans are going to be the ones to really put the screws to the players when the work stoppage begins and force the player's union to stand down and accept a cap. In a way I can see it as a genius business move, but in no way are the owners the good guys here.

I do think that as a result of a capped system we would likely see a bit more parity, but still with a disparity of $100 million dollars between the cap and the floor, I don't think we're talking about some radical change in what the game would look like. Some clubs might even be forced to make themselves worse by taking on bad contracts just to hit the floor. So again for those of you in favor of a capped system, just how much are we willing to risk for an incremental change to the competitive balance in the league? Remember that the Rockies were bad even with big contracts like Arrenado, Story and Bryant, spending isn't a panacea. The Dodgers succeed as much because of their spending as because of the fact that they are a well run franchise that gets the most out of their players.

Yeah they are counting on fans of all teams but the Dodgers thinking a cap is going to help their team.

Can we also get a cap on ticket and beer prices ha.

Reminds me of when they didn't sell beer after the 7th inning (or 8th maybe) so fans would be safer driving home and then once the pitch clock came out and games were shortened an hour, and of course beverage sales down, they starting slinging beers til the last pitch. Greedy SOB's lol

I'm not really for or against the cap just think it is interesting to look through the posturing at what the parties goals are.

I should have stayed away from using free market as an economics term in my posts. Yes the current system is a collectively bargained system between a union and the owners/MLB. Any future agreement will be as well, the economics of baseball contracts are all governed by this process and not truly free even in an uncapped system. This prevents teams from doing stuff like using stock options, partial ownership etc. as creative ways to build compensation packages. There are tightly controlled rules governing "free agency." We're agreed there. Mostly what I'm am trying to express is that the owners want to establish a ceiling on their liability for operating expenses mitigating their own risks. But, they cleverly do not state that as their purpose, instead they frame it as an existential battle for the future of the good of baseball.

Just think about this, in the NBAs capped system this year, there will be only one team with enough cap space to even sign a star player. From the player prospective this sucks as how much of a free agent are you if you don't truly have options, and from a fan perspective it sucks because your team is capped out and can't aquire new talent through free agency. In the NFL guys get cut all the time, not because they can't play, but because their teams are working the cap rules. This is the utopian future of baseball? The Pirates dumping Skenes so they can keep other players? The Astros dumping Yordan? Imagine how lame the trade deadline will be when teams have to match salary to get deals done and stay under the cap. You toil your whole life to become a free agent and if you want to get what you are worth on the open market your options are the last place Marlins or Rockies? Would those teams even offer fair compensation?

I also don't necessarily agree with your assumption of passing on costs to the consumer though. Normal supply and demand still rules with ticket prices and other commodities at the ball park. I just went to NYC last week and the cheapest thing I did was catch a Mets game. They have the 2nd highest payroll in the game, but they suck and demand is low so they have to adjust to that reality. The Dodgers have an attractive product to offer featuring a modern day version of Babe Ruth and so they can price their sodas accordingly.

Players literally just want to make more, endless guaranteed money. Thats about it. We know this though.

Tksymm7 said:

---

Players literally just want to make more, endless guaranteed money. Thats about it. We know this though.

---

Just curious, but wouldn't you also want that if you were in their position? When you have a skill that the market desires should you not have the ability to be compensated for that skill and choose between various employers using their competition for your services to drive your own price up?

For reference see the link below, the Dodgers are reportedly making $200 million per year just off Ohtani. In a capped system we would limit the earnings of players that generate those revenues just putting more back in the pockets of the owners. Would you be happier if he only signed a 10 year $250 million deal? Why would we favor depressing wages for the ones that generate the revenue in order to guarantee more money for the owners?

https://www.si.com/mlb/dodgers/onsi/dodgers-making-over-200-million-per-year-from-shohei-ohtani

Putting aside the fact that Verducci's 200 million number might not be perfect, I think it's obvious that the Dodgers are doing ok despite his contract, and so would any other team that could have signed him.

What you have to understand, is that even in the current system the players are only getting a tiny piece of the action. Fans in baseball are conditioned to balk at big numbers like Soto's and Ohtani's contracts, but those guys generate way more than they take. Ronaldo is reportedly making more than $200 million a year playing for his Saudi team.

While we were having this stimulating discussion:

06/04/26 Texas Rangers activated SS Corey Seager from the 10-day injured list.
06/04/26 Texas Rangers signed free agent RHP Josh Sborz to a minor league contract.
06/04/26 Texas Rangers optioned 3B Cody Freeman to Round Rock Express.
06/04/26 Texas Rangers optioned LF Alejandro Osuna to Round Rock Express.

I'm guessing Langford gets activated today to finish out this round of moves.

Good news - I hope those two are healthy and ready to help this offense.

Hopefully Osuna is back pretty soon. He brought quite a bit to the team. As for Sborz, didn't he just opt out earlier this week?