Excellent. I don’t care if this is a wise move (it’s not), but this scorched earth, “fuck you for tampering through LeBron, we’re going to destabilize your team” pettiness is exactly what the Lakers deserve.

Clearly you're not being enough of an asshole to your underlings.

“Pistons, it’s time to meet your Maker!”

Milwaukee shows Thon, Detroit whips out Johnson

That Thon-Th-Thon-Thon-Thon!

Is he venomous? I assume he’s venomous.

The NFL is just like any big business full of non-creative people.

*chef finger kiss*

+1 username synergy

Word out of Washington is that their plan was always to have him be John Steel Slats anyway.

Selling out the youth may be a huge mistake. Look at the NFL, where the union voted to cut rookie salaries drastically with the intention of freeing up money to pay veterans. Backfired big time because the young players are now drastically more cost efficient than the veterans.

My dad’s always calling me a young offensive guy, too, but it doesn’t seem to help in my job search.

There has to be equitable revenue sharing between all teams. Big market teams need other teams to play against, unless we want to go back to the NHL in the 1950s with six teams lol.   Each “failing” team is generating revenue for the successful teams when they play each other.   I also support contraction in crappy…

Show me why those 17 ownership groups that are already $75M+ below the luxury tax threshold (by choice, not by forced rule) agree to a rule that requires them to spend a buttload more money. MLB revenues keep going up. The product is profitable and continuing to sell. There’s no reason for the owners to make massive…

This is a fascinating theory except... what the hell are the owners getting out of that? That’s not really how collective bargaining tends to work. You’ve just implemented two massively pro-player changes with no concessions.

If you can’t afford to pay your players at a loss for a couple years until a successful team brings fans back, then you can’t afford to own an MLB team. 

I agree 170 is to high but 130ish should be a reasonable floor number. That would solve a lot of issues by itself. More teams would have to spend money which would make them more competitive which in turn would cause the big spenders to spend more to stay ahead.

“any teams under have to kick the underage directly to the players”

I’ll do some napkin math using the numbers in here. If you divide 10.3 billion by 30 (admittedly unfair, since the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, and Cubs probably make more combined than the bottom 15 teams combined, but again, napkin math) it totals to 343,333,333 per team.

I support a floor, but 170m is way too high to set it. How much money do you think these teams are making? For a lot of teams you’re taking about a $70-90m increase in their payrolls to hit that floor. According to Forbes at least, there are scarce few teams making that kind of profit in a year, and they’re almost all…