Wham, TAM, Thank You, Ma'am

[Midas Mulligan]

I don't understand your critique anyway. It was simple economic argument - the higher paying the industry, the more people will desire to enter it, especially when competing with related industries (other sports) paying an order of magnitude more. Add in a high fail rate, there's an even a bigger need to make the eventual payout worth the risk. This is a universal argument that was tailored to soccer v other sports in my earlier post.

You're the one who made it about social justice or something.

I mean, saying it is an economic argument doesn't remove the possibility that it's racially coded.

That said, I was just busting your balls with tongue firmly in-cheek (not good sentence neighbors, those two phrases), attempting to make fun of myself, you and everyone else, while pointing out that it was a little Bell Curve-y. We can be smartass jokesters and still learn something now and again.

 

[BossNYC]

I mean, saying it is an economic argument doesn't remove the possibility that it's racially coded.

That said, I was just busting your balls with tongue firmly in-cheek (not good sentence neighbors, those two phrases), attempting to make fun of myself, you and everyone else, while pointing out that it was a little Bell Curve-y. We can be smartass jokesters and still learn something now and again.

Racially coded. lol

 

[gbservis]

I agree on the surface the idea of TAM seems a bit off. Lot's of people throwing around the raise the cap suggestion but you can't talk about anything without coupling it with a discussion around international roster spots. As people mentioned the leakage down to lower skilled players is a real risk if you raise the cap without also significantly rising the number of international spots. Essentially I think it boils down to 3 options:

1. Keep the current TAM model - Bring in 4-7 more highly skilled players per team, keep lower level US player salaries in check.

2. Raise the cap and leave the international spots the same - Everyone will be paid more including the bottom roster US players, likely any league wide increase in talent will be minimal.

3. Raise the cap and raise the number of international roster spots - total talent top to bottom improves, Bottom roster level US players don't have jobs, teams are filled with more international talent.

If you just want to see the best product on the field and don't care about US player development then option 3 makes sense. If you care about US player development then TAM may be our best option for now.

 

[Rimil]

does anyone think the title of the thread would have been better as:
Wham, Bam, Thank You, TAM
I usually like my emphasis at the end. AND! aren't you thanking the TAM. Like Oh! more TAM, thanks.

Sorry to interject my randoms thoughts. Please continue fighting around my post. Its just been eating at me every time I see it in "New Post", i had to get it off my chest.

 

[Gavin23]

These people fucking whining about this stuff just literally don't get business, economics or logic. First level thinkers infuriate me.

Muh minimuhm waggeee

 

[JGarrettLieb]

These people fucking whining about this stuff just literally don't get business, economics or logic. First level thinkers infuriate me.

Midas it is the unfortunate fact that a reasonable majority of the human population are first level thinkers. (Last checked in college, if anyone's got access to scholarly databases and has a new answer please say so.)

That said, assuming captain kumquat and major malfunction over there are second level thinkers, what benefit do these two accrue from telling the full story and what benefit do they accrue for telling the player friendly half of the story?

These two are sportswriters which means that they live and die off of the access that they can get to inside sources, quite literally in fact; no inside sources no job.

Who would these two be appeasing if they told the full business oriented story? Basically everyone in C suite or above on a team level, and the office of the MLS commissioner. AKA people who already have their preferred avenues to leak things. Neither of these two look like they are the preferred method for leaking the good stuff from people in power.

So why not get in cozy with the players and seem like you are on their side? There's more players than executives anyway, and its not like players don't hear anything.

Taking the logic to the next step, MLS execs could try and cut off access to players from these two. But that would just solidify them as "good guys" from the POV of the players union.

There's obviously more to it and definitely logic branches I left out, but it seems like the best play for these two is to take an unashamedly pro player stance, regardless of whether they understand the full implications or not.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Midas it is the unfortunate fact that a reasonable majority of the human population are first level thinkers. (Last checked in college, if anyone's got access to scholarly databases and has a new answer please say so.)

That said, assuming captain kumquat and major malfunction over there are second level thinkers, what benefit do these two accrue from telling the full story and what benefit do they accrue for telling the player friendly half of the story?

These two are sportswriters which means that they live and die off of the access that they can get to inside sources, quite literally in fact; no inside sources no job.

Who would these two be appeasing if they told the full business oriented story? Basically everyone in C suite or above on a team level, and the office of the MLS commissioner. AKA people who already have their preferred avenues to leak things. Neither of these two look like they are the preferred method for leaking the good stuff from people in power.

So why not get in cozy with the players and seem like you are on their side? There's more players than executives anyway, and its not like players don't hear anything.

Taking the logic to the next step, MLS execs could try and cut off access to players from these two. But that would just solidify them as "good guys" from the POV of the players union.

There's obviously more to it and definitely logic branches I left out, but it seems like the best play for these two is to take an unashamedly pro player stance, regardless of whether they understand the full implications or not.

I mean, that's why we call it dumb-luck or falling bass ackwards into it. Or ignorance is bliss or whatever. Doesn't make me dislike them any less. Because the level beyond that is realizing if you're a voice in a league that is one of the best in the world, your audience and economic incentives should increase. And wanting the league to be worse impedes that.

I tend to think these fuckers are just thumbing their urethras. Que sera and shit.

 

[EganSoccerWords]

Wow, maybe $150 million is the floor for expansion fees...

Floor is now 200 million for new clubs. Garber came out and set it there in August IIRC.

 

[413Blue]

Look at it a different way like at a casino. Better to play with the house money rather than always going in to your pockets. Sure you can hit the ATM up, but why do it when you can reinvest your winnings?

Or look at it like running a retail store. You sell equity in your company and use the money to buy inventory. Not a good idea.
Basically what I'm saying is owners shouldn't be saying "sweet, we're,re getting that $7m from Atlanta and Mnu, we can use that money now to increase our cap!

 

[BossNYC]

To me, they're obviously using expansion fees in lieu of a big TV deal.

So hopefully those ratings start to creep up a little more quickly so we can land that monster TV deal because the league is filling up.