Printable View
Frankly I for oneam sick of fans and owners of other teams roasting the yankees for doing what their teams owner should be doing and that is investing in a winning team. It seems other owners think that by stopping the Yankees from spending that they will magically be able to win with two dollar payrolls. Instead of their fans complaining they should force their local owners to get off their arses and invest in their teams instead of engaging in the newest great American past time, whining.
So, here's an interesting point that was brought up on Deadspin today...WILL New Yorkers be happy about this? After all, this same Yankees team that just dropped Ghana's GDP on 3 guys is THE SAME Yankees team that bitched and whined about needing ANOTHER $480 million of taxpayer money for their stadium.
It's really a case of "them that has, gets"...the Yanks had an incredible amount of salary free up all at once (Mussina, Abreu, etc.), so they were able to just go out and spend.
I disagree with...well, practically everyone, in that there needs to be a salary cap; Burnett and Teixiera are Exhibits A and B to that. But as important, or perhaps moreso, is that a salary floor needs to be put in as well, and expanded and meaningful revenue sharing must be put in place. The owners in general need to stop treating their teams as if they were Microsoft or Coca-Cola or any other business.
Why would they need a salary cap, though? Overall, over the last several years, teams have been spending less on player salaries recently (as a percent of revenue), so what would a salary cap address exactly?
From what I can see, the only thing that a salary cap would do is to justify putting more money into the owners pockets. Knowing something of your own politics, I can't see that as something which you would support... So, I'm a bit confused I guess.
I do support something like a "salary floor", personally. I don't think that it would look like what most people who advocate for it really want, though.
I'd like to see a Salary Cap, but ONLY WITH a Salary Floor as well...it doesn't work without both components. Then you do what the NFL does and tie it directly to league revenues. If the league makes more money, both the cap AND the floor rise the same percent amount that revenues went up. If revenues fall, the same thing happens downwards.
I'm just finding it increasingly difficult to give a crap about baseball, to be quite honest. It's just becoming increasingly difficult to cheer for any team beyond maybe 10...sure, the smaller teams can draft well, but what's their reward? When that guy's contract is up they are GUARANTEED to lose him to a bigger market with huge resources. And then they get the 'privilege' of starting all over again? Yeah...yippadeedee.
Years ago, I was a much more active fan of the sport. Football's always been my true love for sports, but baseball was right there with it. As time goes on, though, I just find I have less and less interest in actually, actively watching it. I passively follow it, but I care less and less and less. Certainly, some other things factor in to that as well...the local AAA ball club going away was a big shot to my love for the game. In the end, though, I just find myself increasingly turned off by the major leagues. It's boring.
Y'know, HGM,Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That quote you posted by Cardsfanboy, about a "salary floor"...
Might not be as crazy as it sounds...
:cool:
Can salary cap be a feature in Mogul 2k10?
You're right, it is against type for me, and generally, I'm a player's guy. But I just can't take the idea of the cap only lining the owners' pockets any more than I can take the idea of only three or four teams in MLB spending "properly", while the remaining twenty-six are tight-fists who don't give a damn whether or not they win. Winning still does have some impact on the bottom line. Isn't it more likely given the numbers that the teams on top are simply outspending the others, regardless of where the skinflints are?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Honestly, I find that the high level of parity in the NFL makes that product unwatchable. It becomes too homogenous because almost every team is at the same level of mediocre, 6-9 wins a season except for like 2 really good teams and 3 really bad teams. And then because teams change from year to year so much, there's really not any compelling story lines because nothing is constant. That's not really a criticism of your post, just adding my 2 cents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
These days, college sports are really the only things worth watching. I love baseball more than anything though, so I put up with MLB. The NFL and NBA just aren't any fun anymore.
That's actually a damn good expression of the way that I feel about parity myself. dis-parity is definitely bad, there shouldn't be any "sure" teams, at either end (winners or losers). However, the homogeneous mix of mediocre teams is just as bad if not worse... Where are the "Cinderella" teams in the NFL, anymore?Quote:
Honestly, I find that the high level of parity in the NFL makes that product unwatchable. It becomes too homogenous because almost every team is at the same level of mediocre, 6-9 wins a season except for like 2 really good teams and 3 really bad teams. And then because teams change from year to year so much, there's really not any compelling story lines because nothing is constant. That's not really a criticism of your post, just adding my 2 cents.
In my opinion, baseball is perfect right now. What other sport has the Florida marlins? Tampa Bay Rays? Hell, even the Yankees being there for all of us to "hate", or the lovable losing Cubbies. The Red Sox shaking off their 100+ year curse, and now to some becoming the Evil Empire II. Perfection!
This... this brings me back to my earlier statements here. I wouldn't be so quick to be on the side of the "players" either. It's all business, except what actually occurs on the field. The players are suppliers, their businesses themselves, selling a product to their distributors/OEM's, the teams. That's the only way to look at it, because that's the way everyone operates.Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
Personally, I'm content to let MLB and the MLBPA just do their thing. Their all well aware of all of the ramifications of their actions, much more so than any of us are...
Except with the possible exception of draftees or (probably especially) foreign rookies. That's a whole different discussion though, really.
In my view, the odd man out in this whole equation is us, the fans. There's no one looking out for our collective interests. There's no "consumer advocacy" for us, at all, when it comes to sports entertainment. The teams, players and their agents, even the media... we're played, constantly. That's why team owners such as Loria are able to scrape together a Championship team and then sell it off the following season, because collectively we allow it. "Hey, it's not my team!", "Those damn (Yankees/Red Sox/Angels), buying all fo our players!", "Oh damn, our Cubbies came so close this year!". And that's not even mentioning the stadium deals, or tourism enticements... We let them do these sorts of things to us, even encourage it occasionally.
This is what I hate about the system. As a fan I get excited about players that come up through the system. When the club lets those that are exciting go because they can't/won't spend the money that others can that gets frustrating. I live in the bay area in California. There are a TON of Giants fans around here, some A's fans, and a random smattering of the other teams. Its sad when the team that has more championships since moving to the area can't field a team thats exciting enough to fill there stadium (hello covered upper deck seats), and you rarely see anyone sporting A's gear. And when you do see someone sporting the A's, its someone who lived through Reggie Jackson's days with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
The Giants have fans of all ages. Fortunately they have an ownership group that is willing to spend enough to retain players that are exciting, unlike their cross-bay rivals. But even then, they couldn't/wouldn't sign Texiera because of the money, when he was exactly what they needed.
Thats why I hate Yankee style baseball. I don't know if its fair to be frustrated with the Yankees or if I should be frustrated with my own team's ownership. Its hard to be frustrated with my own team, they built an awesome stadium with private funding, not many other owners have the balls to do that. Anyways, thats the seat of my frustration.
I think that maybe a good solution could be to limit say the top three spenders to a certain percent over the average payroll of the league. That would keep them from getting too crazy (hello 3 top FAs) but still allow them their big spender advantage. Like say, only 2 of the top free agents.
Well, go ahead and find the holes in that one, I'm sure you all will.
I think there should be an organization spending cap and floor. Not just salary..but everything in a MLB team's budget altogether, as a total. That way you can limit the gap between the richest and poorest markets somewhat...but the organization can still put the money where they want. I think the cap shouldn't be anything that drastically changes anything...but just to prevent things from getting out of control at some point...and a floor to make sure the poorest markets are still putting in enough money to be improving their franchise.
Hmm... Back to the original subject. This makes me happy...
From mlbtraderumors.com
"Mark Teixeira leftovers...Murray Chass says Tex and his wife didn't want to live in Boston, while Kat O'Brien details the hard stance the Yankees took with Scott Boras."
If this is what you're talking about, me too: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseba...tory?track=rssQuote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
Yes, stare Boras down... more teams should take that approach:
B: "We want more! More money, more years, options!"
Y: "We have a good offer on the table, take it or leave it."
B: "OK, then he's going to the Red Sox."
Y: "OK, see ya."
B: "Wait, we'll take your offer."
Boras told the Yankees they needed a 10-year deal, with the last two years as player options. That got an absolute no from the Yankees, who had offered eight years and $180 million ($22.5 million per year).
Around midday Tuesday, Boras said Teixeira would agree to an eight-year contract, but only if the average annual value was $24 million per year, making the total contract value $192 million. The Yankees conferred, then told Boras no, that they had made a fair yet firm offer and would stand pat, the source said. Boras responded by saying that Teixeira likely would be a Red Sox.
The Yankees refused to budge from their offer, and 20 minutes later, Boras called back and said Teixeira would take their eight-year, $180-million offer.
Lol, that's freaking awesome... After years of teams (especially the Yanks) just bending over for Boras, he gets told "no" a few times.
Ya know, it's probably not the first time. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by koolzach1
For example, see Kyle Lohse last offseason.
That's perfectly valid. The big difference for me in the way both sports build up a team is the way the draft works. In the NFL, typically 2 or 3 guys are playing significant roles for their team the year they're drafted, if not more. In baseball, it's YEARS before any of those kids can step in. That's why I think having a few big spenders hurts a lot worse in baseball than in football...in football, you CAN quickly rebuild if you draft smartly. In baseball, those picks that are your 'reward' for losing free agents aren't going to amount to anything for your club for years. You're basically telling the fans of that team they can sit around and wait for 4 years before they have a hope in Hell...oh, but please keep buying tickets! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
And plenty of people do keep buying. The low spending teams do win.
The thing is, the sports are different. There's a lot more luck (variation) involved in baseball all around, and even the most dominating players aren't that dominating, so the field is somewhat more level already.
The deep development system is unique in baseball as well, and lower spending teams do leverage it to their advantage. Teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox don't rely on it nearly as much as the Royals or Marlins, who consistently develop their own players in house.
I see your point, for sure, but... what's the solution? I don't think that it's as much of a problem as you're making it out to be, so there's certainly a bit of bias in my view. More importantly though, I just don't see what exactly is being advocated for.
Thats true, but the problem is that they can't keep those players. Miguel Cabrera is a perfect example. He should be the Marlins franchise player. But they can't keep him because of a market so strongly influenced by the whimsical (read: win now at all costs) mentality of the deeper pocket teams. So the Marlins (or insert other low budget team here) lose a player that I am sure their fans were pumped about, and was probably one of two players they enjoyed watching. Now hes gone. They have low attendance for a reason. If you can't retain more than one stud at a time and give a few guys for people to follow and get excited about, there will be a lot of empty seats.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
as an alumni with Mark, I'm very very disappointed... of all the teams.. Yankees? This just killed me last week when the news came out.
Really? In an actual "perfect" system, teams improve, they fall. They spend time on the top, they have some years in the wilderness. A few have extended stays at the top (Braves, Cards, O's in the 1970s) or at the bottom (Mariners, Cubs), probably due to a good or bad front office, coaching, team atmosphere, or luck. Tell me, when's the next 100-loss season for the Yankees or Red Sox? How about even 90 losses? When's the next run for the Houston Astros, or the Kansas City Royals?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
You have a point that everyone's part of the system, but not in that it's a business like any other. No other business has to count on competitors being in business. No other business drafts its talent. No other business is left to its own affairs in the same way by Federal authorities. It is different, and it needs to operate under different rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
This I do agree with, wholeheartedly; I think that in a perfect world, the fans would elect the Comissioner of Baseball, and could recall him as well or have him on a fixed term. Many of the problems we see are due to the fact that we have no input in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
No. They can't keep him because they have an owner whose only concern is making money and he doesn't care about the product the Marlins put on the field. They cut their best reliever (Joe Nelson) because they didn't want to pay him ~$1 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
So the Marlins have the income necessary to pay Cabrera, Willis, and Rameriz what they would/will/did get from deep pocket teams? and still be profitable for the owner? I don't buy it.
If the owner actually cared about fielding a winning ball team, yes, probably. Part of the reason the Yankees have so much money is because the Steinbrenner's actually invest their own money into the team. Down in Florida, Loria's sole concern is making his wallet fatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
I wasn't talking solely about florida though. There are many other small budget teams.
Some of the other small budget teams have the disadvantage of being run by idiots for the good part of the last 15-20 years. And those small budget teams that haven't been run by idiots have enjoyed pretty solid success - Oakland, Minnesota, and now that Tampa Bay has a competent GM, them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
"I think the Steinbrenners, coming off a miserable last season in Yankee Stadium, are dead set on opening the new stadium with a World Series and they don't care how much it costs. Good for them. You can ***** all you want about the Yankees and greed but they spend money in a sincere effort to win it all, every year. What fan wouldn't want their teams to do that."
I put that in quotes because I didn't write it (obviously, because I would've ended it with a question mark), but I think it's interesting who did.
I don't disagree with you...but for how long are those teams going to be successful? How long until their key guys come up for free agency, and they make a reasonable offer to keep them...only to have the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Mets come in and offer a ludicrous amount of money and buy that player away?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't know how long they'll be successful. The Twins lost both Torii Hunter and Johan Santana, and still came 1 game shy of missing the playoffs. The fact is, intelligence, player development, and shrewd moves matter more than just dollars. (Yes, having more money will allow you to keep your own players longer and give you a higher chance of sustained winning and less ups and downs, but that doesn't mean the other teams have no chance)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I agree it doesn't mean the other teams have no chance...it DOES mean the other teams have a much shorter chance before they lost too many key guys and have to enter another development cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If they keep the development cycle going...a la the Twins...though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I definitely see your point. I just don't really think it's that much of a problem that something needs to be done to hamstring the wealthy teams.
Exactly.
Its not about hamstringing them, its about shortening the lease a little.
Everyone kisses Billy Beane's ass, and you bring up the Twins. When was the last time these teams won championships? or had a serious chance at winning?
The teams that retain their players are the teams that do well. Tampa and Phillie are good examples.
*What* players have the Sox come in and bought away with a ludicrous amount of money? 2? Manny and Drew...and Drew was tampering more than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
...and just about any team could have afforded to pay Manny 20 mill a year, AND he would have been worth every penny.
Every time they got into the playoffs they had a serious chance at winning...unless you're suggesting that they were somehow built to do good in the regular season, but the lack of funds lessened their playoff chances...Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
How is Tampa any different than the Twins or A's? Oh, well, except for the fact that the A's and Twins were/are routinely competitive, and the Rays have just one good season.Quote:
The teams that retain their players are the teams that do well. Tampa and Phillie are good examples.
And the Phillies aren't a small-market team.
HGM: I think you're missing the point. The Twins being "competitive" is not the same as the Yankees or (of late) the Sox being "competitive". The mere fact that we're talking in this thread about the Yankees as having had a "poor" season while they won one more game than the "competitive" Twins highlights the exact problem. Run enough seasons and you'll get the Twins finishing ahead of the Yankees every once in a great while, just like the Rays managed to get a pennant...but eventually, the competitive balance will be upset, and those that were on top will immediately be back on top - no development or waiting necessary.
Consider it this way: the last time the Twins had a better season than the Yankees was 1992. Do you think it will happen next season? Will it happen in the next five seasons? What if the Twins could have afforded to re-sign Hunter or Santana to a long-term contract, and the Yankees just couldn't stretch their pocketbook enough to sign Sabathia? Wouldn't those odds change a bit?
Well, than it's back to what I said here:
Quote:
(Yes, having more money will allow you to keep your own players longer and give you a higher chance of sustained winning and less ups and downs, but that doesn't mean the other teams have no chance)
Quote:
I definitely see your point. I just don't really think it's that much of a problem that something needs to be done to hamstring the wealthy teams.
What I don't really understand is the punishment of success mentality behind the salary cap advocates. Why not look to punish failure instead? I'm much more supportive of a salary floor then I am of a cap...
cap simply won't happen, it would never fly with the union...end of discussion
(quotes)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Okay, you're entitled to the opinion, I suppose, that nothing needs to be done about it...but please, don't preface that by saying:
That's just not the case. Money is at least as important as any of the foregoing factors if not more. It's the one of the defining factors, and it's easily demonstrable as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM