Printable View
I don't see how money is at least as important if not more. I see it as clearly secondary to that. Look at the teams that succeed with a low payroll, and then the teams that fail with a high payroll (relatively consistently). The things that separate them are...front office smarts in a variety of areas like trading, free agency, drafting, and player development.Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
That's what the NFLPA AND the NHLPA both said...until the offer came in that included a spending FLOOR that moved at the same rate as the cap. Curtailing the top end spending of the top, what, 5 or 6 teams tends to be seen a little more favorably when EVERYONE has to spend a certain amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
This made me think of something...:
Why do fans get so worked up over baseball teams spending their money on baseball players, yet barely make a peep when baseball teams ask the taxpayers to build them stadiums?Quote:
Though I may have been subtle in communicating this, the Yankees are not my favorite team. But it is hard to fault them for spending money since, you know, they make a lot of money and, you may have heard, they spent their money on good players who will help them win games and, research shows, winning attracts the fans that make teams profitable. So, like most people, and this might hit you like a striper wrapped in yesterday’s Post, I don’t care that they are spending a lot of money as long as they are NOT asking my elected representatives to steal money from me to give it to them and their business.
I may fervently hope that Sabathia and Burnett turn out like Tartabull and Johnson, but I am not angry that they spent their money to buy players. It’s called the free market.
Oh, and it’s what I wish the Twins would do, too.
its symptomatic of the new American morays, make even one the same, do not reward people that succeed, pull them back to the pack by any means necessary...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Well, in the case of the NHLPA, until the league's economics came to be so bad overall that there was a real threat that several teams wouldn't survive, the league itself was on the brink, and the owners locked the players out throwing away a season. Not really a comparable situation given that baseball's revenue and attendance are growing year after year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Because by your own admission, using your own criteria, I picked a team (the Twins) which you cited as a small-market team with a very savvy front office, and showed that they haven't beaten the Yankees (not just any big-market team, just the Yankees) in 16 seasons, and aren't likely to in the next five. So, either the Yankees' front office is supernaturally talented in some way, or they just use the money to make the difference, placing them in a different strata.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That goes back to what I said here, again:
And also, back to the other quote I previously quoted of myself, that I don't see how it's a problem that needs fixing. It's not as if there's one team in each division that's continually walloping the rest of the division. There's one team in the whole league that has this huge of a monetary advantage.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)
A salary cap would effectively be a "screw the Yankees cap." The difference between the Yankees and the second place team (the Tigers, who, well, sucked this year), is as big as the difference between the Tigers and the 22nd place team, the Orioles. What exactly would the cap be, for all you salary cap proponents?
Well, the Yankees don't seem to have any problem screwing the league, so I don't have any problem with screwing the Yankees...
I'm just not seeing how the Yankees are "screwing the league." They have the largest fan base and make the most money. They should be allowed to spend their money to win games. The Yankees have an ownership group and front office that truly cares about winning. I guess fans of other teams are just jealous that they can't enjoy the same luxury (on account of them having dumb front offices and owners that only care about making a profit).
That's really what it comes down to. A salary cap will literally do nothing to improve competitive balance. There's just simply a) not enough of a competitive balance problem and b) there's only one team that's really way ahead of the pack in the thing that a salary cap attempts to fix. The salary cap will only serve as a way to limit the spending of one team. It won't do anything to improve the league as a whole.
Uhhh...how many of us DID hammer the Yankees when they demanded another $480 mil 6 months ago (I seem to remember it was quite a few)? Hell, I can't stand public financing of pro sports facilities PERIOD...it's a ridiculous misuse of public funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I wasn't talking about anybody here, but rather, just in general. I'm not seeing the mass flood of articles demanding that teams stop doing this...yet the minute Mark Teixeira signed with the Yankees, each major media outlet had 15 different people clamoring for a salary cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
The crying about Miguel Cabrera not being the franchise player of the Marlins and that being the big market team's faults is pretty hilarious.
the salary cap would be placed probably in the neighborhood of 120 million. Jeffrey Loria spends somewhere between 20 and 30 million a year. How would a salary cap make him and all the other cheap-ass owners spend more? Are you trying to tell me that, with a salary cap: A: Miguel Cabrera would only ask for like 10 mil for 5 years? (no) or B: Loria would just decide to spend 80 mil extra to get near the cap? If he would, that makes him a completely horrible owner.
The salary cap argument is completely ridiculous because the small-market teams don't even try to hold onto their players, and if it weren't the Yankees getting all of the players, someone else would. If the Pirates, Twins, Marlins, etc. don't want to spend $110 mil pre-salary cap, how on earth can I expect them to spend that money with a salary cap? Furthermore, if Teixeira just signs with the Angels or Red Sox, doesn't the same problem still exist regardless of what the Yankees do?
exactlyQuote:
The salary cap argument is completely ridiculous because the small-market teams don't even try to hold onto their players,
Remember when the Twins tried to hold onto Santana? What was their offer, something like 2 years, 45 mil? In what universe was that going to be remotely acceptable, salary cap or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
No, the Twins offer last year was supposedly 5/100.
See this. The Twins asked Santana to cut them a bit of a break out of "loyalty"...loyalty their ownership group has never shown.
I cant believe this topic is still being debated. For some of those, if I hear you quitting your job to go to another company because you will get paid more, you will be hypocrites.
Did you just choose to ignore the whole 'Salary FLOOR' part of the discussion, or are you selectively blind? And yes, I DO include the other massive spending teams when I'm talking about this, it's not just some simplistic hatefest of the Yankees.Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
And since we're speaking about owners cheaping out and not dropping a dime on their own franchise, well, that IS a matter that should be of concern because it makes this whole laughable disparity a thousand times worse. Hell, I say go for the throat...if you can't or won't run your franchise in the best interests of the league, it's auction time for your franchise. After all, eventually fans are going to stop showing up to your games (as is already happening in Florida and did happen in Montreal) which is not exactly a healthy situation for the rest of the sport to have to deal with.
Yeah, because that's a comparable situation...multimillionaire athlete vs. me making $17.75 an hour to run a warehouse. Besides, we aren't discussing perceived 'greed' on the part of players, so I fail to see why this ridiculous point was even brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
What other "massive spending teams" are there? As I mentioned earlier, the difference between the Yankees and the number 2 team is as large as the difference between the number 2 and the number 22 team. Yes, there's some teams spending $100 million on salaries and some under $50 million, but I don't see how or why that needs to be changed. The simple fact of the matter is that some teams are better run and make more money, and they shouldn't be penalized and not allowed to reap the benefits of their success.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Whatever. Look, clearly this is one of those diametrically opposed arguments that's just going to stay that way...and I'm in a frigging crapass mood anyway, so I'm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well I figured it was implied by the content of my posts that I'm pro-salary floor. But that doesn't change the fact that any sort of salary cap would change nothing except unfairly penalize the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox for having money. Even with a corresponding salary floor, the salary cap would be a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Remember that Japanese dude that you guys payed $51 mil to negotiate with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
It really is, I dont see how it isnt. Everyone wants to make the most money they can. Loyalty doesnt apply to an occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Even allowing the disanalogous signing of Dice-K...that's, what three in 10 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar
it WOULD lower player costs because the high spending teams would not be able to negotiate for the hure f/a guys once they are at the cap
say the cap was 110 million
the top 9 guys would not have been ablt to sign texeria, sabathia, maybe burnett... etcCode:2008 Team Payrolls
No. Team Payroll Average
1. New York Yankees $209,081,579 $6,744,567
2. Detroit Tigers $138,685,197 $4,622,840
3. New York Mets $138,293,378 $4,609,779
4. Boston Red Sox $133,440,037 $4,765,716
5. Chicago White Sox $121,152,667 $4,487,136
6. Los Angeles Angels $119,216,333 $4,110,908
7. Chicago Cubs $118,595,833 $4,392,438
8. Los Angeles Dodgers $118,536,038 $4,233,430
9. Seattle Mariners $117,993,982 $4,538,230
10. Atlanta Braves $102,424,018 $3,414,134
11. St. Louis Cardinals $100,624,450 $3,049,226
12. Toronto Blue Jays $98,641,957 $3,522,927
13. Philadelphia Phillies $98,269,881 $3,388,617
14. Houston Astros $88,930,415 $3,293,719
15. Milwaukee Brewers $81,004,167 $2,793,247
16. Cleveland Indians $78,970,067 $3,037,310
17. San Francisco Giants $76,904,500 $2,651,879
18. Cincinnati Reds $74,277,695 $2,971,108
19. San Diego Padres $73,677,617 $2,376,697
20. Colorado Rockies $68,655,500 $2,640,596
21. Texas Rangers $68,239,551 $2,353,088
22. Baltimore Orioles $67,196,248 $2,099,883
23. Arizona Diamondbacks $66,202,713 $2,364,383
24. Minnesota Twins $62,182,767 $2,487,311
25. Kansas City Royals $58,245,500 $2,240,212
26. Washington Nationals $54,961,000 $1,895,207
27. Pittsburgh Pirates $49,365,283 $1,898,665
28. Oakland Athletics $47,967,126 $1,713,112
29. Tampa Bay Rays $43,820,598 $1,460,687
30. Florida Marlins $21,836,500 $661,712
contracts would have to be shorter because teams would not wnat to cripple themselves... and no more 20+ million contracts. All of a a sudden Toronto can say.. "well wait a minute... ny and boston cant go get better this year... and for 10 mill or so we can get burnett back... now we are competative again.
Than the cap just functions as a wealth transfer from the players to the owners.
and... thats a problem... why....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
whats the difference between them making $$$ in futures as to with a baseball team??? what about the ceo's making 25+ million in bonuses???
Because the players deserve their fair share of the revenue THEY generate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
then you will not have parrity... you either want parrity, or every team to have a chance. take your pick... you cant have both. OR.. take 75% of all revenue from every team,and devide it up evenly.
First of all, there IS parity. I'm also a bit confused by what "you either want parity or every team to have a chance, you can't have both means", considering parity because means every team having a chance...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Second of all, how does that cap give us parity? The small market teams are still well under the cap, and I don't see how limiting the large market teams will somehow make the small market teams spend more.
yea my line makes no sense sorry lol. You are always going to have teams that wont spend $$$ look at the NFL... I dont think AZ spent any money for years. There is SOME parity in MLB but not a sustained lasting parity. For example... in 2 years in teh NFL you can turn a team around. In MLB you make your run for 3-5 years with a small market if your lucky then lose all your players in arbitration or trades to restock the farm.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm still not seeing how a salary cap would change that, nor do I think the problem is enough of a problem to warrant fixing.
Well, I could be entirely wrong, but a salary cap would inevitably lower some salaries, making certain players more affordable for the smaller market teams. If they can get better players for their dollar, that would, presumably, make those teams more competitive.
I feel it's not 'in the interests of baseball' to throw stupid money at players like Sabathia and Burnett. *Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But I have no idea how to fix that without being too Draconian or even how to define 'stupid money'.
*One reason it's not in baseball's interests is because it could cause an overreaction down the line with owners seeking a salary cap. In fact I have a sneaking suspicion that the Yankees are afraid to sign Manny now, for just that reason. They can afford him, would make a lot of it back in Manny shirts, and could stick him in RF.
Sure, possibly, but I don't think it'd lower the salaries of the true impact players much, if at all, and certainly not enough to give the small market teams more of a chance than the large market teams. It'd have more of an effect on the middle ground of players, who the small market teams already spend their money on, and usually don't benefit much from (think Jose Guillen, Adam Eaton, Carlos Silva, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
I'm just not following this. It's the team's money, and it certainly is in THEIR best interest to sign those players, and in my opinion, teams doing things in their best interest (ie. to improve their chances of winning) is always in the best interest of baseball as a whole. It's the teams with the greedy owners like Jeffrey Loria and Carl Pohlad that act in ways not in the interests of baseball by pocketing the money they receive from baseball, instead of investing it into their team. The Yankees do what all teams should do - whatever it takes to field the best team possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I would agree that the real "superstars" would still get big paydays, but the next level of free agent, still very good players (and I would still call them "impact" players) would suffer, and get lesser contracts. This would certainly make them more affordable, thus helping the teams with less money compete for the FA's.
becuase then teams can't do what the yankees did and go sign the top 3 f/a's on the market, at least not every 2-3 years :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
that is another benefit. Guys like Derek Lowe would not be asking for 15 a year and getting 10-12 million. they would be asking for 10 and getting 8... you add Lowe and an OK hitter to KC and maybe another #3-#5 starter to that team and they all of a sudden become a factor with only about 25-30 million more... detroit becomes less dominant because they cant last year go get willis and cabrerra (lol even tho it did not help them at ALL lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Not that the angels spend a fortune but now all of a sudden OAK looks very good again and TEX with a few moves get back into it. The Cubs dont resign Depster so he falls to another club. Eventualy things start to even out... the players don't jump ship quite as much when they realize they wont get as much... I mean you are always going to have A-Rod type players who dominate and make a team... but not at 30 million a year... more like 20.
I dont see how its NOT a problem. The braves were good when Turner ran them because we spent $$$, we outspent the other teams... thats how you stay successfull... well if you take that away... it comes back to your farm team... giving people a chance to see the teams they grow up watching keep a few players, be competative.
You are ALWAYS going to have teams tha twont spend, the Royals, Pirates, Tampa, Minny etc.
Only 6 teams spend under 60 million 2 of which are trying to rebuild.
Which is, like I said, a wealth transfer from the players to the owners. In this scenario, the owners will make a much larger percentage of the revenue, while the players get even less of a percentage than they currently get, and frankly, I'm opposed to that regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
And what do you all make of this, from Colin Wyers at Baseball Think Factory. It's pretty startling, actually.
And one other comment from him that I agree with 100%:Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Wyers
Quote:
Here's how I look at it: what you have here is a bunch of billionaires, the richest people in the country, openly talking about using their monopoly powers to artifically surpress wages in order to add to their already unfathomable wealth, and they're using the legitimate economic distress of the ordinary citizen as a prop in this little stage play. I think it's revolting and unseemly.
ITs because the brewers cant trot out the 120 million plus payroll to compete with STL and CHC. so why not if you are not going to really contend... make $$$?
and dont forget... baseball is a BUISNESS... just because profits are up at the company I work for does not mean I get a raise??? this is not a communist country where we share everyting... or thats right they dont share either :p