Yanks get Mark Teixeira

[TheNamelessPoet]

Than the cap just functions as a wealth transfer from the players to the owners.

and... thats a problem... why....
whats the difference between them making $$$ in futures as to with a baseball team??? what about the ceo's making 25+ million in bonuses???

[HoustonGM]

and... thats a problem... why....

Because the players deserve their fair share of the revenue THEY generate.

[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.

[HoustonGM]

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...

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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...

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.

[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.

[Swampdog]

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.

[Pavelb1]

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.

I feel it's not 'in the interests of baseball' to throw stupid money at players like Sabathia and Burnett. *

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.)

[HoustonGM]

I feel it's not 'in the interests of baseball' to throw stupid money at players like Sabathia and Burnett. *

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.

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.

[Swampdog]

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

[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...

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.

And what do you all make of this, from Colin Wyers at Baseball Think Factory. It's pretty startling, actually.

Looking at the Forbes numbers (I know, I know, but they're all we have) the top teams in profits (revenues minus expenses), 2002-2007:

Washington Nationals 2007
Florida Marlins 2006
Florida Marlins 2007
Cleveland Indians 2005
Baltimore Orioles 2004
New York Mets 2007
Chicago White Sox 2007
Houston Astros 2005
Toronto Blue Jays 2005
Tampa Bay Rays 2007

The bottom ten:

Toronto Blue Jays 2002
Texas Rangers 2002
Los Angeles Dodgers 2002
New York Yankees 2006
New York Yankees 2003
Texas Rangers 2003
Los Angeles Angels 2004
New York Yankees 2004
New York Yankees 2007
New York Yankees 2005

I know these figures are distorted by related-party transactions, like the YES network. But according to Forbes, the Astros cleared something like $75 million in profit in the past six years. The Brewers (the other team with an owner asking for a salary cap) hauled in $85 million. It's not that these teams are lacking in money, their owners are just choosing not to reinvest in the product. And now they're asking MLB to step in and keep them from having to spend more of that money on players.

And one other comment from him that I agree with 100%:

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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

[HoustonGM]

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 $$$?

1) They don't need to spend $120 million on payroll to compete (as evidenced by...this year).
2) They clearly HAVE the money to, but they CHOOSE not to.

I'm not really sure exactly what you're saying here though. They can't contend because they can't spend the money to, so, instead of contending, they should make money....and pocket it...instead of putting it into the team...in order to contend....

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

If your company is making record profits, you absolutely deserve to get a raise, and have a right to demand one.

However, that analogy doesn't fit in this situation. Rather, here's a better one. You're making $75,000 a year. Your company is making record profits, and then tells you that they're slashing your salary to $50,000 a year.