Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

LegFuJohnson

Members
  • Posts

    647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    LegFuJohnson
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

LegFuJohnson's Achievements

Huddler

Huddler (2/4)

0

Reputation

  1. My sportsline league, under "League Rules", has a specific place that asks if you designate all pitchers together, or SP and RP separately. Can't help you with scoring, as we use roto style, though. No reason that ESPN or Yahoo wouldn't work for you, though.
  2. Payroll on track to be lower than 2008, but anything is possible.
  3. Actually, their payroll in the late 90's was barely higher than the other teams, in 1998 they weren't even #1 in the league. In the last 9 years, 14 different teams have played for a World Series title. If they picked teams at random to play, the maximum possible is 18. Let me know which of the salary cap sports have this kind of balance.
  4. Curious where you get that? The Yankees have been terrible at buying championships. Ever since 2002, when they brought in Mussina and Giambi and really expanded the payroll, they haven't gotten anything. The only team that truly bought a title was the 2004 Red Sox. I'm not sure they had 2 home grown players on their playoff roster... but I realize that's not the point.
  5. I don't think they are yet at the point of "more" luxury tax. Although they'll probably get there. I think the 2009 salaries of Tex, CC, Burnett and Swisher aren't too much more than what Mussina/Pavano/Giambi and Abreu made in 2008.
  6. And well run teams will succeed. But I understand, you want people to have the ability and flexibility to sign FA in the offseason. You don't care about the ability or flexibility to improve the team during the season, and you don't care about parity on the field. You made that clear.
  7. Fine, so you want parity off the field, but don't care about parity on the field or allowing teams to improve themselves during the season. Acknowledged.
  8. I thought the idea of leveling the playing field is to help parity, and we have it. You make it seem like its some huge upset that the Yankees don't win every year. It must have really sucked for you this year to watch the Rays win the AL East. When they can build a top roster with such a low payroll, what excuse do I have left for my team? You've said many times (and correctly) that it takes more than money to win. I'd say it takes a lot more than money to win. As has been proven many times, you don't even need a lot of money to win. So why go crazy over the money when it takes so much more (and is not even required) to win? The NBA has a cap. Each team has equal chances to sign LeBron in two years? I doubt it. Put in a cap, and remove the roster flexibilty and not allow teams to improve themselves for the future during the season? No thanks. And what if you are right? How would you know the cap works? New teams would win the title? New teams would get into the World Series. We've got that now. Sounds a lot less stupid than "We need a cap to level out a playing field that currently gives us new winners each year" You really need the Yankees to get back on top this year, don't you? I have no problem entertaining ideas for a better system, as the currect one might not be perfect. But its certainly not bad, and a cap (at least those I've heard suggested) would be worse.
  9. Sounds like you are more in favor of rules which will make the owners spend their money rather than keep it. For the most part, teams choose their payroll levels. The Padres payroll is dropping this year. New TV contract with lower revenues? Mudslides in SD reduce the population? No, the owner is going through a divorce and wants cash. The Brewers offered CC $100 or $110M contract. They have the money to spend. Are they going to spend it on someone else and have a $90M payroll or $65? I don't know, but don't assume that teams' are spending as much as they could, because they obviously aren't. Then again, it's hard to regulate "forcing" people to spend more. Especially when they can see what the Rays did. The problem is that some owners are simply content to make their money, and have no intention of trying to spend more now to make more later. Arizona was in the 20's in the payroll list last year. But they were one of the highest a few years ago. The team with the 30 million payroll has won 2 championships over the last 20 years. I hate to keep going back to the results, but everyone who claims the system is unfair seems to ignore them. 14 teams have played for the championship in the last 9 years. How is a cap going to level the playing field more than that? For the record, according to the USA Today salary database... this is the top 3 payrolls per year: 1993 - Yankees were #3 actually at 41.3M, Cincy #2 at $42.9, Toronto #1 at $45.7 (KC was #4... too bad their market has shrunk so much in 15 years) 1994 - Yankees - $44.8, Toronto $41.9, Atlanta $40.5 (KC still #4) 1995 - Toronto #1 - $49.8, NYY - $46.7, Atlanta $45.2 1996 - NYY - $52.2, Baltimore - $48.7, Atlanta $47.9 You really see a huge problem that starting here... other than the Yankees winning, of course 1997 - NYY - $59.1, Balt - $54.9, Chicago WS $54.4 Looks like teams are still spending with New York, doesn't it? 1998 - Balt - $70.4, NYY - $63.2, Atlanta $59.5 Seriously, the problems started in 1996? You might have to explain that one a little more. If you want to say there is a payroll disparity problem, start with 2002. (of course, you can't lump the Yankees titles in there then)
  10. No, I'm not using the lack of NFL trades, I'm trying to imagine how a team can trade for a veteran and give away nothing (salary wise) in return. I'd assume the bigger market teams would be near the cap (I'm guessing of course, since this is all make believe). So could the Mets trade a minor leauger to the Rays (Kazmir) for Zambrano? Could the Marlins trade Clement and Alfonseca to the Cubs for Dontrelle Willis? I don't see how that would happen. And when baseball teams are eliminated 1/3 of the way through the season, these are often types of trades they are trying to make. A cap would probably just force them to hold their overpriced veterans, because no team would want to waste the cap space on them. Is the cap for the 25 man roster? The 40 man roster? How about signing bonuses for draft picks, those guys aren't even on the 40 man roster right away? But back to the point... The Rangers did have a chance to sign Burnett if they want. They signed A-Rod and Chan Ho, What was their offer for Burnett? The Yankees aren't getting Derek Lowe. Go get him Texas. The Brewers offered CC $100M. Are they going to spend that on Lowe? Maybe, maybe not... but obviously they've got the money if they want to spend it. But you are correct. Baseball players are FAR more interchangable. Which is why when a player leaves, you just can just plug in a new guy that can probably replace most of what you just lost. Probably how the Twins and A's keep plugging along. The Yankees had the highest payroll in the 80's too. But shockingly, 1996 is when the "problems" all started... Since 2000, we've seen 8 different champs. If you want to also include the pennant winning teams, then you can add 6 more teams. 18 possible teams, and we've seen 14 different ones. 14 out of 30, almost half the league, has played for a World Series title recently. Has half the NFL played for the Superbowl in that time? Half the NBA teams locked up for the championship? And while the Pirates and Royals aren't in the "winners" half, neither are the Cubs and Dodgers, 2 of the top 3 markets. I guess I can't see a huge problem with competitive fairness when I see this much balance. If you think a cap is going to make it 17 or 18 different teams in a 9 year span, that's fine, but I wonder why you'd think that. Of course, you said you wanted a cap so other teams could sign players. You didn't mention if you thought it would actually make things more balanced. So you are saying that if the Rangers could sign Burnett, that we'd get even more teams in the World Series than 14 of 18... or does it not matter if they win or not, just that they can sign people?
  11. I suppose I was referring to the in-season trading that teams do to make a playoff run or build for the future, one of the things the other sports don't do. I'd hate to see two teams come up with a trade that could benefit both teams stopped because one team can't trade prospects for veterans anymore. Forget who won this or that? We need a salary cap to level the playing field but let's forget who won this or that... How nice. That's what the whole discussion is... who can win, and who can't. You are talking about trying to level a playing field so everyone can win, aren't you? The Astros lose Betran and Kent and still make the World Series the next year. That's not good enough? They have to have Beltran and Kent when they do it? What's the difference? Now, if they weren't able to compete because they couldn't keep these people, that would be a big problem, but obviously that isn't the case. Yes, it is the attempt to buy a title that upsets people. But since that effort has usually been unsuccessful, then why get so upset? It's not at the forefront of talk? Seriously? What do you think everyone has been talking about since they signed CC? That's all anyone is talking about, its what this whole thread is about. You like a dynasty built with home grown talent with the occassional free agent? Like Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Rivera, Posada winning from 1996-2000? People thought the Yankees were buying titles back then too. And no one cared about payroll until 1996, what a coincidence. Of course they'll accuse the Yankees of trying to buy a title if they win this year. They always do. They do it every year, CC or no CC, why should this year be any different?
  12. Actually, when you are losing an argument you resort to insults and talking down to people. Right now the Yankees pay a luxury tax which helps subsidize the smaller market teams. You said you didn't want one team subsidizing another. Baseball, by nature, is very competitive. No baseball team is as bad as the worst NFL or NBA teams, and the best teams aren't as good. With no cap, with the current market system, the sport has delivered 8 different champions in the past 9 years. Everyone from the high payroll of the Yankees to the low payroll of the Marlins have won. How is a cap going to level the field more than that? A cap would restrict player movement, and not allow teams the struggling teams to better themselves with trades for the future. There used to be a time when teams couldn't buy whatever players they wanted. There was no free agency. The Yankees won 10 World Series titles in a span of 16 years. Personally, I like it better this way seeing different teams win each year.
  13. You don't want a billionaire to subsidize another team? So you'd eliminate all revenue sharing and luxury taxes entirely? I don't think they need to go that far.
  14. The Royals and Pirates are eliminated? Last year you'd have said the Royals and Pirates and Rays, right? Before that you'd have said the Marlins. If they are eliminated opening day its because they are the worst run teams out there. The Twins are in the race almost every year. The A's lose players, and then they replace them. Have the Royals even drafted a player worth anything lately? What did they get for him when he left? The Royals are too busy signing guys like Jose Guillen to big money. The Oklahoma City Thunder and the LA Clippers weren't eliminated opening day? The NBA has a cap and a lot less teams have a chance to win there. You are trying to fix something is really isn't a problem. So what if someone got a $161M contract? I didn't realize you were so concerned with the financial well being of the baseball owners and want the players to get paid so much less.
  15. You guys are tough to please. Baseball has had 8 different champions in the past 9 years. How is a cap going to level that out? Which salary cap sport boast that kind of balance? You are right, the Rays weren't necessarily dumping Zambrano for money, but I'm sure the Mets would be near the cap, wouldn't have been able to do that trade. The Cubs traded Dontrelle Willis and other minor leaguers to the Marlins. Nope, lets just stop all the trading and not allow the bad teams to trade veterans to contenders to build for the future. If we're lucky, maybe baseball can follow the NBA path, where teams are sacrificing two full seasons just to clear cap room for a particular free agent class. That would be much better.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information