Sign in to follow this  
darin3

Big Tex goes to the Evil Empire

Recommended Posts

Then you should have just as much of a problem with the teams who spend 10-40 million on a team each year. They're worse than the teams spending hundreds of millions... At least those teams are trying to win.

Not exactly sure what the Rays spent last year but it was'nt much and they won the pennant.. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2007 Tampa Bay Rays

 

Value of team $290 million

Revenue $138 million

Operating Cost $29.7 million

Player Expenses $52 million

Gate Receipts $24 million

 

Looks like they made an $80.3 million profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2007 Tampa Bay Rays

 

Value of team $290 million

Revenue $138 million

Operating Cost $29.7 million

Player Expenses $52 million

Gate Receipts $24 million

 

Looks like they made an $80.3 million profit

Is this 2007 or 2008 figures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot wait for this global economic collapse, US economy in recession, etc. to slam these professional sports teams back to some type of reality when it comes to paying for these players. It is just sickening to watch.

 

Now, I know where people are coming from when they whine about the Yankees and their "attempts" at buying championships. But, I must say, if the Braves did that year in and year out to try and remain competitive in to and through October, I would be all for it. So, you won't hear me bitch much about the Yankees...

 

I also would not allow the Yankees to get one penny of the public's money to build a stadium. You can spend that much on a roster, you can build your own stadium, just like any other business that has to invest in capital equipment or infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure wish people would stop replying to this 'tard's replies to me. It's defeating the purpose of having his silly ass on ignore. The dolt has the reading comprehension of a third grader.

 

 

Have you read anything you have written for this site in the last 2 years. Now that is what is laughable. This dolt schools your ass in every sport and every league we have shared. Carry on douchebag. :wacko:

Edited by Sgt Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darin was referring to Caveman Nicks favorite team being the Red Sox. Not his favorite team

 

Darin changes his favorite team on a daily basis. IF NYY win it all this year, that will be his new favorite team. Bet your ass on it. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you should have just as much of a problem with the teams who spend 10-40 million on a team each year. They're worse than the teams spending hundreds of millions... At least those teams are trying to win.

 

 

Have you ever watched a KC Royals game on TV?

 

Oh...wait....

 

They can;t even sell out their stadium when a big ticket team comes to town. Is the team owner supposed to fluch $$ down the toilet annually? It's a chicken and egg problem at the bottom. Give the teams in the league a chance to compete and see what they do with it. Maybe even have minimum attendance requirements to show that there is sufficient interest in a region, thereby insuring that a team can compete. Don't meet the min, then fold up your tent. A minimum salary cap? Sure, I would have no issue with that.

 

There is no lucid argument that can be made to equate the financial struggle of a small market team to the spending frenzy that defined the New York Yankees, though. I just can't agree with you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't, as witnessed by the post above pointing out how few teams have won the championship over the past thirty years.

You should know by now that irrefutable facts are simply not as important as perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't, as witnessed by the post above pointing out how few teams have won the championship over the past thirty years.

 

 

NBA Basketball can not be compered to other sports in one particular regard: A team's performance is much more significantly affected by the presence of one great player than it is in any of the other major sports.

 

Salary cap was never going to help other teams deal with the dominance of the very few players that were at the very top of the game. The NBA is broken in other ways outside of salary cap. Cleveland getting Lebron James was a great stroke of luck, while the Celtics losing Len Bias and Reggie Lewis to their passing away and losing Tim Duncan to the Spurs were great strokes of bad luck. Other teams have nad some very bad luck or very good luck as well.

 

The point is that the NBA has had a few really bad teams, a few very good teams, and everyone else in the middle for a long time. The Bad teams end up there because of draft picks that don;t pan out, and the great teams tend to get there because of some stroke of draft luck.

 

The current version of the Celtics is one of the first teams I have seen in a long time that got there almost exclusively via a combination of trades and late drafted player development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If my team bought every player on the market like NY, Id be embarassed. But thats just me.

 

how 'bout dem coowboyz?? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBA Basketball can not be compered to other sports in one particular regard: A team's performance is much more significantly affected by the presence of one great player than it is in any of the other major sports.

 

Salary cap was never going to help other teams deal with the dominance of the very few players that were at the very top of the game. The NBA is broken in other ways outside of salary cap. Cleveland getting Lebron James was a great stroke of luck, while the Celtics losing Len Bias and Reggie Lewis to their passing away and losing Tim Duncan to the Spurs were great strokes of bad luck. Other teams have nad some very bad luck or very good luck as well.

 

The point is that the NBA has had a few really bad teams, a few very good teams, and everyone else in the middle for a long time. The Bad teams end up there because of draft picks that don;t pan out, and the great teams tend to get there because of some stroke of draft luck.

 

The current version of the Celtics is one of the first teams I have seen in a long time that got there almost exclusively via a combination of trades and late drafted player development.

 

 

werd -

and even with certain teams dominating it is still a much more level playing field than MLB by a longshot. Sure, MLB has has some upset champions - that is more to do with nature of the game itself, and some real good GM work

 

as a Sonics fan I can tell you tho even tho we didn't win a title in the 90's - it was unreal and the coolest thing I have experienced in my Seattle sports lifetime. They were championship caliber and couldn't get it done due to a guy named MJ, who had a few things to say about many NBA titles and a fluke 5 game series flame out to Denver - but the ride was awesome.

 

the sports are just too different in nature to compare- but MLB is seriously broken and I am over it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you should have just as much of a problem with the teams who spend 10-40 million on a team each year. They're worse than the teams spending hundreds of millions... At least those teams are trying to win.

 

 

Have you ever watched a KC Royals game on TV?

 

Oh...wait....

 

They can;t even sell out their stadium when a big ticket team comes to town. Is the team owner supposed to fluch $$ down the toilet annually? It's a chicken and egg problem at the bottom. Give the teams in the league a chance to compete and see what they do with it. Maybe even have minimum attendance requirements to show that there is sufficient interest in a region, thereby insuring that a team can compete. Don't meet the min, then fold up your tent. A minimum salary cap? Sure, I would have no issue with that.

 

There is no lucid argument that can be made to equate the financial struggle of a small market team to the spending frenzy that defined the New York Yankees, though. I just can't agree with you there.

 

 

 

1. Royals stadium holds about 40,000. They do draw when the good teams come to town. And considering how bad the team has been, they have drawn pretty well.

 

2. Royals payroll this year will be around $75 million. This has been an upward climb since Dayton Moore came to town. I will grant you that David Glass has been a cheap sombitch since he bought the team, but you have to remember this team was owned by a non-profit for many years after Mr. Kauffman died. And when he was alive he was not shy about spending money. So there was a period there between the Kauffman ownership and Glass ownership that was so financially hamstrung it put them in the dark ages.

 

3. I agree 100% with a minimum salary floor. This must be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh sorry, I should have been more specific. They're not as good as doing this as they were in the past. Sorry. My bad.

 

 

It's not the "buying of championships" that is the issue because that clearly isn't working out for them. It is the lifting of players from other teams that is the problem. Y'see, the likes of Minnesota get by with three or four top quality players and a bunch of honest journeymen, scrubs and rookies. When your bloated $hitbag of an owner comes along and takes one or two of said star players, it doesn't sit well with us, so we all fuc*ing hate you.

 

:D

 

 

This signing made me sick. Fawk the Skankees.

 

Thirsty fellas?? Here is a big ole glass of Hater-ade. Go Yankees!!!! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBA Basketball can not be compered to other sports in one particular regard: A team's performance is much more significantly affected by the presence of one great player than it is in any of the other major sports.

 

Salary cap was never going to help other teams deal with the dominance of the very few players that were at the very top of the game. The NBA is broken in other ways outside of salary cap. Cleveland getting Lebron James was a great stroke of luck, while the Celtics losing Len Bias and Reggie Lewis to their passing away and losing Tim Duncan to the Spurs were great strokes of bad luck. Other teams have nad some very bad luck or very good luck as well.

 

The point is that the NBA has had a few really bad teams, a few very good teams, and everyone else in the middle for a long time. The Bad teams end up there because of draft picks that don;t pan out, and the great teams tend to get there because of some stroke of draft luck.

 

The current version of the Celtics is one of the first teams I have seen in a long time that got there almost exclusively via a combination of trades and late drafted player development.

Explaining why a cap hasn't prevented the same 5 times from dominating the NBA doesn't change the fact that a cap hasn't prevented the same 5 teams from dominating the league. The simple fact is that two major leagues have employed a salary cap for a while and one of them has not seen an increase in parity. So I am simply pointing out that there's little data to support that cap=parity. If something only works half the time, then it doesn't work.

 

What's more, over the last several years there have been nearly as many teams among the lowest rungs of the payroll (Tampa and FL) who've played in the World Series as there have been among the highest (Boston, NY, and maybe Detroit though I don't think they were ranked as high in payroll until the season after they made the series (not sure on that last one).

 

Every other team has been very much in the middle 1/3. That tells me that there isn't quite the automatic correlation between success and payroll that everyone seems to imply. Something further evidenced by the fact that the Yankee teams that actually won the whole thing were more homegrown and less bought than the ones that have failed to close the deal of late.

 

Now, keep in mind. I am not a Yankee fan at all. I think it is nothing short of hilarious that they spend so damned much money and yet have won as many WS as the Marlins since 2000. Further, in the big picture, as Soup mentioned, I do hope that a country reeling from economic woes takes it out on these pampered a-holes.

 

I'm simply taking issue with a Sox fan and a Cubs fan, two teams that also spend, a Rangers fan (whose team gave A-Rod what was the richest contract of all time when it happened), and Royals fans (who, where a cap put in place would suddenly lose their convenient crutch argument about why their team sucks and may end up joining the ranks of Lions and Clippers fans who simply have no excuse).

 

Seriously, if this is about parity, then I think you guys need to actually prove that a cap would, in fact, cause that change. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't seem to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explaining why a cap hasn't prevented the same 5 times from dominating the NBA doesn't change the fact that a cap hasn't prevented the same 5 teams from dominating the league. The simple fact is that two major leagues have employed a salary cap for a while and one of them has not seen an increase in parity. So I am simply pointing out that there's little data to support that cap=parity. If something only works half the time, then it doesn't work.

 

What's more, over the last several years there have been nearly as many teams among the lowest rungs of the payroll (Tampa and FL) who've played in the World Series as there have been among the highest (Boston, NY, and maybe Detroit though I don't think they were ranked as high in payroll until the season after they made the series (not sure on that last one).

 

Every other team has been very much in the middle 1/3. That tells me that there isn't quite the automatic correlation between success and payroll that everyone seems to imply. Something further evidenced by the fact that the Yankee teams that actually won the whole thing were more homegrown and less bought than the ones that have failed to close the deal of late.

 

Now, keep in mind. I am not a Yankee fan at all. I think it is nothing short of hilarious that they spend so damned much money and yet have won as many WS as the Marlins since 2000. Further, in the big picture, as Soup mentioned, I do hope that a country reeling from economic woes takes it out on these pampered a-holes.

 

I'm simply taking issue with a Sox fan and a Cubs fan, two teams that also spend, a Rangers fan (whose team gave A-Rod what was the richest contract of all time when it happened), and Royals fans (who, where a cap put in place would suddenly lose their convenient crutch argument about why their team sucks and may end up joining the ranks of Lions and Clippers fans who simply have no excuse).

 

Seriously, if this is about parity, then I think you guys need to actually prove that a cap would, in fact, cause that change. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Dude...I was exactly making the argument that a cap does not make for parity in the NBA. At best all it does is control the ability of a team to create an indestructible dynasty in a big market.

 

In any sport, a well run organization can find ways to overcome a financial disadvantage without a salary cap and conversely a well run organization can find ways to create a competitive advantage when a salary cap exists.

 

Who won the championships in what league is not the only measure of what can happen when money is allowed to be applied liberally and without balance. The examples of the Boston Redsox and the New York Yankees and how they have done business since Free Agency took hold in MLB is all the evidence needed. I can't make the horse drink when the water is in front of him, and I can't make you see this truth.

 

Salary caps are not the be all and end all of balance. Teams still need to be run, coached, scouted for, drafted for, have smart contracts negotiated, etc. The best example of how this can change the fortunes of an out of luck team is the Boston Celtics. Danny Ainge did a masterful job working within the system and finding a way to bring the Celtics back to prominence. The salary cap didn't get them there, good coaching and good team management did. Winning the championship once the pieces are in place is on the players, but getting the players and the system in place is up to MGMT.

 

You are looking for evidence that does not exist, and yet analysis of modern game design tells us that designers always try to build games that have a level playing field so that players have a roughly equal chance. That's all a salary cap can do, and how you can argue otherwise is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude...I was exactly making the argument that a cap does not make for parity in the NBA. At best all it does is control the ability of a team to create an indestructible dynasty in a big market.

 

In any sport, a well run organization can find ways to overcome a financial disadvantage without a salary cap and conversely a well run organization can find ways to create a competitive advantage when a salary cap exists.

 

Who won the championships in what league is not the only measure of what can happen when money is allowed to be applied liberally and without balance. The examples of the Boston Redsox and the New York Yankees and how they have done business since Free Agency took hold in MLB is all the evidence needed. I can't make the horse drink when the water is in front of him, and I can't make you see this truth.

 

Salary caps are not the be all and end all of balance. Teams still need to be run, coached, scouted for, drafted for, have smart contracts negotiated, etc. The best example of how this can change the fortunes of an out of luck team is the Boston Celtics. Danny Ainge did a masterful job working within the system and finding a way to bring the Celtics back to prominence. The salary cap didn't get them there, good coaching and good team management did. Winning the championship once the pieces are in place is on the players, but getting the players and the system in place is up to MGMT.

 

You are looking for evidence that does not exist, and yet analysis of modern game design tells us that designers always try to build games that have a level playing field so that players have a roughly equal chance. That's all a salary cap can do, and how you can argue otherwise is beyond me.

Odd, it appears that we are of the same opinion, so I'm not sure exactly why you're implying that I can't be made to understand why caps don't automatically equal parity. I actually understand it fully seeing as how I continue to make that point.

 

Honestly, the only reason why I even bothered quoting you in my post was because you seemed to take issue with Ursa referencing my initial post pointing to the fact that cap-free MLB has had as many champions in the past 9 years as the NBA has had in the past 29.

 

It appears I misread that post of yours and you and I agree completely on the issue. Very well then, no further reason to debate.

 

If I had to guess, I would say that salary caps are sold to the fans as a vehicle to make it so all teams had a fair shot at the crown, when it is simply a means to protect the owners from being caught up in bidding wars. Again, as both you and I agree, there's precious little evidence to support the fact that caps = parity. It just sounds better to the fans if that's the reason rather than owners looking to take a bigger piece of the revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the excitement last offseason as the Tigers made a big splash in the free agency market. 2nd biggest payroll in MLB. Just about every pundit had the Tigers in the World Series. We finished behind the Royals for last place. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick is right, IMO. The most important factor is the nature of the games rather than salary cap. Football is the ultimate team game in US sports where it is necessary to have very good to excellent across the board (defense, offense and all the sub-sections of each) to win. Baseball teams need a few good players on both sides of the ball but can also accommodate a few journeymen. Basketball only requires one great and one very good player to win, in general. Two greats and you're pretty much a lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the nature of the game of baseball makes it so that the dominant teams on paper aren't always so dominant on the field. this can give the illusion of parity. but there is not parity in the big leagues, not by any stretch. the situation is a joke, when the same 3 or 4 teams in the biggest markets buy up all the good players whose contracts are up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the nature of the game of baseball makes it so that the dominant teams on paper aren't always so dominant on the field. this can give the illusion of parity. but there is not parity in the big leagues, not by any stretch. the situation is a joke, when the same 3 or 4 teams in the biggest markets buy up all the good players whose contracts are up.

Well, if in fact the nature of the game means that loading up on all the top names doesn't mean you're going to be the best, why should anyone be upset that the Yankees keep doing this? If loading up on talent only makes us think you're going to win it all even if you don't. This isn't the illusion of parity, this is actually something that dis-spells the illusion of a lack of parity. The numbers are quite clear.

 

This past year, Philly (13th in spending) beat Tampa (29th in spending). Florida who was 30th finished 4 games behind the Mets who were 3rd. Oakland sucked this year but won 90 games in 2004, 87 in 2005, and lost in the ALCS in 2006. Minnesota finished 1 game out of the playoffs this year and made the playoffs in 2006. Oakland was 28th in spending last year and Minn was 24th.

 

What is certainly true is that the teams in the biggest markets buy up all the highest priced free agents. However, unless those free agents help deliver a championship or even make the playoffs, what's the big deal? Now, it certainly seems to be the case that spending like the Yankees do essentially assures you a spot in the post season but spending like the Cubs, Dodgers, and Mets has hardly equated to any form of dominance at all.

 

From a very impartial standpoint, it really seems like the joke is on the big city teams. They outspend everyone and have little to show for it. So, before we bust out our violins for the likes of KC and Pitt, why not ask if their troubles are truly a result of not spending or if they're simply not that good.

 

Minnesota outspent KC 62mil to 58 and Tampa spent 15 mil less.

 

So, sorry Azz, but when you actually look at the fact, this "illusion of parity" doesn't seem much like an illusion at all. If there's an illusion, it's the thought that big name free agents equal a more competitive team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:wacko: one year (out of the last 14) the yankees aren't able to buy a berth in the postseason and this fact dispels the illusion of a lack parity. right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: one year (out of the last 14) the yankees aren't able to buy a berth in the postseason and this fact dispels the illusion of a lack parity. right.

Funny, and here I thought I conceded the point that spending like the Yankees seems to be enough to buy a spot in the post season.

 

So, if you spend about 50% more than the 2nd highest team, twice almost everyone else, and 4-10x more than some, that's good enough to buy you a spot in the round of 8 but lately not enough to get you much farther if at all. On the other hand, if you spend among the next tier (which happens to be about 50% higher than the average) it doesn't really buy you much of anything unless you're the Red Sox who have a very talented GM.

 

Exactly how is that a ringing endorsement for the notion that spending more money makes your team better?

 

You claimed that this was about teams in big markets hogging all the best players. That would imply that you see this as more than a Yankees thing. That this is a situation where several big market teams are dominating the league. Something that is only true if you refuse to look at that actual data.

Edited by detlef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the situation is a joke, when the same 3 or 4 teams in the biggest markets buy up all the good players whose contracts are up.

This is the real irritant for most. As I said earlier, a lot of teams have three or four really good to excellent players and they KNOW they will lose them to the big spenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some items to consider :

 

Yankees payroll allows them to compete every year for playoff spot but it also allows them to get out from under mistakes ...if they blow big money on a bust ( Kevin Brown , Pavano , and many others to name a few ) they buy there way out of it while almost every other team would be stuck with that mistake and the cost involved ...Yankees operate in whatever way they want because of no Cap but that does not mean its good for the game or even right , it just means its allowed

 

If there was a cap i truly believe not only would the yankees not make the playoffs they would very likely be a sub standard team ...i say this because they have been operating so long in the way they have , that it is very hard to now have to manage money and make the right decisions if they had to

 

best analogy i could give is that the Yankees are that $ 200000 Ferrari and they race against the $ 40000 lexus , $20000 hondas and even the $90000 mercedes ...Yes the yankees may lose a few races , but they will most always be there at the end or win ...they certainly are much less likely to fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, and here I thought I conceded the point that spending like the Yankees seems to be enough to buy a spot in the post season.

 

So, if you spend about 50% more than the 2nd highest team, twice almost everyone else, and 4-10x more than some, that's good enough to buy you a spot in the round of 8 but lately not enough to get you much farther if at all. On the other hand, if you spend among the next tier (which happens to be about 50% higher than the average) it doesn't really buy you much of anything unless you're the Red Sox who have a very talented GM.

 

Exactly how is that a ringing endorsement for the notion that spending more money makes your team better?

 

You claimed that this was about teams in big markets hogging all the best players. That would imply that you see this as more than a Yankees thing. That this is a situation where several big market teams are dominating the league. Something that is only true if you refuse to look at that actual data.

 

the actual data is that last year, 6 of the 8 playoff teams were from big markets, what you are calling the "next tier". two chicago teams, two LA teams, boston and philly. 5 of the top 8 teams in terms of payroll, plus philly who is 13 and milwaukee who is 15. then there's the two NY teams, who both missed the playoffs with 89 wins (the yankees for the first time in 14 years) -- but of course both teams are spending hundreds of millions this offseason to make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

you're right, there are tiers. there's the yankees, then there's the mets/tigers/redsox/LA teams/chicago teams....then there's another 10 or so teams that have enough payroll and flexibility to have a sporting chance if things go right for them during the season. then there's half the league that has to really do well and/or get lucky with their drafting and scouting, which maybe gets them a 1 or 2 year window at winning something before the vultures swoop in and buy away all of their talent.

 

it's nice that tampa made that run with young players they developed, but as soon as they are up for contracts, they will of course be packing their bags for NY.

 

I just don't see how anyone other than a jackass yankees/mets/redsux fan can think this system is good for the sport. :wacko:

Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.