This is how you do it.

[SLAYER]

The MLB CBA is set to expire on Dec. 11. Either today or tomorrow they are set to vote, approve & announce a new 5 yr deal, 3 weeks before the old deal expires.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Slayer, you are a good one to ask this ...

 

Why would the NBA players, the league with the smallest rosters, not get a smaller piece of the whole pie compared to other leagues, since there are less of them to split it with? I can understand the NFL Players wanting a bigger % of the revenue b/c there are more mouths to feed, but the NBA Players, in my reasoning since there are fewers players, seems to be the greediest.

[Ursa Majoris]

Slayer, you are a good one to ask this ...

 

Why would the NBA players, the league with the smallest rosters, not get a smaller piece of the whole pie compared to other leagues, since there are less of them to split it with? I can understand the NFL Players wanting a bigger % of the revenue b/c there are more mouths to feed, but the NBA Players, in my reasoning since there are fewers players, seems to be the greediest.

Because the pie is smaller too due to the limitations on arena size, mostly.

[SLAYER]

Because the pie is smaller too due to the limitations on arena size, mostly.

But there are 41 home games so when you do 8 x NFL stadium compared to 41 x NBA arena it comes out close to the same. So I really don't buy that. I'm not really sure of the answer to that.

[Menudo]

The MLB CBA is set to expire on Dec. 11. Either today or tomorrow they are set to vote, approve & announce a new 5 yr deal, 3 weeks before the old deal expires.

 

Yes, baseball has it together more than anyone else. No floor/ceiling salary cap keeps baseball from being as great as it can be.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Menudo

[Chief Dick]

Yes, baseball has it together more than anyone else. No floor/ceiling salary cap keeps baseball from being as great as it can be.

 

I haven't read the whole agreement but from what I have read, some of the rules regarding the amateur draft and foreign players could really hurt smaller market teams like the Royals and Pirates.

 

This is where the Royals have spent their money to be able to draft guys and pay them more money not to go to college. It's taken them 5 years to build up their farm system, so I'm hoping this new agreement doesn't kill that momentum. I'm afraid it will.

[detlef]

Yes, baseball has it together more than anyone else. No floor/ceiling salary cap keeps baseball from being as great as it can be.

Menudo, you guys keep bringing this up, but the data shows that there are just as many predictably bad teams in the NFL as there are in baseball and that there is actually more turnover at the top.

 

How do you explain that?

 

Say there was a cap, and that cap was, oh, I don't know, $105 million. All the teams over that cap this year were the Yanks and Phillies who both lost in the first round and a bunch of teams who didn't even make the playoffs.

 

Also, there's too much evidence of teams putting together good teams without breaking the bank. Why can't the Royals and Pirates? Maybe they're just the Cubs with less money? Bad franchises who happen to have the excuse of being poor as well.

 

Conceptually, my issue is this. All these guys got rich by taking advantage of being the big guy. Then, once they get into a league with bigger guys, they cry like they don't have a fair shot. Tell that to the mom and pop store your huge chain put out of business.

[bushwacked]

Does this mean we have no suspense for waiting for paint to dry, and now we can just enjoy watching paint dry?

[SLAYER]

Does this mean we have no suspense for waiting for paint to dry, and now we can just enjoy watching paint dry?

Paint drying is far more interesting than reading the dribble you print.

[Menudo]

Menudo, you guys keep bringing this up, but the data shows that there are just as many predictably bad teams in the NFL as there are in baseball and that there is actually more turnover at the top.

 

How do you explain that?

 

Say there was a cap, and that cap was, oh, I don't know, $105 million. All the teams over that cap this year were the Yanks and Phillies who both lost in the first round and a bunch of teams who didn't even make the playoffs.

 

Also, there's too much evidence of teams putting together good teams without breaking the bank. Why can't the Royals and Pirates? Maybe they're just the Cubs with less money? Bad franchises who happen to have the excuse of being poor as well.

 

Conceptually, my issue is this. All these guys got rich by taking advantage of being the big guy. Then, once they get into a league with bigger guys, they cry like they don't have a fair shot. Tell that to the mom and pop store your huge chain put out of business.

 

Anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game season. However , other than the Red Sox epic collapse, you can't take a look at the extreme top salaries each year (for example Phillies, Yanks and Sox this year) and at a riducously high rate over 162 games you can go ahead and ink them into the playoffs.

 

Teams who stay in the top should be damn proud in the NFL. Teams that stay at the bottom should be embarrassed. You have the same rules and opportunities as everyone else in the league. Your success or lack of is directly related to how your team and cap are managed.

 

Just because you see similarities in results , it doesn't change the fact that in the NFL and other sports with caps, you won or lost under the same rules as every other team. In baseball, teams with 200 million plus salaries play teams with 30 million salaries. It is an unfair game, period. I don't blame any of the teams, as they are all playing by the same rules. However, burying your head in the sand and pretending each team has a fair chance is plain silly. I don't have time now, but, I will run numbers showing you clearly that having a high salary absolutely does relate to success over a 162 game seasons. How many times have the Yankees or Red Sox not won that division recently ? Not made the playoffs ?

Edited November 26, 2011 by Menudo

[detlef]

Anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game season. However , other than the Red Sox epic collapse, you can't take a look at the extreme top salaries each year (for example Phillies, Yanks and Sox this year) and at a riducously high rate over 162 games you can go ahead and ink them into the playoffs.

 

Teams who stay in the top should be damn proud in the NFL. Teams that stay at the bottom should be embarrassed. You have the same rules and opportunities as everyone else in the league. Your success or lack of is directly related to how your team and cap are managed.

 

Just because you see similarities in results , it doesn't change the fact that in the NFL and other sports with caps, you won or lost under the same rules as every other team. In baseball, teams with 200 million plus salaries play teams with 30 million salaries. It is an unfair game, period. I don't blame any of the teams, as they are all playing by the same rules. However, burying your head in the sand and pretending each team has a fair chance is plain silly. I don't have time now, but, I will run numbers showing you clearly that having a high salary absolutely does relate to success over a 162 game seasons. How many times have the Yankees or Red Sox not won that division recently ? Not made the playoffs ?

I'm not saying it isn't easier to compete if you have more money to spend, just saying that the cap isn't the silver bullet that everyone thinks it is. Sure, the Yanks can buy one of the 8 play-off spots, but that's about it. When they were winning WS after WS, they were doing it with their own guys and random cast-offs from other teams (Scott Brocious?). Ever since they started cherry-picking the most coveted FAs, they haven't had near the success. Sure it didn't hurt that they could actually re-sign their best players when their contracts came up, but they didn't outpace the whole league in spending back then like they do now.

 

So, perhaps the Pirates and Royals aren't as poorly managed as the perennial losers in the NFL are, but, given the success that others with low payrolls have had, it seems like management is complicit to some degree. Further, the league could solve this through shared revenues just as easily as they could through a cap.

 

There were a lot of people saying that if Mark Cuban were allowed to buy his hometown Pirates, he'd make that team relevant. He'd spend, which would, in turn create interest, which in turn would create revenue, which in turn, would allow him to keep spending. I tend to agree. So, it's not Pittsburgh's fault, it's the guys who are content to suck off the luxury tax teat and not play hardball with the big boys.

 

To be honest, I think it does, simply come down to the fact that ownership in Pittsburgh and KC don't care about winning as much as others do. That if there was a cap, you very likely would still suck, just like teams in the NFL still suck despite the socialist elements built in to help them.

 

Honestly, one factor that doesn't get enough attention is simply the number of games that teams play in MLB compared to the NFL. If an NFL team goes on a 4 game win streak, they'd have to play below .500 the rest of the season to miss the play-offs (likely). Hell, you could go 5-7 the rest of the season and still make it. And bad teams can do that. Catch a few breaks here, pull it together and play some good ball there. Next thing you know, Cleveland is 10-6 and in the play-offs and we're reminded that "everyone has a chance". Well, right up until an actual football team beats them by 20 in the first round.

 

But in baseball, you've got 162 games to separate the wheat from the chaff. Which is also why the worst team in baseball almost never has a record as bad as the worst team in football.

[Chief Dick]

So, perhaps the Pirates and Royals aren't as poorly managed as the perennial losers in the NFL are, but, given the success that others with low payrolls have had, it seems like management is complicit to some degree. Further, the league could solve this through shared revenues just as easily as they could through a cap.

 

There were a lot of people saying that if Mark Cuban were allowed to buy his hometown Pirates, he'd make that team relevant. He'd spend, which would, in turn create interest, which in turn would create revenue, which in turn, would allow him to keep spending. I tend to agree. So, it's not Pittsburgh's fault, it's the guys who are content to suck off the luxury tax teat and not play hardball with the big boys.

 

To be honest, I think it does, simply come down to the fact that ownership in Pittsburgh and KC don't care about winning as much as others do. That if there was a cap, you very likely would still suck, just like teams in the NFL still suck despite the socialist elements built in to help them.

 

You're pretty much dead on here, especially as it pertains to the Royals. Early on, David Glass was content to take his revenue sharing money and put it in his pocket. Since he hired Dayton Moore 5 years ago, he's dumped a TON of money in the draft, international signings, and resources for the whole organization. And it's now starting to pay off.

 

The interesting part is to see what will happen when they are in contention mode. Will they spend more to keep these guys and add some pieces?

 

The reality of MLB is they need a salary floor, not a cap. The small market owners shouldn't have the option of just taking the money and put it in their pockets.

[detlef]

You're pretty much dead on here, especially as it pertains to the Royals. Early on, David Glass was content to take his revenue sharing money and put it in his pocket. Since he hired Dayton Moore 5 years ago, he's dumped a TON of money in the draft, international signings, and resources for the whole organization. And it's now starting to pay off.

 

The interesting part is to see what will happen when they are in contention mode. Will they spend more to keep these guys and add some pieces?

 

The reality of MLB is they need a salary floor, not a cap. The small market owners shouldn't have the option of just taking the money and put it in their pockets.

This.

 

The teams that are actually winning the thing most years are spending but not like crazy. So a cap would not have peeled off most of the WS champs over the last several years.

[Menudo]

This.

 

The teams that are actually winning the thing most years are spending but not like crazy. So a cap would not have peeled off most of the WS champs over the last several years.

 

I still think there should be a floor and a cap. I don't like that some teams practically buy their way into the post-season. Like you said earlier, in a short series, the money probably doesn't mean as much, but, over 162 games, the "green" rises to the top. Playing out the season is usually a formality to the teams at the extreme high end of the scale. (I know, the Red Sox were a rare example this year, and it took a total collapse)

Edited November 28, 2011 by Menudo

[detlef]

I still think there should be a floor and a cap. I don't like that some teams practically buy their way into the post-season. Like you said earlier, in a short series, the money probably doesn't mean as much, but, over 162 games, the "green" rises to the top. Playing out the season is usually a formality to the teams at the extreme high end of the scale. (I know, the Red Sox were a rare example this year, and it took a total collapse)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a cap would not be effective, but I think it's the thing the leagues sell to us because it happens to be a very convenient answer for the owners.

 

Again, I guess my BS meter goes off when a bunch of tycoons start pulling on my heart strings, saying they can't keep up with the big boys. All these guys got where they are (or their dad's got them to where they are) by exploiting the capitalist system. I'm not going to hold it against them, but I'm not going to shed a tear for the poor billionaire that owns a team outside of NY and can't keep up with the Steinbrenners.

 

Further, there's not a ton of history to see how spending the kind of money the Yankees and Sox spend works long-term. It's only really gotten out of hand over the last few years. 10 years ago, the top 10 teams were all pretty close. The only thing that stuck out was the bottom. Both the Sox and Yanks are loaded with bloated contracts and are put together oddly. Other teams are building teams, they're collecting players and tying up a lot of money. I don't see many teams wishing they were them right now and I'm guessing they're at least as close to their real cap as any team in the league is to theirs. What are the Yanks going to do to address needs? Open up the wallet? Can they go higher still? Part of their deal is not only signing FAs, but making trade deadline moves for high priced, soon to be FAs. And that costs them players in their farm system, which means they have to keep spending FA money.

 

They've created a monster and I'm afraid what it's going to look like in a few years. What if they start to fall off and they stop selling pink hats with NY on them? They're hosed. Meanwhile, the 20+ teams in the middle. The ones that spend enough to matter but not like sailors on shore leave, will likely keep winning the WS.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the problem at the top might take care of itself.

[Big Country]

Slayer, you are a good one to ask this ...

 

Why would the NBA players, the league with the smallest rosters, not get a smaller piece of the whole pie compared to other leagues, since there are less of them to split it with? I can understand the NFL Players wanting a bigger % of the revenue b/c there are more mouths to feed, but the NBA Players, in my reasoning since there are fewers players, seems to be the greediest.

 

 

Why does the number of rostered players have anything to do with this. If we make the assumption (rather large at that) that the draw of both sports is equally the players, then should the pool of players of each sport not deserve the same revenue split, regardless of how many ways that piece is being split.

 

Now, given that NBA players as individuals are the most marketable, and also the biggest draws to a sport (tons of people will go to games just to see a Lebron or Kobe play, not many people will go to an NFL game just to see a certain player... certain teams, yes, but not individual players), one could argue that the NBA players actually deserve a larger piece of the pie than their NFL counterparts as they, are a much larger driver of revenue to the teams.

[Menudo]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a cap would not be effective, but I think it's the thing the leagues sell to us because it happens to be a very convenient answer for the owners.

 

Again, I guess my BS meter goes off when a bunch of tycoons start pulling on my heart strings, saying they can't keep up with the big boys. All these guys got where they are (or their dad's got them to where they are) by exploiting the capitalist system. I'm not going to hold it against them, but I'm not going to shed a tear for the poor billionaire that owns a team outside of NY and can't keep up with the Steinbrenners.

 

Further, there's not a ton of history to see how spending the kind of money the Yankees and Sox spend works long-term. It's only really gotten out of hand over the last few years. 10 years ago, the top 10 teams were all pretty close. The only thing that stuck out was the bottom. Both the Sox and Yanks are loaded with bloated contracts and are put together oddly. Other teams are building teams, they're collecting players and tying up a lot of money. I don't see many teams wishing they were them right now and I'm guessing they're at least as close to their real cap as any team in the league is to theirs. What are the Yanks going to do to address needs? Open up the wallet? Can they go higher still? Part of their deal is not only signing FAs, but making trade deadline moves for high priced, soon to be FAs. And that costs them players in their farm system, which means they have to keep spending FA money.

 

They've created a monster and I'm afraid what it's going to look like in a few years. What if they start to fall off and they stop selling pink hats with NY on them? They're hosed. Meanwhile, the 20+ teams in the middle. The ones that spend enough to matter but not like sailors on shore leave, will likely keep winning the WS.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the problem at the top might take care of itself.

 

Good post. It will be interesting to see what happens, as those contracts catch up with the Yankees.

[wildcat2334]

Why does the number of rostered players have anything to do with this. If we make the assumption (rather large at that) that the draw of both sports is equally the players, then should the pool of players of each sport not deserve the same revenue split, regardless of how many ways that piece is being split.

 

Now, given that NBA players as individuals are the most marketable, and also the biggest draws to a sport (tons of people will go to games just to see a Lebron or Kobe play, not many people will go to an NFL game just to see a certain player... certain teams, yes, but not individual players), one could argue that the NBA players actually deserve a larger piece of the pie than their NFL counterparts as they, are a much larger driver of revenue to the teams.

 

werd - the superstars ARE the league in the NBA

 

those guys are rockstars on a level that no other sport rivals. Hence they have the strongest union - I think both of those factor in to why they get such a large piece of the pie.

 

that being said a s hugh hoops fan, I haven't missed it that much but I will be psyched when it is back. At a minimum they can replace those minor league hockey highlights they keep showing on ESPN.

 

What will be interesting is similar to the rash of NFL injuries, how many of these lazy SOB's come in out of shape and are fighting hammies, knees, etc for months........