isleseeya Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Just to add , cashman has had some signings and or moves made that past few years that would cost mosyt gm's their job : kevin brown , pavano , letting sheffield walk away , doing nothing to improve bullpen , etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 MLB lost me at the last strike. The competitive imbalance, the same tired storyline every year - Yankees vs. Red Sox , half the league feels like a separate minor league since 95% of the good players leave for the better paying markets - that's what keeps me away. And yet that same 95% of minor league teams produce the World Series Champion year in and year out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Let me know when one of those franchises goes bankrupt. xactly. Some of those teams payrolls are less than the luxury taxes they get from the top teams. The worst thing about the MLBs system has nothing to do with the fact that the Yankees and Sox can spend as much as they want and everything to do with the fact that the lowest teams are financially rewarded for being cheap. The Yankees are doing far less to destroy the game than the D-Rays are. I think people like to point to the cap as a reason for the parity in the NFL. However, there must be something else involved that we're missing because, not only are teams not overspending, nearly all of them are spending as much as they're allowed to. Why, for instance, are there not a half dozen teams in the NFL that are just trolling around for crap talent from the AFL and putting out some sham teams like the Royals and D-Rays? Shipping off anyone the second they're good enough to get paid. Just because the top teams can't blow the lid off payroll in itself is not enough to prevent this. There must be something else in play. I mean, there may be some teams that pretty much suck more years than not (CLE, AZ for instance), but it's not because they're not their payroll is half or less than everyone elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Just to add , cashman has had some signings and or moves made that past few years that would cost mosyt gm's their job : kevin brown , pavano , letting sheffield walk away , doing nothing to improve bullpen , etc Hmmmm. . .wait a minute. Why am I defending this guy? Those ARE a lot of bonehead moves. Well, I don't mind getting rid of Sheff. He really is a Megan Fox. I think the signing of ARod gives Cashman a TON of leeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Hmmmm. . .wait a minute. Why am I defending this guy? Those ARE a lot of bonehead moves. Well, I don't mind getting rid of Sheff. He really is a Megan Fox. I think the signing of ARod gives Cashman a TON of leeway. That we can agree on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I think people like to point to the cap as a reason for the parity in the NFL. What is all this about parity in the NFL? Does anyone believe that there are more than 5 or 6 teams that have a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl this or any other year? The 90's had Dallas and Denver. This decade has New England and Indy. It may be happening IN SPITE of the salary cap rather than BECAUSE of it, but the NFL is plenty lopsided too. Do you think the people in Cleveland and Arizona are thankful that there's a cap to "restore competitive balance"?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 If they had a hugh advantage, they'da won something in the last 6 years. Brian Cashman and Steinbrenner refuse to learn the lesson that they are currently teaching every other team in MLB: Baseball teams are not just the sum of their parts. Championships can not be bought. If George came out and said "I want my teams to be filled with big names so I can sell lots of tickets" he wouldn't look like such a moron. It's the fact that he's doing all of this in the name of Winning, and not getting a result year in and year out that should be opening his eyes. I think Cashman is starting to realize what's going on here, as he's said a few times that they're going to rely on their farm system more in the future. Of course, that would mean a rebuilding period, which would probably cost him his job when you work for someone as delusional as George. Frankly, Cashman getting fired would be the best thing for him. He's a good GM and he'd immediately land a job working for someone who isn't a nut case. Just because they aren't capitalizing on it, doesn't mean it isn't an advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 And yet that same 95% of minor league teams produce the World Series Champion year in and year out. You are really missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 What is all this about parity in the NFL? Does anyone believe that there are more than 5 or 6 teams that have a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl this or any other year? The 90's had Dallas and Denver. This decade has New England and Indy. It may be happening IN SPITE of the salary cap rather than BECAUSE of it, but the NFL is plenty lopsided too. Do you think the people in Cleveland and Arizona are thankful that there's a cap to "restore competitive balance"?? I think there are more examples of teams coming from the cellar to contending and then going back to the cellar in the NFL than any of the other major leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 You are really missing the point. Well, learn me somthin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 What is all this about parity in the NFL? Does anyone believe that there are more than 5 or 6 teams that have a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl this or any other year? The 90's had Dallas and Denver. This decade has New England and Indy. It may be happening IN SPITE of the salary cap rather than BECAUSE of it, but the NFL is plenty lopsided too. Do you think the people in Cleveland and Arizona are thankful that there's a cap to "restore competitive balance"?? I think everyone is thankful that they are on a level playing field, this is not the case in Baseball. If you don't win in Football, it is not because you didn't have the ability to spend as much as another team. The cap gives everyone equal opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) Well, learn me somthin! If you can't see that a team with a 208 Million dollar budget doesn't have an advantage over a team with a 30 million budget, then I don't know how to teach you anything. Just because certain teams don't capitalize on it, doesn't mean they don't have an advantage. If the Pirates make a mistake on paying someone solid money, and it comes back to haunt them (Raul Mondesi, Derek Bell, Jack Wilson), they are stuck for years, because they don't have the money to simply buy themselves out of their mistakes. The Yankess buy themselves out of mistakes every single year, because they have the $$$ to do so. Once again, the fact that they Yankees have failed to capitalize on their advantage doesn't mean it isn't there. Last year, in a game between the Pirates and Yankees, they announced that the left side of the Yankees infield made more $$$ than the entire Pirates 25-man roster at the time. Yeah, that isn't an advantage. Edited June 20, 2007 by Menudo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I think everyone is thankful that they are on a level playing field, this is not the case in Baseball. If you don't win in Football, it is not because you didn't have the ability to spend as much as another team. The cap gives everyone equal opportunity. Again with the pity for bottom level teams in the MLB "not being able to spend more money". None of these teams are owned by poor men. Plenty of these teams you guys are saying can't compete are choosing not to. They take their shared revenue and luxury tax checks and put them in their pockets. If you're pissed because the Royals haven't mattered in 20 years, tell them to take that money and go buy some players. Once again, rather than praising the fact that NFL teams can only spend so much, we should be looking at what has incentivized all of them to at least come close to maxing out what they're allowed to spend every year. That, I believe, is the answer. Why are there no NFL teams spending 1/3 the cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 If you can't see that a team with a 208 Million dollar budget doesn't have an advantage over a team with a 30 million budget, then I don't know how to teach you anything. Just because certain teams don't capitalize on it, doesn't mean they don't have an advantage. If the Pirates make a mistake on paying someone solid money, and it comes back to haunt them (Raul Mondesi, Derek Bell, Jack Wilson), they are stuck for years, because they don't have the money to simply buy themselves out of their mistakes. The Yankess buy themselves out of mistakes every single year, because they have the $$$ to do so. Once again, the fact that they Yankees have failed to capitalize on their advantage doesn't mean it isn't there. Last year, in a game between the Pirates and Yankees, they announced that the left side of the Yankees infield made more $$$ than the entire Pirates 25-man roster at the time. Yeah, that isn't an advantage. I think you meant "If you can't see that a team with a 208 million dollar budget DOES have an advantage". Anyway, let's play results for a minute. In baseball there's NO salary cap. In the NFL there IS a salary cap. In the past 6 years, there have been 6 different World Series champions, and at least 2 of them have been "small market" teams. In the NFL, the past 6 years have produced only 4 Super Bowl champions, and most teams enter the season realistically knowing that they have no shot of winning or even making the playoffs. This can't just be coincidence, can it? Yes, I understand that more money equals more buying power, but I don't equate money with advantage to the same degree that you do, and the results have shown it to be the case. Good scouting, good management, and good farm systems are equally important to having the largest payroll. The only thing the Yankees have to show for their payroll is a hugh luxury tax, not rings. I don't find this to be a coincidence. The A's put a winning team on the field year in and year out and they do it on a shoestring budget. It's good management and good farm systems. George Steinbrenner needs to learn this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 One more thing, anyone who sells the salary cap is there to simply "level the playing field for all" is leading you on. It's to make the owners more money. I would love it if I "wasn't allowed" to pay my employees more. "Sorry dude, I know you're a great chef, but I'm over the cap. Oh, and good luck finding more money from somebody else, 'cause they're all over the cap as well. So, actually, I was hoping you'd take a pay cut so I have room to bring some better cooks on to work along side you. You do want to be the best restaurant, don't you? You don't want the public to think that we're not the best restaurant because you were too greedy to renegotiate and help me make this place all it can be, do you?" When the NHL went to the cap it wasn't because they were tired of the same teams winning the cup over and over, it was because none of the teams were making any money (allegedly and I don't say that because I don't believe it, just because you never really know). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Again with the pity for bottom level teams in the MLB "not being able to spend more money". None of these teams are owned by poor men. Plenty of these teams you guys are saying can't compete are choosing not to. They take their shared revenue and luxury tax checks and put them in their pockets. If you're pissed because the Royals haven't mattered in 20 years, tell them to take that money and go buy some players. If you were the owner of the Montreal Expos, and had a luxury tax check in your pocket, would you have spent it on the 5,000 fans that were showing up to your games in a city that didn't care at all about your product? I sure as hell wouldn't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Let's also not forget that in the NFL there is also revenue sharing amongst the teams. So not only are they limited in the amount of money they can spend on players, but the playing field is also relatively level when it comes to the amount of money a team brings in. In basball, there is just no way that Cincinnati or Pittsburgh could ever hope to bring in enough money to support a payroll like the Red Sox or Yankees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 If you were the owner of the Montreal Expos, and had a luxury tax check in your pocket, would you have spent it on the 5,000 fans that were showing up to your games in a city that didn't care at all about your product? I sure as hell wouldn't have. That has everything to do with the fact that 1) You're trying to sell baseball in Canada, 2) That you're asking people who live in the coldest major city in the world to spend some of the precious few days they can actually go outside watching baseball inside in a hideous, out of date stadium. That seems to be a tough sell to me. I'm not saying that the cap has no effect on making the game better because, as a side effect, it certainly doesn't hurt. However, until one of you even pretends to address the enormously valid point I have made about why NFL teams don't just take their shared revenue check and blow off their payroll, I'm done with this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Let's also not forget that in the NFL there is also revenue sharing amongst the teams. So not only are they limited in the amount of money they can spend on players, but the playing field is also relatively level when it comes to the amount of money a team brings in. In basball, there is just no way that Cincinnati or Pittsburgh could ever hope to bring in enough money to support a payroll like the Red Sox or Yankees. There's revenue sharing in MLB as well The following quote is from this article At least four teams -- the Marlins, Devil Rays, Pirates and Royals -- are getting more money from their good friends at MLB than they're spending on their entire payroll (this is before they sell one ticket). This is true. All of them, according to sources, rake in around $30 million in revenue-sharing handouts alone -- plus another $20 million to $30 million in TV, radio, Internet and Central Fund payoffs (generated by national TV contracts and licensing deals). That comes to $50 million to $60 million, by our count. But their payrolls, by anyone's count, come to slightly less than that. Or, in the Marlins' count, to insanely less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 One more thing, anyone who sells the salary cap is there to simply "level the playing field for all" is leading you on. It's to make the owners more money. I would love it if I "wasn't allowed" to pay my employees more. "Sorry dude, I know you're a great chef, but I'm over the cap. Oh, and good luck finding more money from somebody else, 'cause they're all over the cap as well. So, actually, I was hoping you'd take a pay cut so I have room to bring some better cooks on to work along side you. You do want to be the best restaurant, don't you? You don't want the public to think that we're not the best restaurant because you were too greedy to renegotiate and help me make this place all it can be, do you?" When the NHL went to the cap it wasn't because they were tired of the same teams winning the cup over and over, it was because none of the teams were making any money (allegedly and I don't say that because I don't believe it, just because you never really know). I think you've made excellent points, as everyone has. I think I'm done with this thread too. . .Hell, if it wasn't raining outside I'd be mowing my lawn right now. . . .Guitar Hero time!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 And yet that same 95% of minor league teams produce the World Series Champion year in and year out. This is complete and total nonsense. St. Louis, Chicago, Boston... those are small market teams? Baloney! The facts: From 1995 on, only one team in the bottom half of total payrolls won the World Series. The 2003 Marlins were a nice feel good story, but they were the exception, not the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 That you're asking people who live in the coldest major city in the world to spend some of the precious few days they can actually go outside watching baseball inside in a hideous, out of date stadium. Moscow? Another point to a prior question is that the NFL also has a minimum salary that each team must spend so that the owners just can't pocket the shared revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Moscow? Another point to a prior question is that the NFL also has a minimum salary that each team must spend so that the owners just can't pocket the shared revenue. Well, I'd heard as much. None the less, you live in Montreal. Likely you spend pretty much all day indoors all winter long. Summer is rather short. Who in the hell wants to spend that indoors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 in favor of salary cap and non guaranteed contracts...NFL style. Never going to happen in the NBA or MLB, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 There's revenue sharing in MLB as well The following quote is from this article Interesting. I wasn't aware that baseball had revenue sharing. Mostly because I rank watching basball right up there with having a root canal. Based on that article though, MBL isn't even enforcing it's own rules; namely that the revenue for the pool be used to enhance the competitiveness of the product on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.