detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 the problem with the current system is that it essentially rewards BOTH approaches. if you're a big-market team, pull out all the stops, throw $100 million at a guy who's never thrown a single pitch in the bigs, etc. if you're a small market team, trade away every decent player you've got, keep the payroll under $50 million, put out a mediocre product and leech off the yankees and "fans" who don't care how chitty your team is, they're just happy to spend $200 bucks to take their family out and hang out at the ballpark. blaming one approach or the other for "ruining baseball" is shortsighted -- the problem is the system that makes both approaches viable. hmm, you don't seem to be getting any takers. I don't disagree here. That said, absolutely everything I've said in this thread is irrefutable. As for Timmy's wager. Gee, really going out on a limb. Obviously the Yanks, etc. have a hugh advantage on the field over teams that don't spend. You can point to all the scrappy As and Marlins stories you want. That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is to not let the yankees be the yankees. Perhaps the solution is to not allow the Royals to be the Royals and make them get off their asses and field a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I don't disagree here. That said, absolutely everything I've said in this thread is irrefutable. As for Timmy's wager. Gee, really going out on a limb. Obviously the Yanks, etc. have a hugh advantage on the field over teams that don't spend. You can point to all the scrappy As and Marlins stories you want. That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is to not let the yankees be the yankees. Perhaps the solution is to not allow the Royals to be the Royals and make them get off their asses and field a team. Somewhere in the middle is the answer, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I don't disagree here. That said, absolutely everything I've said in this thread is irrefutable. As for Timmy's wager. Gee, really going out on a limb. Obviously the Yanks, etc. have a hugh advantage on the field over teams that don't spend. You can point to all the scrappy As and Marlins stories you want. That doesn't mean, however, that the solution is to not let the yankees be the yankees. Perhaps the solution is to not allow the Royals to be the Royals and make them get off their asses and field a team. why on earth would they? they can lose money trying to field a middling team with half the payroll of the yankees, or they can make money fielding a crappy team with an eighth the payroll of the yankees. sorry, but that one's a no-brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 why on earth would they? they can lose money trying to field a middling team with half the payroll of the yankees, or they can make money fielding a crappy team with an eighth the payroll of the yankees. sorry, but that one's a no-brainer. Hmm, let's see. My points: 1) The Salary cap is not nec. what makes the NFL better. Rather it is the fact that nobody just mails it in with regard to payroll. 2) The NBA and NHL have proven that a salary cap is not a one-way street to being a great and popular league. 3) The salary cap is put in place to save the owners money, they just sell it to us as some way to bring parity to the game. Care to take any of these on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Somewhere in the middle is the answer, in my opinion. +1. Whenever this topic comes up, I know it seems like I'm anti-salary cap pro-yankees. It's really not that way, rather it just seems that so many are inclined to bust out the violins for the Marlins and Royals of the world and I simply think they don't deserve your pity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Hmm, let's see. My points: 1) The Salary cap is not nec. what makes the NFL better. Rather it is the fact that nobody just mails it in with regard to payroll. 2) The NBA and NHL have proven that a salary cap is not a one-way street to being a great and popular league. 3) The salary cap is put in place to save the owners money, they just sell it to us as some way to bring parity to the game. Care to take any of these on? I'll give it a shot 1. I think the salary cap does make the nfl better..I think the fact that teams that are run well ( like pats ) take advantage of being run well rather than having to buy the success ..salary cap in principal gives every team the same shot and puts them on a level playing field 2, Their is a big difference between poorly run league and popular league ...nhl is not as popular as many other sports , it has a terrible commisioner in bettman but the cap has allowed parity and smaller market teams a consistent chance at top players and a consistent chance at playoffs and stanley cup Pronger was on edmonton , kariya in nashville , federov in columbus , ryan smyth goes to islanders ....and a stanley cup final between anaheim and ottawa ...this could not happen at a consistent level if it were not for a cap as rangers , toronto , red wings ,etc would swallow up the top players 3. Don't necessarily disagree with u on this one but do believe cap serves a great purpose regardless of owners motives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 I'll give it a shot 1. I think the salary cap does make the nfl better..I think the fact that teams that are run well ( like pats ) take advantage of being run well rather than having to buy the success ..salary cap in principal gives every team the same shot and puts them on a level playing field 2, Their is a big difference between poorly run league and popular league ...nhl is not as popular as many other sports , it has a terrible commisioner in bettman but the cap has allowed parity and smaller market teams a consistent chance at top players and a consistent chance at playoffs and stanley cup Pronger was on edmonton , kariya in nashville , federov in columbus , ryan smyth goes to islanders ....and a stanley cup final between anaheim and ottawa ...this could not happen at a consistent level if it were not for a cap as rangers , toronto , red wings ,etc would swallow up the top players 3. Don't necessarily disagree with u on this one but do believe cap serves a great purpose regardless of owners motives Great, you think the cap makes the NFL run better. I think it runs better because not only does nobody spend more than they're allowed, pretty much everyone spends as much as they're allowed. What good would the cap do if 5-6 teams spent 10 mil a year on their team? You'd have the same problem. In fact, it has been pointed out that, despite the cap, you still have a rather short list of teams each year that really have a shot. Plenty will contend, but it will take some luck to get past that. In fact, if they played a series rather than one game in the play-offs, you might see the same lack of parity. There are a ton of reasons for parity. Not the least of which are injuries. If Payton Manning goes down...Indy is toast. With how violent the game is, you need things to break (or rather not break in this case) the right way to move on. Then, you have one bad game in January, and it's over. Dude, the NHL cap has been in place for all of 2 years! However, I completely see your point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, it was completely dominated by large market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh. I'm glad the little guys have a chance now. Frankly, the NHL will always be safe from teams being able to buy themselves a ton of Championships 'cause it is not a star driven game. You need too many lines and too much chemistry. None the less, the change in the game in the 2 years post strike and cap has more to do with the change in the on-ice rules than in any parity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Great, you think the cap makes the NFL run better. I think it runs better because not only does nobody spend more than they're allowed, pretty much everyone spends as much as they're allowed. What good would the cap do if 5-6 teams spent 10 mil a year on their team? You'd have the same problem. In fact, it has been pointed out that, despite the cap, you still have a rather short list of teams each year that really have a shot. Plenty will contend, but it will take some luck to get past that. In fact, if they played a series rather than one game in the play-offs, you might see the same lack of parity. There are a ton of reasons for parity. Not the least of which are injuries. If Payton Manning goes down...Indy is toast. With how violent the game is, you need things to break (or rather not break in this case) the right way to move on. Then, you have one bad game in January, and it's over. Dude, the NHL cap has been in place for all of 2 years! However, I completely see your point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, it was completely dominated by large market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh. I'm glad the little guys have a chance now. Frankly, the NHL will always be safe from teams being able to buy themselves a ton of Championships 'cause it is not a star driven game. You need too many lines and too much chemistry. None the less, the change in the game in the 2 years post strike and cap has more to do with the change in the on-ice rules than in any parity. Injuries are part of the game as are bad signings , this has nothing to do with a cap or no cap ...as a system though , a cap allows the team the chance to have equal footing ( if a team decides not to use the equal footing or opportunity then shame on them or their owner ) ...that in itself is more than enough for me view as the proper way a league should be set up ...baseball is a joke in this regard Nhl is a bit different as its not all about the stars and the money ( edmonton was one of those incredible stories that does not come around too often ) as it has a lot to with passion , hot goaltending , etc in the playoffs but the nhl was getting to a point where the current crop of top stars would only be able to go and be signed by certain teams who would overspend for them ...at the least now with the cap , top players can be spread around and afforded by basically every team ...while it may not guarantee a cup , its still a good thing long term ...and can contribute to more balance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmypg Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I agree that along with a salary cap you need a minimum cap. Teams like the Royals, Pirates, Marlins, ect need to spend more money. However, why would/should a team spend $80 mil when that still won't be enough to win? If I would get the same results spending $50 mil as I would spending $80 mil then obviously I'm only going to spend $50 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 1) The Salary cap is not nec. what makes the NFL better. Rather it is the fact that nobody just mails it in with regard to payroll. and you think the salary/CBA structure in the NFL is totally unrelated to the fact that no teams "just mail it in"? if you think that, you're wrong, they are directly related. 2) The NBA and NHL have proven that a salary cap is not a one-way street to being a great and popular league. in the NBA, the cap, by design, is a "soft" one with lots of exceptions and workarounds, and it's hard to have parity in a sport dominated by a handful of individual superstars. the NHL is hurting for popularity since their strike, but there is absolutely no question that league parity has increased dramatically since they instituted a salary cap. in any case, who ever, anywhere, said or implied that "a salary cap is a one-way street to being a great and popular league"? some people might argue that the lack of parity in baseball stemming from the payroll disparities is helping to ruin the sport. but that is not the same as saying a salary cap will magically fix everything. that is a strawman. 3) The salary cap is put in place to save the owners money, they just sell it to us as some way to bring parity to the game. whatever the motivations, it DOES bring parity to the game. other than b*tching out the royals for refusing to spend money they don't have, do you have a better solution for bringing more parity to major league baseball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Dude, the NHL cap has been in place for all of 2 years! However, I completely see your point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, it was completely dominated by large market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh. I'm glad the little guys have a chance now. Frankly, the NHL will always be safe from teams being able to buy themselves a ton of Championships 'cause it is not a star driven game. umm, do the numbers 99 and 66 mean anything to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) umm, do the numbers 99 and 66 mean anything to you? Well, I understand this doesn't fit into you convenient little game of highlight a few things out of context to make yourself feel better, but in reality, there may be no sport that is less reliant on one or two stars than hockey. Certainly they promote the hell out the stars they have. Who doesn't? However, unlike Basketball, your best players can't play 80-90% of the game. Unlike football, you can't have a guy like Peyton Manning touch the ball on every single offensive play you run or feed the rock to LT on 60% of them. Baseball may be the only one that comes close because a dominating pitcher only sees the ball every 5th game and a great batter can be pitched around. None the less, you will not find any player who will single handedly win a cup for his team. In fact, you won't even find a situation where 2 or 3 do it. Kobe and Shaq and 3 cripples won 3 straight NBA Championships. In hockey, you're a total stud if you play more than 20 out of 60 minutes. My ex-roommate back in SC married a former NHL player. I didn't know a whole lot about the game and was sort of plying him for info about it over a few beers once. I asked why, I believe the Avalanche, had fallen off so much from the previous year despite the fact that they retained all the big names from the year before. He replied that they'd lost a bunch of guys that I'd never heard of but all of whom played vital roles on the team. That you really needed role players. Those Oiler teams of the late 80s were freaking stacked. 99 was obviously the brightest star but they were crazy deep. Lemiuex had this little sidekick name Jagr and a whole lot more strong players around him. Once again, I find it insanely funny that you guys talk about the cap and the NHL considering that it has just gotten started. Though I completely get your point, the year before the lockout, something had to be done. I mean, look at the Stanley Cup finals. Enough was enough, right? How many more years of watching big market teams like Tampa Bay and Calgary make the finals yet again were people going to tolerate. All in all, you guys have tried to swing the burden of proof to me by taking the myriad of other reasons I'm offering besides the cap that the NFL is stronger, but that's not the point. My point is that it is rather naive to just point to the cap and say it makes the league better. My point is, who knows, maybe so, but maybe its x,y, or z instead or as well. I'm not anti-cap. I'm just pointing out that there's little proof that not having a cap is what is killing baseball. Edited June 21, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Great, you think the cap makes the NFL run better. I think it runs better because not only does nobody spend more than they're allowed, pretty much everyone spends as much as they're allowed. What good would the cap do if 5-6 teams spent 10 mil a year on their team? You'd have the same problem. In fact, it has been pointed out that, despite the cap, you still have a rather short list of teams each year that really have a shot. Plenty will contend, but it will take some luck to get past that. In fact, if they played a series rather than one game in the play-offs, you might see the same lack of parity. There are a ton of reasons for parity. Not the least of which are injuries. If Payton Manning goes down...Indy is toast. With how violent the game is, you need things to break (or rather not break in this case) the right way to move on. Then, you have one bad game in January, and it's over. Dude, the NHL cap has been in place for all of 2 years! However, I completely see your point. Back in the 80s and early 90s, it was completely dominated by large market teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh. I'm glad the little guys have a chance now. Frankly, the NHL will always be safe from teams being able to buy themselves a ton of Championships 'cause it is not a star driven game. You need too many lines and too much chemistry. None the less, the change in the game in the 2 years post strike and cap has more to do with the change in the on-ice rules than in any parity. The salary cap that I would like to see would have a maximum and a minimum, that wouldn't be too far apart, which is what I believe the NFL has in place now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Detlef , in fact it is no cap in baseball that is killing it ...all these posts have not proved otherwise Can't have one team at 208 million and others at 28 million playing each other 19 x in a season I do agree there should be a mimimum cap and maximum but the magic word is cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 in any case, who ever, anywhere, said or implied that "a salary cap is a one-way street to being a great and popular league"? I don't know. This guy here? I agree that non-salary cap leagues suck. Caps tend to even the playing field regardless of each team's market worth. There are exceptions every year to the rule, but the fact is, year in, year out a team like the Yankees is in the hunt while the have-nots only have an occasional year or two in the hunt. NFL is great because of the cap: teams have to learn how to build and manage a team with the same dollar amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Detlef , in fact it is no cap in baseball that is killing it ...all these posts have not proved otherwise Can't have one team at 208 million and others at 28 million playing each other 19 x in a season I do agree there should be a mimimum cap and maximum but the magic word is cap So, you post what you believe to be true and you aren't convinced by any of the arguments against it so now it's fact? Interesting. So despite fact that 2 of the 3 "major" sports that have a cap in place are hardly knocking it out of the park, you're convinced that the lack of a cap is what is killing baseball. Not steroids, not the fact that there are a ton more things to do and watch these days, so perhaps we care less about making sure we see our local team play one of the 162 games it's gonna play this year. Wow, there's another. Nobody will argue that the NFL is heads and shoulders above the other 3, right? Let's examine one major difference between them and the other two. So, you've got 4 leagues, three of which have really long seasons in which each game is marginalized by the fact that one loss will hardly kill you. The one that happens to own the US market uses a format where you only get 16 shots to win the 10 games you're gonna need to advance. If the Yanks drop one to the D-Rays, that's no biggie 'cause they still might go 18-1 vs them. If the Pats drop one to the Cards, that is freaking hugh. That was not a game they had slated for a possible L and it may mean they have to play in Indy come January rather than having Peyton come to NE. There are almost no games that don't matter in the NFL. They also all happen at the same time every week. Unless your some sports nut single guy, you've got to pick your spots. You can sell the fact that every Sunday afternoon it's football time for Detlef. It's harder to sell, Monday night is NBA, unless it's Tuesday, but then I gotta catch the Hurricanes Wednesday on Versus. "But honey, they only play 80 times a year. Tonight's game is hugh!". So, reason number whatever besides the cap that the NFL is more popular. Edited June 21, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Well, I understand this doesn't fit into you convenient little game of highlight a few things out of context to make yourself feel better, but in reality, there may be no sport that is less reliant on one or two stars than hockey. Certainly they promote the hell out the stars they have. Who doesn't? However, unlike Basketball, your best players can't play 80-90% of the game. Unlike football, you can't have a guy like Peyton Manning touch the ball on every single offensive play you run or feed the rock to LT on 60% of them. Baseball may be the only one that comes close because a dominating pitcher only sees the ball every 5th game and a great batter can be pitched around. None the less, you will not find any player who will single handedly win a cup for his team. In fact, you won't even find a situation where 2 or 3 do it. Kobe and Shaq and 3 cripples won 3 straight NBA Championships. In hockey, you're a total stud if you play more than 20 out of 60 minutes. My ex-roommate back in SC married a former NHL player. I didn't know a whole lot about the game and was sort of plying him for info about it over a few beers once. I asked why, I believe the Avalanche, had fallen off so much from the previous year despite the fact that they retained all the big names from the year before. He replied that they'd lost a bunch of guys that I'd never heard of but all of whom played vital roles on the team. That you really needed role players. Those Oiler teams of the late 80s were freaking stacked. 99 was obviously the brightest star but they were crazy deep. Lemiuex had this little sidekick name Jagr and a whole lot more strong players around him. Once again, I find it insanely funny that you guys talk about the cap and the NHL considering that it has just gotten started. Though I completely get your point, the year before the lockout, something had to be done. I mean, look at the Stanley Cup finals. Enough was enough, right? How many more years of watching big market teams like Tampa Bay and Calgary make the finals yet again were people going to tolerate. well, look....part of this is the whole game of pro hockey changed pretty drastically from the 80s and early 90s to the mid 90s up to the strike. it went from being a much more offensive, star-driven game, to a more defensive, depth-driven style of play. the big single moment in the gradual switching over from one to the other was the first time the devils won the cup. by the time the strike happened, the league was pretty well dominated by a number of big-spending teams. every offseason, only 5 or 6 teams would be in the market for the top free agents. every trading deadline, the struggling teams would be sending their stud players due to be free agents to the same 5 or 6 teams. i didn't mind it too much, because the team i rooted for flourished under the system (despite denver not being a very "big" market at all). but...and this is really the only relevent fact to our discussion here....since the salary cap was instituted, parity in the NHL HAS increased significantly. teams like the avalanche who had won 10 division titles in a row say goodbye to adam foote, rob blake and peter forsberg and get edged out of the playoffs. small non-hockey market teams like the nashville predators suddenly look stacked. the NHL went from a league of haves and have-nots (and the pathetic rangers), to a league where the right managerial moves can make any team in any market a contender. same thing that happened with the NFL. and you would have us believe that the institution of a salary cap has nothing to do with this development in either league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 and you would have us believe that the institution of a salary cap has nothing to do with this development in either league? Hardly, contrary to your assertion above, there has been a sentiment that the cap is what makes the NFL great. My only point is that it is hardly the only reason and that there are a number of things baseball should address if it wants to return to the spotlight. How many times do I have to say that I'm not anti-cap before it sinks in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hardly, contrary to your assertion above, there has been a sentiment that the cap is what makes the NFL great. My only point is that it is hardly the only reason and that there are a number of things baseball should address if it wants to return to the spotlight. How many times do I have to say that I'm not anti-cap before it sinks in? Every sport has problems ...does pacman jones off field issues kill nfl ? No ...is steroids a problem in baseball ? Yes ...but its not killing the game ...a handful of players won't kill the game but lack of a system in place is much more serious an issue It effects the whole league and whole game of baseball ..again nothing you have written has provided proof that cap would not help baseball a great deal and that cap is working very well in other sports and is a major reason for parity and reason each team has a much better chance to succeed than they do in baseball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Every sport has problems ...does pacman jones off field issues kill nfl ? No ...is steroids a problem in baseball ? Yes ...but its not killing the game ...a handful of players won't kill the game but lack of a system in place is much more serious an issue It effects the whole league and whole game of baseball ..again nothing you have written has provided proof that cap would not help baseball a great deal and that cap is working very well in other sports and is a major reason for parity and reason each team has a much better chance to succeed than they do in baseball Let me explain something about debate. You brought up a claim that the lack of a cap is killing baseball. I don't quite agree. You backed that up by pointing the the NFL's success proving that because they have a cap. I pointed out the NHL and NBA have caps and they're not doing well as well as a number of other reasons why the NFL might be doing better. The burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong because I'm not the one making the initial claim. The burden of proof is on you to show why the cap in particular is what the league needs rather than any number of other things. Look honey, the family across the street is so happy. I think it's because they have a pool. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the couple down the street has a pool and they're getting a divorce. Maybe a pool isn't the solution. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the family across the street also goes on vacation twice a year to Italy and both parents have great jobs with loads of free time. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. ... Edited June 21, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 So, you post what you believe to be true and you aren't convinced by any of the arguments against it so now it's fact? Interesting. So despite fact that 2 of the 3 "major" sports that have a cap in place are hardly knocking it out of the park, you're convinced that the lack of a cap is what is killing baseball. Not steroids, not the fact that there are a ton more things to do and watch these days, so perhaps we care less about making sure we see our local team play one of the 162 games it's gonna play this year. Wow, there's another. Nobody will argue that the NFL is heads and shoulders above the other 3, right? Let's examine one major difference between them and the other two. So, you've got 4 leagues, three of which have really long seasons in which each game is marginalized by the fact that one loss will hardly kill you. The one that happens to own the US market uses a format where you only get 16 shots to win the 10 games you're gonna need to advance. If the Yanks drop one to the D-Rays, that's no biggie 'cause they still might go 18-1 vs them. If the Pats drop one to the Cards, that is freaking hugh. That was not a game they had slated for a possible L and it may mean they have to play in Indy come January rather than having Peyton come to NE. There are almost no games that don't matter in the NFL. They also all happen at the same time every week. Unless your some sports nut single guy, you've got to pick your spots. You can sell the fact that every Sunday afternoon it's football time for Detlef. It's harder to sell, Monday night is NBA, unless it's Tuesday, but then I gotta catch the Hurricanes Wednesday on Versus. "But honey, they only play 80 times a year. Tonight's game is hugh!". So, reason number whatever besides the cap that the NFL is more popular. Let's talk facts Their is no cap in baseball - fact Their are teams in baseball who have a payroll 8 to 9 x than that of their opponent on many given games - fact More often than not teams with higher payrolls make the playoffs- fact ( as I say that this happens all the time just more often than not ) There are many teams in baseball that can not afford to have payrolls that yankees , red sox and mets have - fact Their is imbalance and not as much parity in baseball as their is in other sports who have a cap over the past decade ( biggest payrols are makinng playoffs as compared to smaller payrolls ) - fact All of this would tend one to believe that it is a fact that baseball is suffering because it has no cap and that it will continue to have much less parity than sports that do have a cap Teams can be mismanaged with out or without a cap but at the least they have a similar shot starting off and are not a big disadvantage like they are in baseball with nocap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Let me explain something about debate. You brought up a claim that the lack of a cap is killing baseball. I don't quite agree. You backed that up by pointing the the NFL's success proving that because they have a cap. I pointed out the NHL and NBA have caps and they're not doing well as well as a number of other reasons why the NFL might be doing better. The burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong because I'm not the one making the initial claim. The burden of proof is on you to show why the cap in particular is what the league needs rather than any number of other things. Look honey, the family across the street is so happy. I think it's because they have a pool. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the couple down the street has a pool and they're getting a divorce. Maybe a pool isn't the solution. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the family across the street also goes on vacation twice a year to Italy and both parents have great jobs with loads of free time. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. ... Did not know we were in a courtroom ... Got no problem with you stating your opinion on this but more than enough has been written as to why baseball needs a cap and how it benefits the other sports who already have one ...what more is needed other than the basic fact that a cap puts all teams on equal footing and it allows all the teams similar oipportunities to succeed ...yes teams , management and ownership still have to spend wisely but at the least all is balanced And all this back and forth is certainly not personal detlef ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Let's talk facts Their is no cap in baseball - fact Their are teams in baseball who have a payroll 8 to 9 x than that of their opponent on many given games - fact More often than not teams with higher payrolls make the playoffs- fact ( as I say that this happens all the time just more often than not ) There are many teams in baseball that can not afford to have payrolls that yankees , red sox and mets have - fact Their is imbalance and not as much parity in baseball as their is in other sports who have a cap over the past decade ( biggest payrols are makinng playoffs as compared to smaller payrolls ) - fact All of this would tend one to believe that it is a fact that baseball is suffering because it has no cap and that it will continue to have much less parity than sports that do have a cap Teams can be mismanaged with out or without a cap but at the least they have a similar shot starting off and are not a big disadvantage like they are in baseball with nocap For starters, why must the Royals and Marlins be a barometer of the health of baseball? There are plenty who argue that parity does not improve the National interest in the game. In fact, I've read more than one article that says the NFL's new parity has actually hurt the game. That it was more interesting when you had great teams like the Niners and Cowboys fighting for the NFC Championship every year. Watching star-studded titans battle it out rather than watching a guy like Trent Dilfer QB the Ravens past a mediocre NY Giants team for a SB title. Secondly, this cap of yours would likely effect exactly two teams (but really only one). Say you put the cap at $100mil, essentially every team in the league is already at or below that. The Sox would have to trim a little, but really nobody else. So, this is your major sweeping fix all to save the league? To basically make one team cut their payroll in half? This is my point. In terms of a "level playing field", you have exactly one team, the Yankees, who are 2-3 times higher than most legitimate teams, but the Marlins are 5-6 times lower than that same contender level. Who's more out of whack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 80 Million Maximum Cap 60 Million Minimum Cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Let me explain something about debate. You brought up a claim that the lack of a cap is killing baseball. I don't quite agree. You backed that up by pointing the the NFL's success proving that because they have a cap. I pointed out the NHL and NBA have caps and they're not doing well as well as a number of other reasons why the NFL might be doing better. The burden of proof is not on me to prove you wrong because I'm not the one making the initial claim. The burden of proof is on you to show why the cap in particular is what the league needs rather than any number of other things. Look honey, the family across the street is so happy. I think it's because they have a pool. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the couple down the street has a pool and they're getting a divorce. Maybe a pool isn't the solution. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. Well, the family across the street also goes on vacation twice a year to Italy and both parents have great jobs with loads of free time. But the family across the street has a pool and they're happy. We need a pool so we can be happy. ... the argument that "the lack of a salary cap is killing baseball" does not necessarily equate to your strawman argument that instituting a salary cap will magically fix all of baseball's woes and make everything peachy. no one is making that argument. there are a LOT of things wrong with baseball that a salary cap would not fix (like, say, the fact that fewer and fewer american kids seem to be playing the game). it just so happens that the lack of competitive balance in MLB, which is tied directly to salary disparities, is one of the most prevalent and visible problems, and one that would be (relatively) easy to fix -- so we argue that baseball should think about instituting some salary restrictions. Edited June 21, 2007 by Azazello1313 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.