PDA

View Full Version : When is a Hard Cap Coming?


Lukin13
10-18-2008, 01:06 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/17/heyman.yankees/index.html
Obviously, the article is just speculation, but this just makes me sick.

Another offseason of wild spending for the Yankees is coming, and as a White Sox fan with a more than generous payroll, I understand I really have zero right to complain... things could be worse.

BUT COME ON!

I know MLB is raking it in with the big draws all in contention year in and out, but I wish something could be done. I imagine the long term consequences in the smaller markets could be detrimental. Though I am pretty sure the NBA would tell me differently.

The Soft Cap/Luxury Tax needs to either be scrapped or cranked way up. I also would support something similar to other leagues where your current team can pay you X ,and all other teams can only max out at Y, where X>Y.

Thoughts?

Eddo144
10-18-2008, 01:25 PM
I think a salary floor is more important. Excessive spending leads to more bad contracts (Pavano, Pierre, Zito, etc.) than anything else. However, having teams like the Pirates and Marlins that are not willing to put any money into improving is ridiculous.

DSpivack
10-18-2008, 01:42 PM
Why is it necessary? The Yankees haven't done anything since 2000. Let them spend all they want.

TDog
10-18-2008, 01:48 PM
I don't understand the question. The Yankees will spend money. They always do. Hence the speculation.

But the players union will not agree to a salary cap. More detrimental than the lack of a salary cap is arbitration coupled with free agency, in which arbiters take ridiculous free agent contracts into consideration. But that isn't going away either.

As it is, the teams that develop talent or trade shrewdly for young talent are better off than the teams that sign players to outrageous contracts based on what those players have done in the past. It takes more than big contracts to win a World Series. Sometimes it doesn't even take that.

voodoochile
10-18-2008, 02:09 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/17/heyman.yankees/index.html
Obviously, the article is just speculation, but this just makes me sick.

Another offseason of wild spending for the Yankees is coming, and as a White Sox fan with a more than generous payroll, I understand I really have zero right to complain... things could be worse.

BUT COME ON!

I know MLB is raking it in with the big draws all in contention year in and out, but I wish something could be done. I imagine the long term consequences in the smaller markets could be detrimental. Though I am pretty sure the NBA would tell me differently.

The Soft Cap/Luxury Tax needs to either be scrapped or cranked way up. I also would support something similar to other leagues where your current team can pay you X ,and all other teams can only max out at Y, where X>Y.

Thoughts?

The owners aren't serious about revenue sharing. If they were, this wouldn't be a problem. Look at all the other major sports - they share almost everything equally and monetary differences franchise to franchise are minimal.

Until they start sharing most of their revenue equally, all a hard cap does is stuff millions of dollars into the owner's pockets. Besides, look at this year. Who is the favorite to win the WS and what is their payroll? If Tampa can build a WS contender for under $20M anyone can. Yankees haven't won a thing in the new Millennium. Money helps, but it's not all you need.

voodoochile
10-18-2008, 02:10 PM
I think a salary floor is more important. Excessive spending leads to more bad contracts (Pavano, Pierre, Zito, etc.) than anything else. However, having teams like the Pirates and Marlins that are not willing to put any money into improving is ridiculous.

Wouldn't a floor just lead to more of that excessive spending you are talking about?

whitesox901
10-18-2008, 02:33 PM
Let them spend, if they can pay, then let em

Bucky F. Dent
10-18-2008, 03:42 PM
The MLBPA is far stronger than the other major player associations.

No way in hell they agree to a cap!

Parrothead
10-18-2008, 04:06 PM
The MLBPA is far stronger than the other major player associations.

No way in hell they agree to a cap!

Let the players find jobs somewhere else paying the millions. In 1994 the owners should have started the next season using replacement players or not started the season until a hard cap / more strict revenue sharing plan was put in place. People mainly root for laundry anyway. Sure attendance would have went down but eventually it would have gone up and the players might have seen the light.

Daver
10-18-2008, 05:00 PM
The MLBPA is far stronger than the other major player associations.

No way in hell they agree to a cap!

As well they shouldn't. A salary cap serves exactly one purpose, it guarantee's the owners profit margin at the players salary structure's expense.

DumpJerry
10-18-2008, 05:13 PM
This SI story might as well have been reprinted from any given year of the last 20 or years. We hear every year that the Yankees are going for the top free agents in the offseason to improve on the season just concluded.

So what?


They don't sign everyone they pursue and money is not the only reason why they fail. The fishbowl environment in New York is not very pleasant for a player and other teams might have a more attractive chemistry. In addition, the Red Sox can compete in the moeny arena with the Yankees very easily. Granted, the Red Sox' needs next year are not the same as the Yankees', so they won't pursue the exact same players.

If the Yankees want a $300,000,000+ payroll, that's fine with me. It does not affect my White Sox ticket prices as much as it would a Yankee fan's tickets to his/her team.

Eddo144
10-18-2008, 05:19 PM
Wouldn't a floor just lead to more of that excessive spending you are talking about?
I didn't say I had a problem with excessive spending, though. All I said was that it leads to more bad contracts over anything else. I say that if a team wants to spend ridiculous money to a Zito or a Pierre, let them suffer the consequences.

The problem is letting some owners cut costs at the expense of fielding a contending team at some point. Maybe a floor's not the answer; maybe MLB needs to come down on owners who don't really care about winning.

Daver
10-18-2008, 05:21 PM
maybe MLB needs to come down on owners who don't really care about winning.

That will never happen until there is an automous commisioner.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

TDog
10-18-2008, 05:38 PM
Let the players find jobs somewhere else paying the millions. In 1994 the owners should have started the next season using replacement players or not started the season until a hard cap / more strict revenue sharing plan was put in place. People mainly root for laundry anyway. Sure attendance would have went down but eventually it would have gone up and the players might have seen the light.

I disagree. The strike shouldn't have happened in the first place. I believe most people in baseball management see that now. Had the owners stuck it out, Major League Baseball might have died to be replaced by a new major league with only one team in Chicago. Regardless of what did or didn't happen in 1994, there is no way management in the 21st century will break the union to put a salary cap in place.

Depending on where the cap would be set, it would only affect a few teams anyway. If it were a cap that would allow teams not to count the salaries of players released but still being paid, it probably wouldn't make any difference. The Yankees would release/trade their high-price failures to make room under the cap that would only be approached by a fraction of other teams in the league.

A salary cap wouldn't make baseball more competitive, but it would allow the Yankees to make more money.

Eddo144
10-18-2008, 06:18 PM
That will never happen until there is an automous commisioner.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Sadly, you are absolutely right, and I will be breathing normally.

Sox4ever77
10-18-2008, 07:44 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/17/heyman.yankees/index.html
Obviously, the article is just speculation, but this just makes me sick.

Another offseason of wild spending for the Yankees is coming, and as a White Sox fan with a more than generous payroll, I understand I really have zero right to complain... things could be worse.



Can you remind me, what high priced FA, the Yankees signed last year? They actually stuck to their farm system, not trading for Santana and then giving him a huge contract extension.

I understand this season COULD be different since they have a ton of bad contracts expiring. But don't think the Yankees are going to spend that much. CC wants to stay in NL. I bet the Angels resign Tex.

Lukin13
10-18-2008, 07:50 PM
Can you remind me, what high priced FA, the Yankees signed last year? They actually stuck to their farm system, not trading for Santana and then giving him a huge contract extension.

I understand this season COULD be different since they have a ton of bad contracts expiring. But don't think the Yankees are going to spend that much. CC wants to stay in NL. I bet the Angels resign Tex.


Just to remind you: Last offseason the Yankees signed free agent Alex Rodriguez to the largest contract in Major League Baseball history.

Does that count?


Other signings: Rivera, Posada, Abreu, Hawkins, Pettitte... I am not sure but I think there is a chance that the Rivera and Posada deals made each the highest paid, cather and reliever, per year, in baseball history.

Lukin13
10-18-2008, 08:04 PM
As well they shouldn't. A salary cap serves exactly one purpose, it guarantee's the owners profit margin at the players salary structure's expense.

It does not guarantee profit margin, there are a million other variables.

It shouldn't be set based on what would be profitable, for every owner, that wouldn't be the least bit fair to the players. I'd make it easy, take all MLB contracts, divide by 30, give a 5% raise every season and give the teams until 2012 to get under the cap. Pretty easy.

Daver
10-18-2008, 08:18 PM
It does not guarantee profit margin, there are a million other variables.


Yes it does. It serves no other purpose, that is why the NFL broke the NFLPA over the issue.

Sox4ever77
10-19-2008, 12:02 AM
Just to remind you: Last offseason the Yankees signed free agent Alex Rodriguez to the largest contract in Major League Baseball history.

Does that count?


Other signings: Rivera, Posada, Abreu, Hawkins, Pettitte... I am not sure but I think there is a chance that the Rivera and Posada deals made each the highest paid, cather and reliever, per year, in baseball history.


What teams did those players play for in 07? Yankees. This year they won't resign many of the FA. I also doubt CC and Sheets will sign with the Yankees.

Stoky44
10-19-2008, 11:55 AM
I also would support something similar to other leagues where your current team can pay you X ,and all other teams can only max out at Y, where X>Y.


I think this a great idea, only problem would be how high do you set the number.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2008, 01:24 PM
I can not see under any circumstances the MLBPA agreeing to a salary cap.

Lip

doublem23
10-19-2008, 01:59 PM
It does not guarantee profit margin, there are a million other variables.

The easiest way to guarantee profit is to keep costs down.

Parrothead
10-19-2008, 03:38 PM
I
A salary cap wouldn't make baseball more competitive, but it would allow the Yankees to make more money.

Not if baseball followed the NBA / NFL and put the money into a pool and then split it. The system is broke and it needs to fixed. This probably sounds familar right about now.

I can't wait til some teams have to fold (granted about 4 should not even have been created) due to not making money thus eliminating jobs due to the high prices of tix and concessions the owners have to pay for the players. There really is no market for a team to go to. If one looks at the minor league attendance the top drawing team is Sultanes de Monterrey of the Mexican League with 12,424 per game after that it is the Sacramento River Cats with 9,724 per game. What will the players association do then?

btrain929
10-19-2008, 03:48 PM
I think the Yanks will have a big offseason. But until they learn out to play well in the 1st half of baseball seasons, they will always underachieve and all of their signings will be null and void.

Daver
10-19-2008, 04:07 PM
Not if baseball followed the NBA / NFL and put the money into a pool and then split it. The system is broke and it needs to fixed. This probably sounds familar right about now.


Exactly what is broke?

The owners profit margins?

doublem23
10-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Not if baseball followed the NBA / NFL and put the money into a pool and then split it. The system is broke and it needs to fixed. This probably sounds familar right about now.

I can't wait til some teams have to fold (granted about 4 should not even have been created) due to not making money thus eliminating jobs due to the high prices of tix and concessions the owners have to pay for the players. There really is no market for a team to go to. If one looks at the minor league attendance the top drawing team is Sultanes de Monterrey of the Mexican League with 12,424 per game after that it is the Sacramento River Cats with 9,724 per game. What will the players association do then?

I believe MLB revenues last year topped $6 billion.

No one is folding any time soon. The teams that are "struggling" do so because their owners don't invest in their product, they simply pocket the money they make.

TDog
10-19-2008, 05:28 PM
Not if baseball followed the NBA / NFL and put the money into a pool and then split it. The system is broke and it needs to fixed. This probably sounds familar right about now.

I can't wait til some teams have to fold (granted about 4 should not even have been created) due to not making money thus eliminating jobs due to the high prices of tix and concessions the owners have to pay for the players. There really is no market for a team to go to. If one looks at the minor league attendance the top drawing team is Sultanes de Monterrey of the Mexican League with 12,424 per game after that it is the Sacramento River Cats with 9,724 per game. What will the players association do then?

Teams pooling money and sharing it is one thing. A salary cap is another. The two need not be related. The financial success of NFL teams has more to do with pooling money. By setting an arbitrary cap on salaries, they also profit by exploiting players.

I'm sure a lot of people would like to see baseball as we know it destroyed to break the players union.

Eddo144
10-19-2008, 06:12 PM
Exactly what is broke?

The owners profit margins?
I tend to agree with this. The sport is not losing popularity due to player salaries. Sure, you and I, as normal people, see someone making eight figures a year and think it's outrageous, but the market is what allows them to make so much.

The one thing I could see as a negative is rising ticket prices, but I'm not entirely convinced that's a direct result of player salaries increasing.

Oblong
10-19-2008, 09:08 PM
Baseball's making huge profits. The game is growing. What exactly would be the motivation for a salary cap? Players don't want it and the owners don't need it. The last 2 labor deals, maybe 3, have been pretty smooth. Baseball took enough of a beating with the MItchell Report and all that went along with that. They don't need another PR nightmare.

Some owners want salary caps so that they have a built in excuse to not spend more. Then the pressure is off of them. As a fan, I hate them. I hate that an NBA team has to trade contracts and not players.

Parrothead
10-19-2008, 09:28 PM
Exactly what is broke? The owners profit margins?

Broke is not making money (yes it is the owners profit margins is one part), being able to keep players due to the rising of salaries of all involved with the team and the stadiums, fans staying away due to prices going up,

No one is folding any time soon. The teams that are "struggling" do so because their owners don't invest in their product, they simply pocket the money they make.

Some teams can't and will not be able to keep players due the salaries and location of the teams. They will be in constant rebuiding mode due to the players not being able to make extra endorsement cash. If you were a player would you rather play in NY / Chicago or LA or Washington / Pittsburgh / Colorado? Sure every once in a while these teams will catch a break and get into the playoffs and maybe even advance far but it is not going to happen often. In general, teams that spend more get into the playoffs more and do better.

I tend to agree with this. The sport is not losing popularity due to player salaries. Sure, you and I, as normal people, see someone making eight figures a year and think it's outrageous, but the market is what allows them to make so much.

The one thing I could see as a negative is rising ticket prices, but I'm not entirely convinced that's a direct result of player salaries increasing.

Yes, people are worth what people are willing to pay but there has to be a way for salaries to go down. It seems every time the owners are not willing to pay someone, the PA say collusion. See Bonds.

Rising prices is partly due to the rising salaries and also due to falling ratings which results in less ad revenue. As the days go less people will be able to go to games due to rising prices and less disposalable income. This year (2008) saw more than 50% of major and minor league teams saw a decrease in attendance.

MLB increases include the Rockies (11.53 percent or an average of 33,128 over 80 games), Phillies (10.11 percent, or an average of 42,254 over 81 games), and Diamondbacks (8.35 percent, or an average of 30,987 over 81 games).

MLB decreases were led by the Rangers (down 17.34 from an average of 29,796 per game last season to 24,321), As (down 13.35 percent from an average of 23,726 per game last season to 20,559), and Padres (down 12.99 percent from an average of 34,445 per game last season to 29,970).

Oblong
10-19-2008, 09:50 PM
Broke is not making money (yes it is the owners profit margins is one part), being able to keep players due to the rising of salaries of all involved with the team and the stadiums, fans staying away due to prices going up,



Some teams can't and will not be able to keep players due the salaries and location of the teams. They will be in constant rebuiding mode due to the players not being able to make extra endorsement cash. If you were a player would you rather play in NY / Chicago or LA or Washington / Pittsburgh / Colorado? Sure every once in a while these teams will catch a break and get into the playoffs and maybe even advance far but it is not going to happen often. In general, teams that spend more get into the playoffs more and do better.



Yes, people are worth what people are willing to pay but there has to be a way for salaries to go down. It seems every time the owners are not willing to pay someone, the PA say collusion. See Bonds.

Rising prices is partly due to the rising salaries and also due to falling ratings which results in less ad revenue. As the days go less people will be able to go to games due to rising prices and less disposalable income. This year (2008) saw more than 50% of major and minor league teams saw a decrease in attendance.

MLB increases include the Rockies (11.53 percent or an average of 33,128 over 80 games), Phillies (10.11 percent, or an average of 42,254 over 81 games), and Diamondbacks (8.35 percent, or an average of 30,987 over 81 games).

MLB decreases were led by the Rangers (down 17.34 from an average of 29,796 per game last season to 24,321), As (down 13.35 percent from an average of 23,726 per game last season to 20,559), and Padres (down 12.99 percent from an average of 34,445 per game last season to 29,970).


If the players all made $50,000 a year the price of a ticket would be what it is today. Prices for tickets are not based on salaries, they're based on what the public is willing to pay to watch a game.

It's terrible what the fans in places like Florida are going through, at least for those fans who like the team, but that's the fault of the owner. It's not a problem caused by any systematic problem with baseball. The owners have to cry broke in order to get the public to pay for their stadiums.

With all due respect, your criticisms have been written time and time again, even at the turn of the 20th century. Baseball's still here. There's a reason the owners don't open their books.

Daver
10-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Broke is not making money (yes it is the owners profit margins is one part), being able to keep players due to the rising of salaries of all involved with the team and the stadiums, fans staying away due to prices going up,



Some teams can't and will not be able to keep players due the salaries and location of the teams. They will be in constant rebuiding mode due to the players not being able to make extra endorsement cash. If you were a player would you rather play in NY / Chicago or LA or Washington / Pittsburgh / Colorado? Sure every once in a while these teams will catch a break and get into the playoffs and maybe even advance far but it is not going to happen often. In general, teams that spend more get into the playoffs more and do better.



Yes, people are worth what people are willing to pay but there has to be a way for salaries to go down. It seems every time the owners are not willing to pay someone, the PA say collusion. See Bonds.

Rising prices is partly due to the rising salaries and also due to falling ratings which results in less ad revenue. As the days go less people will be able to go to games due to rising prices and less disposalable income. This year (2008) saw more than 50% of major and minor league teams saw a decrease in attendance.

MLB increases include the Rockies (11.53 percent or an average of 33,128 over 80 games), Phillies (10.11 percent, or an average of 42,254 over 81 games), and Diamondbacks (8.35 percent, or an average of 30,987 over 81 games).

MLB decreases were led by the Rangers (down 17.34 from an average of 29,796 per game last season to 24,321), A’s (down 13.35 percent from an average of 23,726 per game last season to 20,559), and Padres (down 12.99 percent from an average of 34,445 per game last season to 29,970).

Your logic is below flawed, it is downright stupid. You shot your credibilty in the ass with the Bonds statement, since he played for no one this year, and no lawsuit came from it. I hate to break this to you, but ticket prices have no bearing on payroll, none. Ticket prices are based on what the market will bear, and payroll is set on that. Anyone that is naive enough to think lowering salaries will result in lower ticket prices is living in a fantasy world, that world includes believing a salary cap serves any other purpose than guarantee profit margins.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2008, 10:07 PM
Parrot:

Teams in smaller markets that don't win, in many cases, are because of stupid and or cheap ownership.

Examples:

David Glass, owner of the Royals is the heir to the Wal-Mart fortune.

Carl Pohland, owner of the Twins is one of the ten richest men on the planet according to Forbes Magazine with assets worth over a billion (with a B) dollars.

Both of these men if they wanted to, could have payrolls and talent that would dwarf the Yankees and or Red Sox but in both cases, well documented in the newspapers, they have chosen not to because they feel the public is supposed to "subsidize" their teams for them. Glass in particular according to John Helyar in his book "The Lords of the Realm" comes across as a fop who thinks he's "entitled" to things just because he's wealthy. Think the lord of the manor and the peasents under him and that's a pretty good idea of his mentality.

You also have the recorded case in the two Cincinnati newspapers, the off season before the Great American Ballpark opened where the owner (I'm sorry I think his name was Carl Lerner) told reporters he ordered then G.M. Jim Bowden to "cut payroll because we'll be drawing so many fans to the new park we won't get as much revenue sharing money..."

Need I go on?

MLB doesn't need a salary cap. MLB needs to get rid of cheap, brain dead owners who's first, second and last inclination is to throw up their hands and scream, "we can't compete..."

Fine...get out. There are plenty of Mark Cuban's around with money to burn who don't concede anything.

Lip

Parrothead
10-19-2008, 10:26 PM
If the players all made $50,000 a year the price of a ticket would be what it is today. Prices for tickets are not based on salaries, they're based on what the public is willing to pay to watch a game.

Yes, you are right and with attendance down all over the US and Mexico, it would appear that people are not willing or can't pay any more.

Your logic is below flawed, it is downright stupid. You shot your credibilty in the ass with the Bonds statement, since he played for no one this year, and no lawsuit came from it.

No lawsuit yet, but it may be coming....
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3647779

Parrot:

Teams in smaller markets that don't win, in many cases, are because of stupid and or cheap ownership.

Fine...get out. There are plenty of Mark Cuban's around with money to burn who don't concede anything.

Lip

True but if a team decides to run a team like the Sox, spend as much as you take in (granted one is relying on books with creative accounting) then many teams are losing money. Yes, there are cheap owners who are filthy rich lining their pockets with the revenue sharing money (again sound familar, maybe that is why there is world finacial issues now) and that should not be allowed. That money should have to be used for stadium improvements / salaries / scouting / development or something that would improve the teams / attendance.

What baseball needs is more fiscally responsible owners/gms. When the Mark Cubans and Stienbrenners take over there will be only about 8 and to 10 teams then everyone will be happy with the salary structure and paying over $100 per ticket to sit in the upper deck or to watch the game on tv due it being on pay per view tv. Those days are coming, hope you all enjoy it.

Lip Man 1
10-19-2008, 11:52 PM
Parrott:

According to the rules of MLB as already on the books, all revenue sharing money is only supposed to go to the areas that you mentioned... of course under Proud To Be Your Bud, that's not necessarily enforced and he specifically has the power to force teams to spend such money in those specific areas (see my interview with Phil Rogers for WSI).

I have no sympathy for the owners, ANY owners, ALL owners...none, nada, zippo, nyet.

Some fans like yourself have been decrying the state of the league for decades. Last I looked Proud To Be Your Bud was crowing about MLB now being a six billion (again as in B) dollar industry and with more on the way due to the new revenue streams. Sorry your prediction will NEVER happen...it simply won't.

And MLB is already on a form of pay per view, its called cable and satellite. You want Comcast Sports Chicago? You pay for it...you want Fox Sports Detroit? You pay for it...You want Prime Ticket L.A.?...you pay for it. I don't see anyone deserting the sport over it... nor for paying 100 for an upper deck ticket for post season games (have you looked to see how much a single ducat goes for?)

If I haven't made myself clear perhaps this will, in my opinion a salary cap is unacceptable today to the majority (including owners) of MLB people, it is unacceptable today, it's was unacceptable in the past and it will be unacceptable, in the future. Totally, and completely unacceptable.

Hope you enjoy it!

Lip

Parrothead
10-20-2008, 01:03 AM
Lip:

I disagree with you and others but that is ok. You will not convince me that you are correct nor will I convince you I am. Just the Yankees adn Mets fans how they feel about the price of the ducats in the new stadium.....Anyway, time will tell who is right......

voodoochile
10-20-2008, 01:31 AM
Lip:

I disagree with you and others but that is ok. You will not convince me that you are correct nor will I convince you I am. Just the Yankees adn Mets fans how they feel about the price of the ducats in the new stadium.....Anyway, time will tell who is right......

And once again, do you think the Mets, Yankees and BoSox would magically cut prices if they paid less in salary?

They charge whatever they can get for those seats. Seat price is NOT set based on salary level. It can't be when the salary starts to climb because people will pay only what they can afford/what they perceive the seats to be worth from an entertainment perspective.

Having a team that has lots of history or has an easy marketing scheme (inner city, classic/historical ballpark, years of frustration or success, etc.) they don't set prices based on anything but how much money they can squeeze from the fanbase. They overprice the seats, no one is going to pay for them, but so long as these teams keep selling out year after year after year (see the flubbies) why would they cut prices? Why wouldn't they keep increasing prices until they noticed a drop off in seats sold?

That's just basic economics and basic capitalism at work.

FedEx227
10-20-2008, 01:38 AM
Also, please nobody equate high ticket prices to high player salaries. They are totally unrelated.

High ticket prices are because of demand and maximizing profits. That's it. The Sox don't raise ticket prices so you can pay Paul Konerko's salary, they raise ticket prices to get the most + at the end of the season.

Lip Man 1
10-20-2008, 02:13 AM
Parrot:

Well the reports are the Yankees and Mets are having no trouble selling their seats for next year and that includes the seats at Yankee Stadium that cost 2,500 per seat, per game.

Recession? What recession??

Lip

MarksBrokenFoot
10-20-2008, 03:01 AM
And once again, do you think the Mets, Yankees and BoSox would magically cut prices if they paid less in salary?

They charge whatever they can get for those seats. Seat price is NOT set based on salary level. It can't be when the salary starts to climb because people will pay only what they can afford/what they perceive the seats to be worth from an entertainment perspective.

Having a team that has lots of history or has an easy marketing scheme (inner city, classic/historical ballpark, years of frustration or success, etc.) they don't set prices based on anything but how much money they can squeeze from the fanbase. They overprice the seats, no one is going to pay for them, but so long as these teams keep selling out year after year after year (see the flubbies) why would they cut prices? Why wouldn't they keep increasing prices until they noticed a drop off in seats sold?

That's just basic economics and basic capitalism at work.


Speaking for myself only, the price of a ticket means nothing. The player salaries mean nothing. Owners profits, also nothing. My gripe is simply that the system is not fair. The current system is like 30 people playing Monopoly, only 5 of them start with triple the normal play dollars and 5 of them start with a third of the normal. It is entirely possible for the players with the low cash to win by either random luck or being absolutely better than the others, but that doesn't make the game fair.

I know it will never in a million years happen, but the only fair system is one where the books are 100% open, revenue is split evenly to every single team, and the salary cap is set at a percentage of total revenue. Any money a team doesn't spend up to the cap just gets divided evenly between all the players on that team. Now there's no reason to horde your money, it's gone either way.

Of course, the players don't want that system because they can't get every last dime possible. And the capitalist in me agrees with them. Still, I feel that in it's current state, the sport isn't...well, sporting. The Pirates can hire the most brilliant scouts in the world and the Yanks can drop a bigger check not only to the Pirate players, but those scouts as well. It's funny that in every area of life, having more money is a help to achieving your goals, and at the very least, never a hindrance, yet people will argue that in baseball, money doesn't matter.

People say draft better. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say trade smarter. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say coach better, develop players better, manage better. Every single avenue to improve a team available to a small market team is available to the large market team, with 1 extra. They can spend more.

Parrothead
10-20-2008, 07:51 AM
Speaking for myself only, the price of a ticket means nothing. The player salaries mean nothing. Owners profits, also nothing. My gripe is simply that the system is not fair. The current system is like 30 people playing Monopoly, only 5 of them start with triple the normal play dollars and 5 of them start with a third of the normal. It is entirely possible for the players with the low cash to win by either random luck or being absolutely better than the others, but that doesn't make the game fair.

I know it will never in a million years happen, but the only fair system is one where the books are 100% open, revenue is split evenly to every single team, and the salary cap is set at a percentage of total revenue. Any money a team doesn't spend up to the cap just gets divided evenly between all the players on that team. Now there's no reason to horde your money, it's gone either way.

Of course, the players don't want that system because they can't get every last dime possible. And the capitalist in me agrees with them. Still, I feel that in it's current state, the sport isn't...well, sporting. The Pirates can hire the most brilliant scouts in the world and the Yanks can drop a bigger check not only to the Pirate players, but those scouts as well. It's funny that in every area of life, having more money is a help to achieving your goals, and at the very least, never a hindrance, yet people will argue that in baseball, money doesn't matter.

People say draft better. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say trade smarter. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say coach better, develop players better, manage better. Every single avenue to improve a team available to a small market team is available to the large market team, with 1 extra. They can spend more.

Amen ! this is one thing I am trying to say plus that profits / attendance, ect.....equates to higher prices for the fan.

For the people who ask about the Mets and NYY tickets, when I was there I talked to about 8 people (yes, a small sampling) that were sitting around me that were dropping 1/2 of their season tix due to prices. That can't be a good thing. Yes, there may be others to pick them up but not always, especially since money is hard to come by these days.

Oblong
10-20-2008, 08:09 AM
Yes, you are right and with attendance down all over the US and Mexico, it would appear that people are not willing or can't pay any more.



Yes, MLB attendance was down in 2008. It was only the second highest in history. They failed to break the 2007 record by a half million people. It ended a run of 4 straight record breaking years. 7 teams set records and 10 teams topped 3 million.

The minor leagues did set an attendance record.

Daver
10-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Amen ! this is one thing I am trying to say plus that profits / attendance, ect.....equates to higher prices for the fan.

For the people who ask about the Mets and NYY tickets, when I was there I talked to about 8 people (yes, a small sampling) that were sitting around me that were dropping 1/2 of their season tix due to prices. That can't be a good thing. Yes, there may be others to pick them up but not always, especially since money is hard to come by these days.

All entertainment venues suffer a downturn in a bad economy, not just baseball, and ticket prices have nothing to do with payroll, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

voodoochile
10-20-2008, 12:37 PM
Speaking for myself only, the price of a ticket means nothing. The player salaries mean nothing. Owners profits, also nothing. My gripe is simply that the system is not fair. The current system is like 30 people playing Monopoly, only 5 of them start with triple the normal play dollars and 5 of them start with a third of the normal. It is entirely possible for the players with the low cash to win by either random luck or being absolutely better than the others, but that doesn't make the game fair.

I know it will never in a million years happen, but the only fair system is one where the books are 100% open, revenue is split evenly to every single team, and the salary cap is set at a percentage of total revenue. Any money a team doesn't spend up to the cap just gets divided evenly between all the players on that team. Now there's no reason to horde your money, it's gone either way.

Of course, the players don't want that system because they can't get every last dime possible. And the capitalist in me agrees with them. Still, I feel that in it's current state, the sport isn't...well, sporting. The Pirates can hire the most brilliant scouts in the world and the Yanks can drop a bigger check not only to the Pirate players, but those scouts as well. It's funny that in every area of life, having more money is a help to achieving your goals, and at the very least, never a hindrance, yet people will argue that in baseball, money doesn't matter.

People say draft better. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say trade smarter. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say coach better, develop players better, manage better. Every single avenue to improve a team available to a small market team is available to the large market team, with 1 extra. They can spend more.

I agree revenue sharing is the answer to creating a level playing field, but until that happens, a floor/ceiling won't matter.

Parrothead
10-20-2008, 02:26 PM
Yes, MLB attendance was down in 2008. It was only the second highest in history. They failed to break the 2007 record by a half million people. It ended a run of 4 straight record breaking years. 7 teams set records and 10 teams topped 3 million.

The minor leagues did set an attendance record.

There are more teams this year (279 to 263 last year) so the attendance record means nothing. And I am sure the last year of Yankee and Shea stadium have nothing to do with their increased attendance this year either.

All entertainment venues suffer a downturn in a bad economy, not just baseball, and ticket prices have nothing to do with payroll, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

Nothing same as you. You have converted me. Increased prices does equal better attendance and nothing can ever be done to fix the current inequities of the current system or the high prices of tix, parking and concessions. Lets all accept it and bend over. Thanks.

voodoochile
10-20-2008, 02:34 PM
There are more teams this year (279 to 263 last year) so the attendance record means nothing. And I am sure the last year of Yankee and Shea stadium have nothing to do with their increased attendance this year either.



Nothing same as you. You have converted me. Increased prices does equal better attendance and nothing can ever be done to fix the current inequities of the current system or the high prices of tix, parking and concessions. Lets all accept it and bend over. Thanks.

How many extra tickets did the Yankees sell this season? I mean they push 4M in attendance year in and year out. The extra few 100K they might have sold this year are a drop in the bucket.

hellview
10-20-2008, 03:03 PM
I don't think there should be a salary cap, but I do think there should be a slotting system for the MLB dragt. It's bull**** that some of these guys can pretty much dictate where they want to playing by asking for some assinine bonus money.

Daver
10-20-2008, 03:07 PM
Nothing same as you. You have converted me. Increased prices does equal better attendance and nothing can ever be done to fix the current inequities of the current system or the high prices of tix, parking and concessions. Lets all accept it and bend over. Thanks.

Can you show any examples at all that a salary cap have ever acheived a lowering of ticket prices or concession prices?

Hockey has a salary cap and they charge more for tickets than almost any other sport.

AZChiSoxFan
10-20-2008, 03:09 PM
Just to remind you: Last offseason the Yankees signed free agent Alex Rodriguez to the largest contract in Major League Baseball history.

Does that count?


Other signings: Rivera, Posada, Abreu, Hawkins, Pettitte... I am not sure but I think there is a chance that the Rivera and Posada deals made each the highest paid, cather and reliever, per year, in baseball history.

Remind me again how the Yankees fared in the postseason this year.

AZChiSoxFan
10-20-2008, 03:12 PM
Not if baseball followed the NBA / NFL and put the money into a pool and then split it. The system is broke and it needs to fixed. This probably sounds familar right about now.

I can't wait til some teams have to fold (granted about 4 should not even have been created) due to not making money thus eliminating jobs due to the high prices of tix and concessions the owners have to pay for the players. There really is no market for a team to go to. If one looks at the minor league attendance the top drawing team is Sultanes de Monterrey of the Mexican League with 12,424 per game after that it is the Sacramento River Cats with 9,724 per game. What will the players association do then?

I have totally lost interest in the NBA and I have recently started losing interest in the Parity Football League. Not having a cap exposes owners like David Glass and the clowns in Pittsburgh who have zero interest in winning. Furthermore, the Yankees and Rays are proof that winning involves more than simply spending money.

doublem23
10-20-2008, 03:14 PM
Can you show any examples at all that a salary cap have ever acheived a lowering of ticket prices or concession prices?

Hockey has a salary cap and they charge more for tickets than almost any other sport.

:scratch:

You'll have to find a link for that, there's no way an average ticket to a hockey game is more than an NFL, MLB, or NBA ticket. I'm sure they charge more than Major League Lacrosse or the Pro Bowling Circuit.

That said, hockey's lockout and subsequent salary cap didn't do anything to lower ticket prices around the league.

AZChiSoxFan
10-20-2008, 03:20 PM
Lip:

I disagree with you and others but that is ok. You will not convince me that you are correct nor will I convince you I am. Just the Yankees adn Mets fans how they feel about the price of the ducats in the new stadium.....Anyway, time will tell who is right......

The thing is though, time has already told. People were making the same dire predictions as you back in the 70's, if not before then, and they still haven't come true.

spiffie
10-20-2008, 03:23 PM
:scratch:

You'll have to find a link for that, there's no way an average ticket to a hockey game is more than an NFL, MLB, or NBA ticket. I'm sure they charge more than Major League Lacrosse or the Pro Bowling Circuit.

That said, hockey's lockout and subsequent salary cap didn't do anything to lower ticket prices around the league.
NFL - $72.20 http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSN0540327220080905

NHL - $49.66 http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2008/10/13/daily5.html

NBA - $47.51 (2007-2008 season) http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2008-08-14-1746808866_x.htm

MLB - $25.40 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3317969

AZChiSoxFan
10-20-2008, 03:25 PM
Speaking for myself only, the price of a ticket means nothing. The player salaries mean nothing. Owners profits, also nothing. My gripe is simply that the system is not fair. The current system is like 30 people playing Monopoly, only 5 of them start with triple the normal play dollars and 5 of them start with a third of the normal. It is entirely possible for the players with the low cash to win by either random luck or being absolutely better than the others, but that doesn't make the game fair.

I know it will never in a million years happen, but the only fair system is one where the books are 100% open, revenue is split evenly to every single team, and the salary cap is set at a percentage of total revenue. Any money a team doesn't spend up to the cap just gets divided evenly between all the players on that team. Now there's no reason to horde your money, it's gone either way.

Of course, the players don't want that system because they can't get every last dime possible. And the capitalist in me agrees with them. Still, I feel that in it's current state, the sport isn't...well, sporting. The Pirates can hire the most brilliant scouts in the world and the Yanks can drop a bigger check not only to the Pirate players, but those scouts as well. It's funny that in every area of life, having more money is a help to achieving your goals, and at the very least, never a hindrance, yet people will argue that in baseball, money doesn't matter.

People say draft better. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say trade smarter. That's an option for the big spenders, too. People say coach better, develop players better, manage better. Every single avenue to improve a team available to a small market team is available to the large market team, with 1 extra. They can spend more.

However, by most accounts, the Yankees neglected their farm system for years. It's human nature. Why build and develop something when you know you can just go out and buy it.

Think back to six months ago when we were bombarded daily with "How great the mighty Tigers are going to be this year." How did that work out. Baseball is not monopoly. Payroll is a part of the equation but there are numerous other aspects, as the Rays this year and the Twins on almost a yearly basis can attest to.

spiffie
10-20-2008, 03:28 PM
This whole thread is kind of pointless since we do not know any true numbers about payroll. It is entirely possible, unless someone here works for MLB and sees copies of every player contract, that the Yankees spend less on player payroll than the Rays, thus rendering these complaints meaningless. Without that knowledge this entire thread is just speculation and mental masturbation.

Parrothead
10-20-2008, 04:46 PM
NFL - $72.20 http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSN0540327220080905

NHL - $49.66 http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2008/10/13/daily5.html

NBA - $47.51 (2007-2008 season) http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/2008-08-14-1746808866_x.htm

MLB - $25.40 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3317969

For home games season tix it comes out to....

$577.6 NFL
$1986.40 NHL
$1947.91 NBA
$2057.40 MLB

Clearly the best deal in pro sports for a season is the NFL.

Daver
10-20-2008, 05:02 PM
For home games season tix it comes out to....

$577.6 NFL
$1986.40 NHL
$1947.91 NBA
$2057.40 MLB

Clearly the best deal in pro sports for a season is the NFL.

72 bucks a game is better than 25 bucks a game?

voodoochile
10-20-2008, 05:12 PM
For home games season tix it comes out to....

$577.6 NFL
$1986.40 NHL
$1947.91 NBA
$2057.40 MLB

Clearly the best deal in pro sports for a season is the NFL.

That completely ignores the fact that baseball includes 3 games a week for 6 months.

Basketball and Hockey it's 1-2.

Football is 1 game every 2 weeks for 4 months.

TDog
10-20-2008, 07:23 PM
...
Clearly the best deal in pro sports for a season is the NFL.

The NFL is the worst deal because it offers the least in return. In football, season tickets include exhibition games (really, it could be argued that the NFL shouldn't have any exhibition games, but holding exhibition games in regular-season venues at regular season prices should be argued as gouging). I don't know what a season-ticket holder has to do to get a ticket to the Super Bowl if his or her team makes it that far. In baseball, a full-season ticket holder just pays the high price of World Series tickets. In football, there must be some sort of a lottery for the high cost of tickets, with the thousands of miles of travel being the responsibility of the spectator.

In football, local season ticket holders have to pay for exhibition games but would have to scramble and travel to see the championship. In baseball, local season ticket holders have to scramble and travel to see exhibition games while having the ability to buy World Series tickets to see their team play at home, if their team makes it that far.

It is ridiculous to call football the best deal in sports.

Eddo144
10-20-2008, 08:43 PM
The NFL is the worst deal because it offers the least in return.
Can we please (everyone, not just TDog) stop trying to determine the "best deal" of the four major sports? It's 100% dependent on an individual's enjoyment of each sport. Chances are, most people here prefer baseball, and therefore would find MLB season tickets to be the best deal. I actually prefer football, and I do have Bears season tickets and would not consider giving them up. It could cost $5 per game to see NCAA lacrosse, and I wouldn't consider that the best deal because I don't care about the sport.

TDog
10-21-2008, 12:26 AM
Can we please (everyone, not just TDog) stop trying to determine the "best deal" of the four major sports? It's 100% dependent on an individual's enjoyment of each sport. Chances are, most people here prefer baseball, and therefore would find MLB season tickets to be the best deal. I actually prefer football, and I do have Bears season tickets and would not consider giving them up. It could cost $5 per game to see NCAA lacrosse, and I wouldn't consider that the best deal because I don't care about the sport.

You have a point. I personally wouldn't consider an NFL season ticket a good deal at all at any price because I find the game so uninteresting. I've never been to an NFL game, but I'm guessing even the crowd noise wouldn't keep me awake.

Nonetheless, ignoring the fact that I couldn't sit through a football game, I don't see how you can consider a season ticket for somewhere around 10 games (something like 20 percent of which don't even count) a better value than a season ticket for a baseball season that offers something like eight times as many games at something like four times the price.

It's like comparing mangoes and bananas, mangoes being like soccer in that they are the world's most popular fruit, but many Americans give them little respect.