PDA

View Full Version : Red Sox Talk Salary Cap


Lip Man 1
02-18-2009, 06:45 PM
Normally I'd say here we go again...but if the Red Sox are now coming down on the side of one (because they claim they can no longer compete with the Yankees...) that says something.

Don't think it will ever happen though unless the owners are prepared to close up shop for two seasons and hope the MLBPA fractures.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3916048

Lip

oeo
02-18-2009, 06:50 PM
Completely foolish for them to suggest one. They have a financial advantage over nearly every team in baseball from the draft to their big league club.

I say let the Yankees continue to be a dumb organization. Spending all that cash has gotten them what?

Lip Man 1
02-18-2009, 09:53 PM
13 post season appearances in the last 14 years along with four World Series titles in that time.

Don't know about you but if the Sox did something like that I'd be drunk for a month.

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
02-19-2009, 09:21 AM
13 post season appearances in the last 14 years along with four World Series titles in that time.

Don't know about you but if the Sox did something like that I'd be drunk for a month.

Lip

Don't know about you but if I was a Yankee fan I would be extremely upset that despite having the highest payroll in the game, they haven't won a WS in the last 8 seasons.

I have pretty much lost interest in the NFL in large part due to the salary cap. I hope MLB doesn't go that route.

oeo
02-19-2009, 09:30 AM
13 post season appearances in the last 14 years along with four World Series titles in that time.

Don't know about you but if the Sox did something like that I'd be drunk for a month.

Lip

Their success during the 90's had to do with building that team from the ground up...I can respect that. Since then, yes, they've made the postseason, but haven't gone much farther than that.

Since 2000, they've been as successful as the Pittsburgh Pirates. Is anyone really going to remember all those division titles? No, no one ever does.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 09:34 AM
Since 2000, they've been as successful as the Pittsburgh Pirates. Is anyone really going to remember all those division titles? No, no one ever does.

They've won 2 pennants since 2000. Almost the same as finishing dead last every year.

areilly
02-19-2009, 09:53 AM
I have pretty much lost interest in the NFL in large part due to the salary cap.

Why's that? I don't mean that in a bad way, just as someone who doesn't follow much of sports outside of MLB.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 11:04 AM
13 post season appearances in the last 14 years along with four World Series titles in that time.

Don't know about you but if the Sox did something like that I'd be drunk for a month.

Lip
Right on, Lip. I love all these people who somehow think that spending money is unnecessary just because the Yankees don't win the World Series every year.

Does spending the most money mean you're going to win the World Series? Of course not. But like it or not, spending a lot of money puts you in the position to do so. Look at some cheap teams that have had success:

Oakland had a nice run, but has since faltered (especially since Moneyball broadcast their techniques to the rest of the league
Tampa has had one good year
Florida has been cheap, but spent money during their first World Series run, at least
Pittsburgh, Washington, and Kansas City are laughingstocks
Minnesota competes fairly consistently, but has not won a World Series either

The Yankees' problems have not been spending money, but rather spending money on the wrong players, particularly pitchers. And a salary cap, while likely to never happen, would definitely level the playing field for teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City.

Thome25
02-19-2009, 11:17 AM
Baseball is going to implode......mark my words. Along with the steroid scandal payroll is going to become a bigger issue than it ever has IMHO.

With a increasingly souring economy and no end in sight MLB cannot continue on this path. Sooner or later people with shrinking disposable income will not pay increasing ticket prices so teams can continue to spend and spend the way they do.

Also, if it keeps coming down to the "haves" (Yankees, Angels, Red Sawx, Cubs etc.) and "have nots" (Pirates, Twins, Marlins, Royals.) IMO people will not take what little disposable income they do have left in this bad economy just to watch the "haves" beat up on the "have nots" on the baseball field and off it.

MLB needs to get their act together and become more fiscally responsible. You have people losing their jobs and their homes left and right meanwhile, the Yankees are spending half a BILLION dollars on 3 players. That also leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the paying customer.

Sooner or later, the money-train is going to have to end for the MLBPA. Hopefully it's sooner and before baseball starts having financial problems.

I know, I know there's going to be posters that point out that MLB is more lucrative than ever. Well if the economy keeps slipping further and further like it has, it WILL catch up to them eventually.

Domeshot17
02-19-2009, 11:27 AM
Ive always found it funny that the people who say the Yankees haven't done anything since spending big (ignoring the playoffs and division titles) because they haven't produced a championship are the same ones that talk about other chicago teams (Bulls-Bears) and talk about how just getting to the playoffs is such a great feat.

Hell, should we say last year we might as well been the Pirates since we didn't go anywhere in the playoffs?

And you know, I really wish the Red Sox would really shut up. They are doing this to spite the Yankees, but when MLB comes down and says ok your 150 mil payroll has to be down to 100 mil who is going to start crying?

I think everyone is scared of a Salary Cap. The Yankees don't want it, the Cubs and Red Sox really don't want it, and teams like the Pirates-Marlins etc don't want it because it means there will be a salary floor and it will force them to spend.

white sox bill
02-19-2009, 11:33 AM
Can anyone recall off the top of thier head, where the Sox were in payroll in 05 compared to rest of baeball? Was it $75 Mill?

It's Dankerific
02-19-2009, 11:33 AM
Also, if it keeps coming down to the "haves" (Yankees, Angels, Red Sawx, Cubs etc.) and "have nots" (Pirates, Twins, Marlins, Royals.) IMO people will not take what little disposable income they do have left in this bad economy just to watch the "haves" beat up on the "have nots" on the baseball field and off it.

History would tend to show you are wrong. In the past, there were similar haves and have nots. The A's were basically a seasoning team for the Yankees. The Yankee AAA team was better than several MLB teams. Even in tough economic times.

So, its much ado about nothing in this context. Very few times in its history has MLB been a league of parity.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2009, 11:36 AM
Double, Eddo, Dome:

All well stated.

Don't know about anybody else but I remember all the Sox Divisional titles with pride...just because outside of 2005 they didn't win the World Series doesn't negate what they accomplished. I have a feeling a number of Yankee fans do to.

Hell I remember all the Sox winning seasons with pride.

As someone else stated, if "success" to you means winning the World Series, then no team in MLB at this time is going to have any type of sustained success.

Comparing the Yankees to the Pirates was interesting though, I'll give you that.

Lip

spiffie
02-19-2009, 11:37 AM
History would tend to show you are wrong. In the past, there were similar haves and have nots. The A's were basically a seasoning team for the Yankees. The Yankee AAA team was better than several MLB teams. Even in tough economic times.

So, its much ado about nothing in this context. Very few times in its history has MLB been a league of parity.
But rarely is ever has the spread been this wide. Check out Haupert's Economic History of Baseball. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb

oeo
02-19-2009, 11:38 AM
Right on, Lip. I love all these people who somehow think that spending money is unnecessary just because the Yankees don't win the World Series every year.

Does spending the most money mean you're going to win the World Series? Of course not. But like it or not, spending a lot of money puts you in the position to do so.

No one ever said it was unnecessary, but there are different ways to get to the same goal. Let the Rays be an example of that. You scout well, you make good trades (and that's what their recent success is from), then you can compete with any team. Of course the Yankees can just be dumbasses and sign blank checks (easy way), but if you're smart, you can get there too.

Ive always found it funny that the people who say the Yankees haven't done anything since spending big (ignoring the playoffs and division titles) because they haven't produced a championship are the same ones that talk about other chicago teams (Bulls-Bears) and talk about how just getting to the playoffs is such a great feat.

When do I say this? :scratch:

Regardless, if you're spending 2+ times more than almost every team in baseball, you better be at least making the postseason.

Hell, should we say last year we might as well been the Pirates since we didn't go anywhere in the playoffs?Now you're twisting my words; this isn't what I said. What's important is winning the title. No one remembers the division titles, and in most cases even the loser in the World Series.

The Yankees spend an absurd amount of money and have won as many World Series titles as the Pirates since 2000. I'd say that's having about the same success, when you compare what each team puts in and what each team has gotten out of it. Yes, the Yankees have gotten a couple of pennants, and some division titles, but who gives a ****? They better have something.

Domeshot17
02-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Furthermore, I would love to see what the Yankees spend in relation to what they make. That is much bigger and more important number then just payroll. I mean if the Marlins make 40 million after sharing and spend 15 mil, and the White Sox make say 120 million and spend 108 and the Yankees make 350 million and spend 200, then the Yankees are operating a lot closer to the Marlins then the Sox.

It is one thing to complain they spend so much, but to complain without being able to admit they can spend becaue they are run 100x better than anyone else out there from the business standpoint is foolish. It isn't like Steinbrenner takes this monstrous loss every year.

areilly
02-19-2009, 12:17 PM
For what it's worth, Steinbrenner himself was calling for a salary cap as far back as 1993 after David Cone signed with the Royals for a mind-blowing $5 million a year.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 12:33 PM
Now you're twisting my words; this isn't what I said. What's important is winning the title. No one remembers the division titles, and in most cases even the loser in the World Series.

The Yankees spend an absurd amount of money and have won as many World Series titles as the Pirates since 2000. I'd say that's having about the same success, when you compare what each team puts in and what each team has gotten out of it. Yes, the Yankees have gotten a couple of pennants, and some division titles, but who gives a ****? They better have something.

I think that's pretty simplistic thinking, I still have a 2000 AL Central Champs t-shirt, and I can tell you who lost every World Series I've watched (starting in 1989). This "all-or-nothing" mentality is silly, getting to the post-season in baseball is still a big deal. 4 teams from each league make it. Less than a quarter of the MLB makes the play-offs, by far the lowest percentage of any pro sports league. This isn't the NBA, where they let 2-3 sub-.500 teams in the play-offs to get swept in the first round.

Now, that said, even if the Yankees haven't been able to win the World Series since 2000, they're consistently giving themselves a chance. You and I both know the chaotic nature of a short series, the best teams do not always win. But you have to be able to last long enough to even get that chance. No, the Yankees haven't won a World Series this decade, but they've consistently been successful and competitive. I'm sure just about every fanbase in the league would gladly trade places with them if this is what a "down" peroid is like.

TDog
02-19-2009, 12:37 PM
But rarely is ever has the spread been this wide. Check out Haupert's Economic History of Baseball. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb

The economic spread has never been so wide, but the spread in what the money buys has been wider.

If you want to do a geology of sorts of baseball, there have been three great ages.

For most of baseball's history you had the reserve clause and no amateur draft but the reserve clause that bound a player to a team as long as that team wanted to claim him as property. The Yankees dominated from the 1920s. Connie Mack's A's languished. Every time he developed great teams, he sold off his players for profit. Teams spent money on talent and scouted well to outbid other teams for the best young players, but salaries were kept artificially low. Players would hold out, but they couldn't go anywhere. A few players went to Mexico and were banished from the major leagues by the commissioner acting in the best interests of baseball. Many teams operated with player-managers because they did not wish to pay managers' salaries.

For about a decade beginning in the mid 1960s, you had both free agency and the amateur draft, artificially holding down salaries and binding players to teams before they even signed contracts. Charlie Finley's A's emerged with a dynasty and the Yankees languished.

The age of free agency and an amateur draft has been around for more than 30 years. At times it has been possible to buy championship teams. The Yankees generally make the postseason because they have been able to pay for their mistakes. The Giants sign Barry Zito, and it affects subsequent personnel moves. The Yankees, however, reached the point where they were unable to pay for their mistakes. Arbitration has been the killer, because it isn't just the free agents who are being overpaid. Free agency has created an artificial market from which arbiters determine the salaries of many other players.

Whether teams have money to spend or maintain low payrolls as a matter of policy (Bill Veeck in the late 1970s didn't have the money to compete while franchises today with low payrolls are much better off), ultimate success this century has hinged on developing talent, which costs a fraction of established talent and often outperforms established talent. Meanwhile, the influx of foreign talent who are not bound by the amateur draft increases. Scouting has never been more important,

A salary cap, depending on its structure, would issue in an new age where teams wouldn't be able to spend money to pay for their mistakes. But if arbitration is still in place, the teams that don't want huge payrolls will continue to be have nots.

The only thing I see a salary cap doing is keeping down salaries to increase the profits of owners. It will do little to affect competition.

Unfortunately, negotiating for the next collective bargaining agreement could get ugly if the owners want to help line their pockets with a salary cap. I don't want to see them shut down the game for a year and come back with an agreement that caps salaries and limits arbitration.

AZChiSoxFan
02-19-2009, 02:12 PM
Now, that said, even if the Yankees haven't been able to win the World Series since 2000, they're consistently giving themselves a chance. You and I both know the chaotic nature of a short series, the best teams do not always win. But you have to be able to last long enough to even get that chance. No, the Yankees haven't won a World Series this decade, but they've consistently been successful and competitive. I'm sure just about every fanbase in the league would gladly trade places with them if this is what a "down" peroid is like.

There it is again, classic.

Back to the point at hand. Nobody is saying they wouldn't like all the regular season success that the Yanks have had. My point is that it's truly amazing to me that you can have the highest payroll in the game for 8 straight years, and NOT win a WS. That's amazing. Shouldn't all that chaos in short series swing in their favor just one time in 8 years? Look, after the Yanks lost to AZ in 2001, they signed Giambi to that huge contract and we all heard the predictions that they would surely win the WS the next year. Then, when they didn't win in 2002, they signed some other big name FA and we heard the same dire predictions. This cycle only continues.

If they have the dough and want to spend it, let them.

The funniest part to me is that less than one year ago, some of you here were holding up the Rays as an example of why MLB needs a cap.

Bottom line: Yes, the Yanks are in the thick of it every year due to the fact that they have virtually unlimited resources. Yes, it's harder for some teams to compete due to the fact that they have very limited resources. However, the Yanks have by no means dominated this sport during the years in which they have spent wildly and teams like the Rays and Twins have at least been able to compete. Just my opinion, but I'm fine with this situation.

Finally, someone brought up the Pirates. The Pirates will always be terrible, under any system, due to complete, total, and utter incompetence on the part of their ownership.

spawn
02-19-2009, 02:22 PM
There it is again, classic.

Back to the point at hand. Nobody is saying they wouldn't like all the regular season success that the Yanks have had. My point is that it's truly amazing to me that you can have the highest payroll in the game for 8 straight years, and NOT win a WS. That's amazing. Shouldn't all that chaos in short series swing in their favor just one time in 8 years? Look, after the Yanks lost to AZ in 2001, they signed Giambi to that huge contract and we all heard the predictions that they would surely win the WS the next year. Then, when they didn't win in 2002, they signed some other big name FA and we heard the same dire predictions. This cycle only continues.

If they have the dough and want to spend it, let them.

The funniest part to me is that less than one year ago, some of you here were holding up the Rays as an example of why MLB needs a cap.

Bottom line: Yes, the Yanks are in the thick of it every year due to the fact that they have virtually unlimited resources. Yes, it's harder for some teams to compete due to the fact that they have very limited resources. However, the Yanks have by no means dominated this sport during the years in which they have spent wildly and teams like the Rays and Twins have at least been able to compete. Just my opinion, but I'm fine with this situation.

Finally, someone brought up the Pirates. The Pirates will always be terrible, under any system, due to complete, total, and utter incompetence on the part of their ownership.
Great post.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 02:34 PM
There it is again, classic.

Back to the point at hand. Nobody is saying they wouldn't like all the regular season success that the Yanks have had. My point is that it's truly amazing to me that you can have the highest payroll in the game for 8 straight years, and NOT win a WS. That's amazing. Shouldn't all that chaos in short series swing in their favor just one time in 8 years? Look, after the Yanks lost to AZ in 2001, they signed Giambi to that huge contract and we all heard the predictions that they would surely win the WS the next year. Then, when they didn't win in 2002, they signed some other big name FA and we heard the same dire predictions. This cycle only continues.

I have no idea what point you're trying to prove? Do you think the best team wins a baseball play-off series every time? Because if so that is insane.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2009, 02:57 PM
Double:

Again well stated.

OEO says:

No one ever said it was unnecessary, but there are different ways to get to the same goal. Let the Rays be an example of that. You scout well, you make good trades (and that's what their recent success is from), then you can compete with any team. Of course the Yankees can just be dumbasses and sign blank checks (easy way), but if you're smart, you can get there too.

Let's keep in mind that it took almost a decade of awful seasons for the Rays to pile up enough top picks to put them in the situation they had last season. I don't know how much foresight it took to lose 95 or so games a year.

AND the real questions haven't been answered yet.

To wit:

1. Can they sustain that success in a division with the Yankees and Boston (my guess, highly unlikely)

2. Will they pay to keep these quality kids from leaving via free agency (my guess, probably not.)

My point is I think using the Rays as an example of anything at this point is foolish because enough long term information isn't available yet.

Given the two franchises I'd much prefer to take my chances on the way the Yankees do business. At least come October they usually have a chance to win it all, unlike the Rays who usually are out of contention by July 1st. That's reality.

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-19-2009, 03:01 PM
And again I remember with pride EVERY divisional title, every playoff appearance and every winning season. Just because the Sox didn't win it in 83 or 93 or 00 or 08 doesn't lessen that season for me in the slightest...they had a chance, that's more then a lot of other teams could say.

To me my absolute bottom line of whether or not a season is "good" is this, did you have a winning season?

If so the season is worth remembering regardless of how big or small the payroll was. There has never been a team in MLB histoey make the post season with a losing record so ultimately having a winning season at least gives you a chance however small to get there. (Although it probably would have happened had the 1994 season continued...)

Lip

Fenway
02-19-2009, 03:17 PM
The Red Sox do work with a budget as their payroll is roughly the same as what the team generates in ticket sales. Still their payroll last year was 75M less than the Yankees.

Boston being in the same division forces them to spend more than most clubs. I don't think White Sox fans would want NYY in the Central. Spending big doesn't guarantee a ring but in most cases will carry over 162 games and a good shot at October.

The next contract negotiations are going to be brutal. The backlash of steroids and the way the PA has handled it by itself means trouble ahead. What baseball needs more than a cap is a salary floor. Tell teams they MUST spend 50M on payroll and can't spend more than say 150M. That way the vast majority of players will see their salary increase. I am sure the Yankees were thrilled to see the Royals spend 10M on a scoreboard.

The PA and agents are convinced that there is collusion again but who can blame the owners in this economy. The Red Sox sellout streak is going to end April 8th or 9th as thousands of seats are available. The Cubs are heavily advertising about tickets being on sale.

I have a gut feeling the Yankees are going to be hit harder than they expect. The Wall Street money is GONE. Even low level Wall St types got big bonus checks....not anymore. Who is going to spend $2500 a game for Scout Seats??????







Normally I'd say here we go again...but if the Red Sox are now coming down on the side of one (because they claim they can no longer compete with the Yankees...) that says something.

Don't think it will ever happen though unless the owners are prepared to close up shop for two seasons and hope the MLBPA fractures.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3916048

Lip

twsoxfan5
02-19-2009, 03:21 PM
There it is again, classic.

Back to the point at hand. Nobody is saying they wouldn't like all the regular season success that the Yanks have had. My point is that it's truly amazing to me that you can have the highest payroll in the game for 8 straight years, and NOT win a WS. That's amazing. Shouldn't all that chaos in short series swing in their favor just one time in 8 years? Look, after the Yanks lost to AZ in 2001, they signed Giambi to that huge contract and we all heard the predictions that they would surely win the WS the next year. Then, when they didn't win in 2002, they signed some other big name FA and we heard the same dire predictions. This cycle only continues.

If they have the dough and want to spend it, let them.

The funniest part to me is that less than one year ago, some of you here were holding up the Rays as an example of why MLB needs a cap.

Bottom line: Yes, the Yanks are in the thick of it every year due to the fact that they have virtually unlimited resources. Yes, it's harder for some teams to compete due to the fact that they have very limited resources. However, the Yanks have by no means dominated this sport during the years in which they have spent wildly and teams like the Rays and Twins have at least been able to compete. Just my opinion, but I'm fine with this situation.

Finally, someone brought up the Pirates. The Pirates will always be terrible, under any system, due to complete, total, and utter incompetence on the part of their ownership.

No personal offense to AZchisox, but I have to disagree with Spawn and actually say, horrible post. Anyone that thinks a salary cap is bad idea must hate sports. Because IMO the MLB not having a salary cap is making baseball a lot less enjoyable. Nearly all the teams in the NHL, NBA, & NFL have the opportunity to compete each each year. Now there are a lot of factors besides the salary cap that come into place but the salary cap definitely levels the playing field a lot. A team like KC will not be able to compete on a consistent basis with team like the Yankees and a lot of it has to do with the fact that they just don't have the money to do so. And when the players in their farm system get good enough the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, or Angels will offer them money that KC can't afford and the cycle starts all over again.

And yes the Rays were good this year and might be good for the next couple, but mark my words that team will be dismantled soon enough and the Yankees will be there to scoop all the great players.

What happened with Sabathia this year? I thought he wanted to play for the NL so hit could bat as well as pitch. Well the Yankees offered him enough money to forget about batting. I know the Yankees don't win every year and I am ranting a bit here, but anyone that can't see how much a salary cap would help this league must be blind.

thedudeabides
02-19-2009, 03:38 PM
The Red Sox do work with a budget as their payroll is roughly the same as what the team generates in ticket sales. Still their payroll last year was 75M less than the Yankees.

Boston being in the same division forces them to spend more than most clubs. I don't think White Sox fans would want NYY in the Central. Spending big doesn't guarantee a ring but in most cases will carry over 162 games and a good shot at October.

The next contract negotiations are going to be brutal. The backlash of steroids and the way the PA has handled it by itself means trouble ahead. What baseball needs more than a cap is a salary floor. Tell teams they MUST spend 50M on payroll and can't spend more than say 150M. That way the vast majority of players will see their salary increase. I am sure the Yankees were thrilled to see the Royals spend 10M on a scoreboard.

The PA and agents are convinced that there is collusion again but who can blame the owners in this economy. The Red Sox sellout streak is going to end April 8th or 9th as thousands of seats are available. The Cubs are heavily advertising about tickets being on sale.

I have a gut feeling the Yankees are going to be hit harder than they expect. The Wall Street money is GONE. Even low level Wall St types got big bonus checks....not anymore. Who is going to spend $2500 a game for Scout Seats??????

The Red Sox spend considerably less than the Yankees, but still outspend most, if not all other teams on a regular basis. Let's not forget that they spent $50 million just to talk to Daisuke, which is not included in the reported salary figures. The Yankees budget doesn't force them to spend anything. It's been proven over the last decade that there are plenty of other ways to compete with the Yankees outside of spend, spend, spend.

I just find it funny when the Red Sox get whiny about the Yankees spending. Especially, considering they have been more successful lately.

I do agree a floor should be discussed, but I for one don't want a cap. If a cap were put in place, it would probably get just as bungled as the NFL and NBA caps.

Daver
02-19-2009, 04:57 PM
No personal offense to AZchisox, but I have to disagree with Spawn and actually say, horrible post. Anyone that thinks a salary cap is bad idea must hate sports.


A salary cap serves exactly one purpose, and one purpose only, it guarantees the profit margins for the owners, nothing more and nothing less.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 05:18 PM
No personal offense to AZchisox, but I have to disagree with Spawn and actually say, horrible post. Anyone that thinks a salary cap is bad idea must hate sports. Because IMO the MLB not having a salary cap is making baseball a lot less enjoyable. Nearly all the teams in the NHL, NBA, & NFL have the opportunity to compete each each year. Now there are a lot of factors besides the salary cap that come into place but the salary cap definitely levels the playing field a lot. A team like KC will not be able to compete on a consistent basis with team like the Yankees and a lot of it has to do with the fact that they just don't have the money to do so. And when the players in their farm system get good enough the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, or Angels will offer them money that KC can't afford and the cycle starts all over again.

And yes the Rays were good this year and might be good for the next couple, but mark my words that team will be dismantled soon enough and the Yankees will be there to scoop all the great players.

What happened with Sabathia this year? I thought he wanted to play for the NL so hit could bat as well as pitch. Well the Yankees offered him enough money to forget about batting. I know the Yankees don't win every year and I am ranting a bit here, but anyone that can't see how much a salary cap would help this league must be blind.

The salary cap would hurt baseball. Sorry, the game's better when there is an inequality amongst teams, some teams have to be bad, some have to be good. The NFL blows compared to what it used to be because every team is stuck in crappy mediocrity.

The Rays and Twins are proof you can compete with small payrolls. The Royals and Pirates don't win because they don't spend money, they don't win because they're run by idiots. The Royals have had a Top 10 Draft pick every year but one since 1997. That's like 11 out of 12 years and they've picked pure crap until very recently and low and behold, they're looking like they could be somewhat decent.

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 05:41 PM
A salary cap serves exactly one purpose, and one purpose only, it guarantees the profit margins for the owners, nothing more and nothing less.

Daver and Doub have the right idea. Salary cap puts more money in the pockets of the owners, and screws over the players. Unhappy players leads to many problems.

No salary cap is good for baseball. Teams with small payrolls can compete, and win. It's all about player developement and smart spending.

DumpJerry
02-19-2009, 05:47 PM
What has the huge Yankee payroll gotten them? $2,500/per game/per seat Scout Seats that they cannot sell out. IIRC, they require a four seat minimum with your season ticket order. That comes to $810,000 for the regular season. There have been people in the New York press complaining that they don't have 800 Grand laying around to cover their new invoices.....

A friend of mine with White Sox Scout seats told me about the Yankee deal. He thinks it's nuts.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 05:57 PM
The salary cap would hurt baseball. Sorry, the game's better when there is an inequality amongst teams, some teams have to be bad, some have to be good. The NFL blows compared to what it used to be because every team is stuck in crappy mediocrity.
I disagree about the NFL. Part of the mass appeal of that league is that teams can build themselves up quickly, with shrewd front office moves instead of money, and stay there. What team has the highest payroll in the NFL? The casual fan has no idea, because it doesn't really matter.

The Rays and Twins are proof you can compete with small payrolls. The Royals and Pirates don't win because they don't spend money, they don't win because they're run by idiots. The Royals have had a Top 10 Draft pick every year but one since 1997. That's like 11 out of 12 years and they've picked pure crap until very recently and low and behold, they're looking like they could be somewhat decent.
I'll give you the Twins, but the Rays having one great year doesn't prove anything. As Lip noted earlier, you can't call the Rays a successful franchise until they have a few good years in a row.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 06:00 PM
Daver and Doub have the right idea. Salary cap puts more money in the pockets of the owners, and screws over the players. Unhappy players leads to many problems.

No salary cap is good for baseball. Teams with small payrolls can compete, and win. It's all about player developement and smart spending.
Daver and Doub are definitely right that a cap benefits the owner primarily, but why does that automatically make it a bad thing? And I don't see unhappy players leading to problems in leagues that do have a cap.

Additionally, having no cap also puts more money in the pockets of owners who are really cheap, like the ones in Pittsburgh, Minnesota, and Kansas City.

Teams with payrolls can develop talent for a year or two run, but they wind up being unable to keep that talent. I think the Rays' recent run has given people the idea that money has no correlation with success, but I, like Lip, doubt the 2011 Rays will resemble the 2008 Rays very much at all.

Marqhead
02-19-2009, 06:16 PM
Daver and Doub are definitely right that a cap benefits the owner primarily, but why does that automatically make it a bad thing? And I don't see unhappy players leading to problems in leagues that do have a cap...

It doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. Cap or no cap, where an owner can make more and spend less he will. With a cap, the owners make more, without a cap the players make more, both have their drawbacks.

Additionally, having no cap also puts more money in the pockets of owners who are really cheap, like the ones in Pittsburgh, Minnesota, and Kansas City.

True, but there are poorly run organizations in all sports. Frugal owners aren't fun, but niether are owners who hire yes men GMs to toe the company line and never try to improve.

Teams with payrolls can develop talent for a year or two run, but they wind up being unable to keep that talent. I think the Rays' recent run has given people the idea that money has no correlation with success, but I, like Lip, doubt the 2011 Rays will resemble the 2008 Rays very much at all.

I completely agree with you here. The struggle for the small money teams is that they have to continually develop talent, stock high draft picks, make smart signings and try to roll everything into a string of 2-3 successful seasons - as this is likely the only window they will have with the current players before they bolt for big money. Despite this cycle of young talent, to young superstars to big money free agents, these teams still manage to compete on a regular basis, and have shown that small market teams are still very viable.

Daver
02-19-2009, 06:27 PM
Daver and Doub are definitely right that a cap benefits the owner primarily, but why does that automatically make it a bad thing? And I don't see unhappy players leading to problems in leagues that do have a cap.


You never see an NFL player unhappy over getting a franchise tag?

How is restraining the free market simply for the sake of profit a good thing?

doublem23
02-19-2009, 06:36 PM
I disagree about the NFL. Part of the mass appeal of that league is that teams can build themselves up quickly, with shrewd front office moves instead of money, and stay there. What team has the highest payroll in the NFL? The casual fan has no idea, because it doesn't really matter.

All of the mass appeal of the league is that people like football. Anyway who believes the NFL is better now than it was in the 80s is deluding themselves.

A salary cap isn't the answer; a better idea would be expanded revenue sharing and a serious salary floor (we're talking $75 million or such). Of course, the owners would never agree to something that would actually benefit the game.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 06:59 PM
All of the mass appeal of the league is that people like football. Anyway who believes the NFL is better now than it was in the 80s is deluding themselves.

A salary cap isn't the answer; a better idea would be expanded revenue sharing and a serious salary floor (we're talking $75 million or such). Of course, the owners would never agree to something that would actually benefit the game.
1. How was it better in the 80s? With the same four teams (49ers, Giants, Redskins, Bears) at the top of the NFC every year?

2. There's no way a salary floor would be implemented without a cap.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 07:01 PM
You never see an NFL player unhappy over getting a franchise tag?

How is restraining the free market simply for the sake of profit a good thing?
Sure NFL players get unhappy (so do MLB players - Sheffield and Manny come to mind), but it hasn't yet hurt the NFL.

To me, the benefit of a cap isn't to raise profits; I could care less about that. I'm in favor of a cap because with it comes a salary floor. It's ridiculous that owners can purposefully field a bad team just to save money.

Fenway
02-19-2009, 07:03 PM
Bob Ryan wrote a good column on this today

points out there are now EIGHT salary levels in MLB with the White Sox at Level 3

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/19/ruling_in_favor_of_judgment/?page=full

DSpivack
02-19-2009, 07:09 PM
Bob Ryan wrote a good column on this today

points out there are now EIGHT salary levels in MLB with the White Sox at Level 3

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/02/19/ruling_in_favor_of_judgment/?page=full

That's just his own arbitrary designation.

Daver
02-19-2009, 07:11 PM
Sure NFL players get unhappy (so do MLB players - Sheffield and Manny come to mind), but it hasn't yet hurt the NFL.

To me, the benefit of a cap isn't to raise profits; I could care less about that. I'm in favor of a cap because with it comes a salary floor. It's ridiculous that owners can purposefully field a bad team just to save money.

You can have a cap without a floor.

It's ridiculous that someone that has watched twenty five years of a capped NFL can state that a cap will prevent owners from fielding bad teams. The Cardinals this year played in their first Championship game in decades, and most of it was luck.

A salary cap does nothing but gaurantee profit margins, it serves absolutely no other purpose, be it with or without a floor.

Fenway
02-19-2009, 07:11 PM
That's just his own arbitrary designation.

If you read the story you will see that it was not arbitrary

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 07:31 PM
You can have a cap without a floor.

It's ridiculous that someone that has watched twenty five years of a capped NFL can state that a cap will prevent owners from fielding bad teams. The Cardinals this year played in their first Championship game in decades, and most of it was luck.

A salary cap does nothing but gaurantee profit margins, it serves absolutely no other purpose, be it with or without a floor.
Meh, that was more inept management than spending.

At least the playing field was level. In MLB, it's not. The Royals and Rays simply cannot afford the same payroll as the Yankees or Red Sox. The Cardinals could definitely afford the same players as the Giants or Patriots, they just made poor investments.

Daver
02-19-2009, 07:37 PM
Meh, that was more inept management than spending.

At least the playing field was level. In MLB, it's not. The Royals and Rays simply cannot afford the same payroll as the Yankees or Red Sox.

You want to stop the Yankees and Red Sox from spending?

Move the A's to New York and put another team in New England.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 08:26 PM
You want to stop the Yankees and Red Sox from spending?

Move the A's to New York and put another team in New England.
If that's what it takes. :shrug:

I'd like a level playing field. I don't necessarily want the Yankees and Red Sox to stop spending; I'd rather force the Royals, Pirates, Twins, and A's to spend more. A floor is what I want. In order for owners to ever agree to that, a cap would have to be implemented. I'd also be happy with MLB as a whole penalizing owners for cutting costs at the expense of trying to win (I realize this is logistically impossible, but hey).

Daver
02-19-2009, 08:38 PM
If that's what it takes. :shrug:

I'd like a level playing field.

A cap is not going to acheive that, ever. Large market teams will still collect revenues at a minimum of 2 to 1 over small market teams, a salary floor does nothing but punish teams for being in a smaller market.

Eddo144
02-19-2009, 08:44 PM
A cap is not going to acheive that, ever. Large market teams will still collect revenues at a minimum of 2 to 1 over small market teams, a salary floor does nothing but punish teams for being in a smaller market.
I know, it's all one big mess like that. Generally, I prefer the NFL's system of revenue sharing.

I don't necessarily buy the free market argument. Baseball already has an antitrust exemption. In real business, if a Kansas City-based company doesn't get any New York business, they have two options: (a) accept it and don't compete with New York companies or (b) move into the New York market by expanding their business model or acquiring a New York business. In MLB, the Royals don't have either option: they must continue to compete with the Yankees, due to the nature of the league, and they cannot relocate to New York without league approval, which is extremely unlikely to happen.

doublem23
02-19-2009, 09:38 PM
1. How was it better in the 80s? With the same four teams (49ers, Giants, Redskins, Bears) at the top of the NFC every year?

2. There's no way a salary floor would be implemented without a cap.

1. Because the teams were actually good. Instead of having a 32 garbage teams playing mediocre football (look at this years' play-offs... what an absolute ****fest) there were actually good teams that were fun to watch. I'm sorry that the Bucs and Colts were both pretty pathetic during that time, but I'd rather take 4-5 great teams that play great football year in and year out over a whole lot of crap.

2. There's no way the owners would ever agree to a salary floor, anyway, but a salary cap won't "even the field." Ownership will say a cap will make the field more level but they're just feeding you ****. Increased revenue sharing and a salary floor is the real way to make the game more competitive, but then the cheap asses that own the Pirates and Royals won't be able to pocket the luxury tax money the Yankees send them every year because they actually spend money to, you know, win baseball games.

Daver
02-19-2009, 09:56 PM
but then the cheap asses that own the Pirates and Royals won't be able to pocket the luxury tax money the Yankees send them every year because they actually spend money to, you know, win baseball games.

There is no guarantee they recieve any of that money, all money paid towards the MLB luxury tax is deposited into the MLB general funds, and spent as seen fit by the commisioner of baseball. The only revenue guaranteed to any team is the shared revenue they recieve from MLB on the sale of branded merchandise and national media contracts.

Eddo144
02-20-2009, 09:37 AM
1. Because the teams were actually good. Instead of having a 32 garbage teams playing mediocre football (look at this years' play-offs... what an absolute ****fest) there were actually good teams that were fun to watch. I'm sorry that the Bucs and Colts were both pretty pathetic during that time, but I'd rather take 4-5 great teams that play great football year in and year out over a whole lot of crap.
I don't know, I like unpredictability in the NFL. What's the point of having 32 teams if only 5 or 6 have a chance every year. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

2. There's no way the owners would ever agree to a salary floor, anyway, but a salary cap won't "even the field." Ownership will say a cap will make the field more level but they're just feeding you ****. Increased revenue sharing and a salary floor is the real way to make the game more competitive, but then the cheap asses that own the Pirates and Royals won't be able to pocket the luxury tax money the Yankees send them every year because they actually spend money to, you know, win baseball games.
That's all I'm saying. The realist in me knows that a cap would have to come with that for owners to ever consider it, that's the reason I was advocating a cap. As I said before, I'd be fine with no cap and the part you suggested.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 09:51 AM
I don't know, I like unpredictability in the NFL. What's the point of having 32 teams if only 5 or 6 have a chance every year. We'll just have to disagree on this one.

I guess so, I don't mind unpredictabilty, but not at the expense of quality. Back in the 80s and early 90s, yes, some teams were able to dominate, but it's not as if there was no change in the league. The Cowboys and Packers were both terrible in the 80s but through good drafting and shrewd personnel moves they became two 90s powerhouses.

I just can't believe anyone could have watched any of the play-off games from this postseason and thought, "now this is some good football." The games were poorly played and mostly pretty boring.

twsoxfan5
02-20-2009, 09:57 AM
A salary cap serves exactly one purpose, and one purpose only, it guarantees the profit margins for the owners, nothing more and nothing less.

With all these posts I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I know that the owners will profit from a salary cap, but I also know that in other sports it has leveled the playing field a lot and I don't think that you can argue that it hasn't. There is a lot more parody in the NFL, NHL, & NBA and they all have salary caps. There is not nearly as much in the MLB and they don't have one. If you don't like parody then that is fine, but I like it when teams from every market have a better chance to compete year in and year out. That is just my opinion.

khan
02-20-2009, 10:07 AM
If the object of the exercise is to "level the playing field," then there are other things that MLB could do BEFORE implementing a salary cap/floor:

1. Contract a few teams that are no-hopers, either economically, or baseball-wise.
2. Institute an international amateur draft, thus evening the ability for ALL teams to pick up the best amateurs worldwide, not just American talent.
3. Cap the amounts for the posting system to sign professionals from other leagues, and grant the player rights in reverse order of the previous year's finish. [Eliminates the $50M vig for players like Daisuke, and gives smaller teams a chance at foreign professionals.]
4. Hire an actual commissioner.
5. Cap signing bonuses for amateur draftees. [This ends the "he was drafted because he was signable" bull****, and cuts into greedy agents like borASS' stranglehold on the top talent.]



For the record, I prefer a salary cap and floor. I prefer 1 more team in metro NYC and 1 more team in New England. I prefer contraction of a few teams. But I don't think any of these things will happen anytime soon.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 11:45 AM
With all these posts I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I know that the owners will profit from a salary cap, but I also know that in other sports it has leveled the playing field a lot and I don't think that you can argue that it hasn't. There is a lot more parody in the NFL, NHL, & NBA and they all have salary caps. There is not nearly as much in the MLB and they don't have one. If you don't like parody then that is fine, but I like it when teams from every market have a better chance to compete year in and year out. That is just my opinion.

In the 9 years since 2000, there have been 8 different World Series winners. Only 3 teams have made multiple World Series appearances (Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals).

Pittsburgh and Kansas City whine about the economics of baseball, but that's only to cover the fact that their organizations are run by idiots.

twsoxfan5
02-20-2009, 12:31 PM
In the 9 years since 2000, there have been 8 different World Series winners. Only 3 teams have made multiple World Series appearances (Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals).

Pittsburgh and Kansas City whine about the economics of baseball, but that's only to cover the fact that their organizations are run by idiots.

I know that there have been multiple winners in the World Series since 2000, but there are certain teams that are at or near the top of the division every year and IMO it is salary cap related. We all know that anything can happen in October.

There are going to certain teams that will be good every year b/c they have a lot of money and certain teams that will be bad b/c they don't have enough to compete and I personally don't like that about baseball.

Daver
02-20-2009, 12:31 PM
With all these posts I guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I know that the owners will profit from a salary cap, but I also know that in other sports it has leveled the playing field a lot and I don't think that you can argue that it hasn't. There is a lot more parody in the NFL, NHL, & NBA and they all have salary caps. There is not nearly as much in the MLB and they don't have one. If you don't like parody then that is fine, but I like it when teams from every market have a better chance to compete year in and year out. That is just my opinion.

I can argue that, does the NFL have parity or mediocrity? The pre cap NFL was, to me, much better to watch, I don't even follow the game now. Pre cap teams were able to build a roster that had depth, nowadays an injury to a key player can ruin an entire season, it's crap, but it will remain popular because of gambling.

oeo
02-20-2009, 01:24 PM
Let's keep in mind that it took almost a decade of awful seasons for the Rays to pile up enough top picks to put them in the situation they had last season. I don't know how much foresight it took to lose 95 or so games a year.

AND the real questions haven't been answered yet.

To wit:

1. Can they sustain that success in a division with the Yankees and Boston (my guess, highly unlikely)

2. Will they pay to keep these quality kids from leaving via free agency (my guess, probably not.)

My point is I think using the Rays as an example of anything at this point is foolish because enough long term information isn't available yet.

Given the two franchises I'd much prefer to take my chances on the way the Yankees do business. At least come October they usually have a chance to win it all, unlike the Rays who usually are out of contention by July 1st. That's reality.

Lip

That team was not built on top picks...far from it. Their rotation was made up of Kazmir (Mets farmhand), Shields (16th round pick), Garza (Twins farmhand), and Sonnanstine (13th round pick).

Navarro was drafted by the Yankees, Pena is a journeyman, Iwamura was signed as a free agent, and Bartlett is from the Twins system. Even Crawford was a 2nd round pick, but he's been around so long, who cares? Delmon Young was a top pick that netted Garza and Bartlett, but that was a steal by the Rays any way you look at it. So you have Upton and Longoria...

If they continue to be smart with their trades, then yes, they will be able to sustain their success. The Rays got their heads out of their asses. Maybe the Royals, Pirates, and Nationals can do it someday too.

And my point is not that one way is better than the other, but that there are multiple ways to get the job done. You just have to be a smart organization if you don't have the money.

twsoxfan5
02-20-2009, 01:38 PM
I can argue that, does the NFL have parity or mediocrity? The pre cap NFL was, to me, much better to watch, I don't even follow the game now. Pre cap teams were able to build a roster that had depth, nowadays an injury to a key player can ruin an entire season, it's crap, but it will remain popular because of gambling.

You call it mediocrity, but I don't see it that way. I see it as the talent is spread out a lot more and if one of your top players gets injured then it may ruin your season. Those are the breaks in sports. As I said before I am for the cap and you are against it and we can both come up with a ton of reasons why it works and why it doesn't. I think we are just going to have to put this to rest.

doublem23
02-20-2009, 01:42 PM
There are going to certain teams that will be good every year b/c they have a lot of money and certain teams that will be bad b/c they don't have enough to compete and I personally don't like that about baseball.

Fair enough, I wouldn't mind making the playing field a bit more level, I just don't think a cap will accomplish that. I've already posted what I think would help; it would also be good to institute some method of slotting draft picks. The fact that some teams are scared of picking the best players due to their contract demands is pathetic.