PDA

View Full Version : Yankees get 25.7 million bill from MLB


Fenway
12-21-2009, 09:28 PM
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/12/21/apnewsbreak_yanks_hit_with_257m_luxury_tax/

Petty cash for them

DumpJerry
12-21-2009, 09:57 PM
They can send the check to me.

thomas35forever
12-21-2009, 10:20 PM
Serves 'em right for all that spending.

SoxSpeed22
12-21-2009, 11:07 PM
Serves 'em right for all that spending.Which they probably made much more money worth of playoff and World Series revenue to pay for it. This is just chump change for them.

Hitmen77
12-23-2009, 11:36 AM
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2009/12/21/apnewsbreak_yanks_hit_with_257m_luxury_tax/

Petty cash for them

The luxury tax system obviously isn't working.

First of all they need to set a salary floor so that this tax money isn't just going into Loria's pockets while he slashes payroll and gets a taxpayer funded stadium built. Teams below a certain floor shouldn't qualify for this tax revenue.

Second, they need to do more than give the Yankees a tax bill this is as effective as charging Mr. Burns a $3,000,000 fine for dumping nuclear waste. It's ridiculous that the Yankees payroll is $80 Million higher than the Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs. Eighty million more than other teams that people believe are themselves excessive spenders...that gap alone is most of the Sox payroll! People like to make the Mets and Cubs the poster boys for defending the Yankees, but I bet even these 2 hapless teams could buy a championship with an extra $80 million to spend. Likewise, cut the Yankees payroll to the Mets/Cubs level and I doubt they would have won it all.

A simple salary cap isn't going to work, but there has to be some limit that a single team can't outspend perhaps the top 5 payrolls by that ridiculously excessive amount.

Only two teams outside the top 11 by payroll made the postseason: Colorado (16th at $84.5 million) and Minnesota (23rd at $73.1 million).No!!! Lies, lies, lies! Money doesn't buy championships!

soxfanreggie
12-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Which they probably made much more money worth of playoff and World Series revenue to pay for it. This is just chump change for them.

As I commented on another thread, I don't see any other owners complaining when they receive their revenue-sharing windfalls or that the league's industry growth fund gets a huge payday like this.

Lip Man 1
12-23-2009, 12:00 PM
Hitmen:

You'll never get a salary cap nor a salary floor. Owners parrot that garbage about wanting a cap, but they love their revenue sharing checks more.

Like Dire Straits sang, "money for nothing..."

Lip

soxfanreggie
12-24-2009, 03:44 PM
Hitmen:

You'll never get a salary cap nor a salary floor. Owners parrot that garbage about wanting a cap, but they love their revenue sharing checks more.

Like Dire Straits sang, "money for nothing..."

Lip

Lip,

Do they actually get a split of the money from the league's "Industry Growth Fund"?

Lip Man 1
12-24-2009, 05:33 PM
Daver actually has more background on this but yes the Commissioner decides who is eligible to get "revenue sharing" money.

A lot of the "bottom feeder" franchises do...despite the fact that their owners (i.e. David Glass of the Royals to use one example) can spend more than the Yankees if they wanted to. There are a number of teams that get a check every year.

I remember a few months ago reading an AP story that said the Marlins for example when all is said and done are one of the most profitable teams in MLB despite usually not having a contending team and few if any fans...why? Because they get a whopping revenue sharing money check every season.

Owners like Loria (again to use one example) have very little incentive to win the way things are set up. That was one of George Steinbrenner's major beefs when this was being instituted, i.e. subsidizing owners that have no desire to "win" in the first place and simply pocket the money.

Lip

Waysouthsider
12-26-2009, 09:00 AM
Owners like Loria (again to use one example) have very little incentive to win the way things are set up. That was one of George Steinbrenner's major beefs when this was being instituted, i.e. subsidizing owners that have no desire to "win" in the first place and simply pocket the money.

Lip

This is such a great point, Lip....as Dennis Moore in Monty Python once said " this redistribution of wealth thing is trickier than I though!"

Nellie_Fox
12-27-2009, 01:21 AM
I'm hesitant to support a salary floor, because I think ownership should be able to decide where to put the money. All that will do is push player salaries higher yet.

If they want to spend it on scouting and player development, that's fine with me. Just require them to roll a certain amount of revenue back into operating expenses at some level rather than take it as pure profit.

Mohoney
12-27-2009, 09:40 AM
I'm hesitant to support a salary floor, because I think ownership should be able to decide where to put the money. All that will do is push player salaries higher yet.

I think you're right. I think a salary floor will just result in a few more players getting extra millions thrown into their long term deals to meet the floor, thus driving market rates for established players even higher. Even worse, guys that deserve no more than the league minimum would get ludicrous offers like $1 million per year just to avoid arbitration, and meet the floor.

Your idea of owners being allowed to spend the money in retooling the farm system, just as long as they spend the money and not pocket it, is a much better idea than instituting a salary floor that can just be manipulated by both sides and make the economics of the game worse.

Mohoney
12-27-2009, 09:55 AM
Owners like Loria (again to use one example) have very little incentive to win the way things are set up. That was one of George Steinbrenner's major beefs when this was being instituted, i.e. subsidizing owners that have no desire to "win" in the first place and simply pocket the money.

If I were Steinbrenner, I would say the same exact thing, and then when the cameras and microphones go away, I would jump for joy at the fact that about a third of my direct competitors don't even put up a fight against me.

The last decade has been win-win for almost everybody involved, on either side of the spectrum.

raven1
12-27-2009, 11:58 AM
If you want a system that really works for keeping a competitive balance look at the NHL. It has a very strict salary cap AND floor tied to overall league revenue, so players will get a certain guaranteed cut while the owners have cost certainty.

It's not perfect but you can't argue with the results - every single team in the Western Conference is within a few points of a playoff spot, and there are no perennially dominant teams or bottom feeders. No other system has been able to achieve this level of competitive balance.

Daver
12-27-2009, 12:17 PM
If you want a system that really works for keeping a competitive balance look at the NHL. It has a very strict salary cap AND floor tied to overall league revenue, so players will get a certain guaranteed cut while the owners have cost certainty.

It's not perfect but you can't argue with the results - every single team in the Western Conference is within a few points of a playoff spot, and there are no perennially dominant teams or bottom feeders. No other system has been able to achieve this level of competitive balance.

That only works when teams share league revenue evenly, which is far from the case in MLB.

doublem23
12-27-2009, 12:24 PM
If you want a system that really works for keeping a competitive balance look at the NHL. It has a very strict salary cap AND floor tied to overall league revenue, so players will get a certain guaranteed cut while the owners have cost certainty.

It's not perfect but you can't argue with the results - every single team in the Western Conference is within a few points of a playoff spot, and there are no perennially dominant teams or bottom feeders. No other system has been able to achieve this level of competitive balance.

If you're trying to promote parity, instead of excellence, then yes, it works like a charm.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are afraid of having "bad" teams, as if it's better to have every team being average instead of having great teams and crap ones. Remember the '80s NFL? You know, when football was really good? That's what you should be striving for.

raven1
12-27-2009, 12:42 PM
If you're trying to promote parity, instead of excellence, then yes, it works like a charm.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are afraid of having "bad" teams, as if it's better to have every team being average instead of having great teams and crap ones. Remember the '80s NFL? You know, when football was really good? That's what you should be striving for.

Even if every team spent about the same amount on salary there will always be good & bad teams every year, but it would do a lot to prevent permanent dominance or losing. A couple year team dynasty might be ok in the short term, but in the long run it ruins the league by eventually leading to apathy in the other markets. Likewise, constantly losing teams are not sustainable, at least not in small to medium size markets.

In the end having a permanent 2-tier system of the "haves" & "have-nots" would destroy MLB. If you're worried about mediocrity then the real problem is that you have too many teams spreading the talent pool too much. Although teams might be individually owned businesses, if the league as a whole has too many weak franchises it undermines the credibility of the sport.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2009, 12:55 PM
It's very interesting that this week in Sports Illustrated they try to project what the next decade will bring in sports.

One thing that immediately caught my eye was something Pale Hose George (if memory serves) has talked about here before.

As S.I. writes, "talk of aligning divisions not by geography but by the size of the team's payroll is increasingly likely. The Twins looked sharp winning the A.L. Parsimony, Vin, but they'll be tested by the Yankees, the A.L. Profligate champs."

Lip

voodoochile
12-27-2009, 01:03 PM
Even if every team spent about the same amount on salary there will always be good & bad teams every year, but it would do a lot to prevent permanent dominance or losing. A couple year team dynasty might be ok in the short term, but in the long run it ruins the league by eventually leading to apathy in the other markets. Likewise, constantly losing teams are not sustainable, at least not in small to medium size markets.

In the end having a permanent 2-tier system of the "haves" & "have-nots" would destroy MLB. If you're worried about mediocrity then the real problem is that you have too many teams spreading the talent pool too much. Although teams might be individually owned businesses, if the league as a whole has too many weak franchises it undermines the credibility of the sport.

They need better owners, not guys willing to suck up the profits and not give a **** about the product they put on the field.

Daver
12-27-2009, 01:44 PM
I would like to point out that luxury tax money does not necessarily get paid out to the rest of the league, it goes into MLB general funds, which is what paid for the Mitchell investigation and MLB's anti steroid TV campaign, among other things.

TDog
12-27-2009, 04:12 PM
It's very interesting that this week in Sports Illustrated they try to project what the next decade will bring in sports.

One thing that immediately caught my eye was something Pale Hose George (if memory serves) has talked about here before.

As S.I. writes, "talk of aligning divisions not by geography but by the size of the team's payroll is increasingly likely. The Twins looked sharp winning the A.L. Parsimony, Vin, but they'll be tested by the Yankees, the A.L. Profligate champs."

Lip

High school sports have divisions according to enrollment size (reflecting talent pool) but division winners never play for an ultimate championship. Actually, I think something was lost when Indiana abandoned its single basketball tournament tournament. Colleges, of course, are divided into classes that determine how many scholarships they can award. But there isn't a championship among the divisions. (The highest division of NCAA football doesn't have a championship the way the other divisions do anyway.)

I can't see professional baseball ever operating on such a class system.

Nellie_Fox
12-28-2009, 03:12 AM
Actually, I think something was lost when Indiana abandoned its single basketball tournament tournament.Illinois used to have one too. In 1964, the tiny town of Cobden sent their Appleknockers to the state finals, where they lost to Pekin (now the Dragons, then the Chinks :o:.)

Let's see how much everybody likes the NHL salary cap when the Blackhawks can't re-sign a lot of their own players after this season. Not because they don't want to, but because of the cap. We're not talking about going out and getting free agents, but just keeping your own guys.

asindc
12-28-2009, 10:10 AM
If you're trying to promote parity, instead of excellence, then yes, it works like a charm.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are afraid of having "bad" teams, as if it's better to have every team being average instead of having great teams and crap ones. Remember the '80s NFL? You know, when football was really good? That's what you should be striving for.

The NFL has a very good revenue sharing system that does not inhibit teams from becoming very good or very bad. Just look at this season:

Colts: 14-1
Saints: 13-2


Lions: 2-13
Rams: 1-14

There are teams with more than 12 wins and teams with more than 12 losses in just about every season, despite the hard cap and revenue sharing. One of the reasons the NFL is so popular is that fans know that a teams wins or loses because of bad management and/or play, not because it could not afford enough good players. Fans of many MLB teams believe the exact opposite. The Steelers are possible in the NFL, while the Pirates cannot spend at the same rate of the Yankees. Economic disparity dictates who has the better chance to win in the MLB to an extent that does not exist in other sports.

asindc
12-28-2009, 10:12 AM
High school sports have divisions according to enrollment size (reflecting talent pool) but division winners never play for an ultimate championship. Actually, I think something was lost when Indiana abandoned its single basketball tournament tournament. Colleges, of course, are divided into classes that determine how many scholarships they can award. But there isn't a championship among the divisions. (The highest division of NCAA football doesn't have a championship the way the other divisions do anyway.)

I can't see professional baseball ever operating on such a class system.

Don't get me started...:angry:

asindc
12-28-2009, 10:15 AM
Illinois used to have one too. In 1964, the tiny town of Cobden sent their Appleknockers to the state finals, where they lost to Pekin (now the Dragons, then the Chinks :o:.)

Let's see how much everybody likes the NHL salary cap when the Blackhawks can't re-sign a lot of their own players after this season. Not because they don't want to, but because of the cap. We're not talking about going out and getting free agents, but just keeping your own guys.

That's why I like the NBA's salary cap the best. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own players, as long as you are willing to pay any resulting luxury tax.

TommyJohn
12-28-2009, 02:01 PM
Illinois used to have one too. In 1964, the tiny town of Cobden sent their Appleknockers to the state finals, where they lost to Pekin (now the Dragons, then the Chinks :o:.)

One of the members of the 1952 Hebron High Green Giants, the smallest school to ever win the title, pulled a 1972 Dolphins-he rooted for Pekin to win, because he wanted Hebron to stand alone as a small school to win the state title.

fox23
12-28-2009, 02:18 PM
That's why I like the NBA's salary cap the best. You can go over the cap to re-sign your own players, as long as you are willing to pay any resulting luxury tax.

That's true, however you then run into poor teams trading away their stars in the last year of a deal for pennies on the dollar since they can't/won't pay the tax (see KG, Gasol, and hopefully Bosh to the Bulls this year!!). Then the receiving team can offer up more than anyone else in the league in a new contract in the offseason, effectively circumventing the free agent market. It is only going to get worse as the big boys like LA and Boston will use the Milwaukees, Indianas, Charlottes, and New Orleans of the world as their farm teams. I think for the cap to work more effectively the league will need to adopt a revenue sharing policy closer to what the NFL has or will be coming up with in 2 years after their probable lockout.

TDog
12-28-2009, 03:51 PM
... I think for the cap to work more effectively the league will need to adopt a revenue sharing policy closer to what the NFL has or will be coming up with in 2 years after their probable lockout.

Whose probable lockout?

Of course, if competitive balance is your goal, you operate with the league as a cooperative employing all the players with teams choosing up sides before each season as you might in a sandlot pickup game.

Salary caps are aren't there to promote competitive balance. They are there to assure higher profits.

pearso66
12-28-2009, 04:11 PM
Whose probable lockout?

Of course, if competitive balance is your goal, you operate with the league as a cooperative employing all the players with teams choosing up sides before each season as you might in a sandlot pickup game.

Salary caps are aren't there to promote competitive balance. They are there to assure higher profits.

Since ticket prices for games are becoming so high, how about not only a salary cap, they put on a ticket price cap so that regular fans can enjoy games again. Maybe not all the tickets, but say like at US Cellular the upper reserved are no more than $10, and bleacher seats maybe the same. Go back to prices of the mid/early 90's. That way, you have the salary cap so teams can't buy championships, and the ticket price cap so owners aren't rolling in money every year.

Daver
12-28-2009, 04:35 PM
Since ticket prices for games are becoming so high, how about not only a salary cap, they put on a ticket price cap so that regular fans can enjoy games again. Maybe not all the tickets, but say like at US Cellular the upper reserved are no more than $10, and bleacher seats maybe the same. Go back to prices of the mid/early 90's. That way, you have the salary cap so teams can't buy championships, and the ticket price cap so owners aren't rolling in money every year.

Ticket prices are based on what the market will bear, not on what the team's expenses are.

doublem23
12-28-2009, 05:31 PM
Since ticket prices for games are becoming so high, how about not only a salary cap, they put on a ticket price cap so that regular fans can enjoy games again. Maybe not all the tickets, but say like at US Cellular the upper reserved are no more than $10, and bleacher seats maybe the same. Go back to prices of the mid/early 90's. That way, you have the salary cap so teams can't buy championships, and the ticket price cap so owners aren't rolling in money every year.

In theory that's a nice idea, but all you're doing is increasing the secondary market for tickets. If a ticket is going to fetch $30, I'd rather that whole thing go to the Sox instead of a percentage going to some ****head ticket broker.

fox23
12-28-2009, 05:33 PM
Whose probable lockout?

The one that will be happening after the owners opted out and made next year the final year of the agreement, an uncapped year no less.



Salary caps are aren't there to promote competitive balance. They are there to assure higher profits.

I don't see why it can't be both. They are not mutually exclusive items and the NFL proves that.

Daver
12-28-2009, 05:37 PM
I don't see why it can't be both. They are not mutually exclusive items and the NFL proves that.

You're comparing apples to coconuts.

And you're still wrong, a salary cap only has one purpose, to guarantee profit margins.

voodoochile
12-28-2009, 06:20 PM
Since ticket prices for games are becoming so high, how about not only a salary cap, they put on a ticket price cap so that regular fans can enjoy games again. Maybe not all the tickets, but say like at US Cellular the upper reserved are no more than $10, and bleacher seats maybe the same. Go back to prices of the mid/early 90's. That way, you have the salary cap so teams can't buy championships, and the ticket price cap so owners aren't rolling in money every year.

LOL now you're just ensuring the scalpers make more money. You cannot artificially set price ceilings, the market will pay what the market will pay and if you set the level too low you just create a bigger secondary market.

TDog
12-28-2009, 06:33 PM
The one that will be happening after the owners opted out and made next year the final year of the agreement, an uncapped year no less. ....

Let me rephrase the question to make it more clear: what owners, what sport?

As to your point about the NFL salary cap has nothing to do with competitive balance, just as instant replay in the NFL has nothing to do assuring right calls are made.

fox23
12-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Let me rephrase the question to make it more clear: what owners, what sport?



Sorry, the NFL owners opted out of their agreement after 2010. At that point there will be a lockout unless a new agreement is made.

fox23
12-28-2009, 07:35 PM
You're comparing apples to coconuts.

And you're still wrong, a salary cap only has one purpose, to guarantee profit margins.

Could you please explain why? The NFL has a hard salary cap, they have the greatest parity of any of the big 4. Almost every team has a chance going into the start of the season. A small market team like Green Bay, New Orleans, Cincinnati has every chance in the world to be good at some point over a 5-10 year span. About the only team that has been terrible for a long period of time is the Lions, and that is due to terrible drafts, not a lack of spending.

MLB has no cap, and they have the worst parity of any of them. Teams like KC, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, have no chance going into the season because they can't hope to get players like Boston, NY, Chicago gets. Hell, I don't know why anyone would ever be a Royals fan at this point, they are screwed no matter what they do.

So, no I do not think I'm wrong. I don't disagree at all that a salary cap helps to keep cost certainty and increase profits, but it also has the side effect of giving everyone a chance.

Daver
12-28-2009, 07:53 PM
Could you please explain why? The NFL has a hard salary cap, they have the greatest parity of any of the big 4. Almost every team has a chance going into the start of the season. A small market team like Green Bay, New Orleans, Cincinnati has every chance in the world to be good at some point over a 5-10 year span. About the only team that has been terrible for a long period of time is the Lions, and that is due to terrible drafts, not a lack of spending.

MLB has no cap, and they have the worst parity of any of them. Teams like KC, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, have no chance going into the season because they can't hope to get players like Boston, NY, Chicago gets. Hell, I don't know why anyone would ever be a Royals fan at this point, they are screwed no matter what they do.

So, no I do not think I'm wrong. I don't disagree at all that a salary cap helps to keep cost certainty and increase profits, but it also has the side effect of giving everyone a chance.

The NFL owners locked out the players and broke their union in 1987, they did not do this for the sake of parity, they did it for the sake of profit, Pete Rozelle had convinced the owners to split revenue evenly among all the teams, and the salary cap that was instituted as a result of all that was to maintain profit margins. Even with this cap you have teams like Detroit that just plain suck year in and year out, even though they have roughly the same revenue as the Patriots, Steelers, and other winning teams.

You can't compare football to baseball because the overall revenue is no where close to being even in any way, shared league revenue is a small part of most teams total revenue, it's not like the NFL where the smallest market has roughly the same revenue as the largest.

Baseball has terrific parity, how many different teams have won a World series in this decade compared to how many have won a superbowl?

DSpivack
12-28-2009, 08:38 PM
The NFL owners locked out the players and broke their union in 1987, they did not do this for the sake of parity, they did it for the sake of profit, Pete Rozelle had convinced the owners to split revenue evenly among all the teams, and the salary cap that was instituted as a result of all that was to maintain profit margins. Even with this cap you have teams like Detroit that just plain suck year in and year out, even though they have roughly the same revenue as the Patriots, Steelers, and other winning teams.

You can't compare football to baseball because the overall revenue is no where close to being even in any way, shared league revenue is a small part of most teams total revenue, it's not like the NFL where the smallest market has roughly the same revenue as the largest.

Baseball has terrific parity, how many different teams have won a World series in this decade compared to how many have won a superbowl?

The very facts of each sport make things different, too, no? I mean that few NFL teams have to worry about selling out all 8 home games. Ticket revenue wouldn't be a whole lot different no matter the record. Thus, there isn't as much an incentive to win.

Baseball, however, has 81 home games, and only a small handful of teams sell out every home game. Thus, there would be a direct incentive in terms of revenue for teams to win [assuming that more wins would mean more tickets sold, which I suppose is a bit simplistic; the Cubs of the last 25 years would perhaps be an exception to that].

Salary caps and revenue-sharing might work for a league like the NFL, but different sports operate under different circumstances. One model can't necessarily be applied for a different sport.

TDog
12-28-2009, 09:20 PM
The NFL owners locked out the players and broke their union in 1987, they did not do this for the sake of parity, they did it for the sake of profit, Pete Rozelle had convinced the owners to split revenue evenly among all the teams, and the salary cap that was instituted as a result of all that was to maintain profit margins. Even with this cap you have teams like Detroit that just plain suck year in and year out, even though they have roughly the same revenue as the Patriots, Steelers, and other winning teams.

You can't compare football to baseball because the overall revenue is no where close to being even in any way, shared league revenue is a small part of most teams total revenue, it's not like the NFL where the smallest market has roughly the same revenue as the largest.

Baseball has terrific parity, how many different teams have won a World series in this decade compared to how many have won a superbowl?

Well put.

asindc
12-28-2009, 09:36 PM
The NFL owners locked out the players and broke their union in 1987, they did not do this for the sake of parity, they did it for the sake of profit, Pete Rozelle had convinced the owners to split revenue evenly among all the teams, and the salary cap that was instituted as a result of all that was to maintain profit margins. Even with this cap you have teams like Detroit that just plain suck year in and year out, even though they have roughly the same revenue as the Patriots, Steelers, and other winning teams.

You can't compare football to baseball because the overall revenue is no where close to being even in any way, shared league revenue is a small part of most teams total revenue, it's not like the NFL where the smallest market has roughly the same revenue as the largest.

Baseball has terrific parity, how many different teams have won a World series in this decade compared to how many have won a superbowl?

For the umpteenth time, the economic disparity in baseball does not ensure a championship for the fortunate few, it dramatically increases the rich teams' chances of making the playoffs. Instead of asking how many championships the NYY have won, the question is how many chances did they have to win the championship (i.e, how many playoff appearances have they had in recent years). Basketball, football, and hockey fans are confident that if their team has a lengthy playoff drought, it wasn't because the best players were, for all practical purposes, not available to the team. Not all baseball fans are as confident, and for good reason.

Daver
12-28-2009, 09:45 PM
For the umpteenth time, the economic disparity in baseball does not ensure a championship for the fortunate few, it dramatically increases the rich teams' chances of making the playoffs. Instead of asking how many championships the NYY have won, the question is how many chances did they have to win the championship (i.e, how many playoff appearances have they had in recent years). Basketball, football, and hockey fans are confident that if their team has a lengthy playoff drought, it wasn't because the best players were, for all practical purposes, not available to the team. Not all baseball fans are as confident, and for good reason.


For the umpteenth time, you're comparing oranges to kumquats.

DumpJerry
12-29-2009, 10:29 AM
Since ticket prices for games are becoming so high, how about not only a salary cap, they put on a ticket price cap so that regular fans can enjoy games again. Maybe not all the tickets, but say like at US Cellular the upper reserved are no more than $10, and bleacher seats maybe the same. Go back to prices of the mid/early 90's. That way, you have the salary cap so teams can't buy championships, and the ticket price cap so owners aren't rolling in money every year.
The Sox tickets prices are actually a great bargain. Have you ever looked at the Cubs' ticket prices? They are about 30% higher for comparable seats at comparable games (i.e., Pirate games and Royals games, etc.) One example I can give is I have a friend with White Sox season tickets in section 126. His Regular Game price last year was $40. I have another friend whose parents have season seats in virtually the identical location at Wrigley. Last year their Regular Game price was $65.00. This coming season, Bleacher seats at Wrigley will be $60.50. If the Sox tried to charge that, there would be a full-scale riot.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 12:01 PM
For the umpteenth time, the economic disparity in baseball does not ensure a championship for the fortunate few, it dramatically increases the rich teams' chances of making the playoffs. Instead of asking how many championships the NYY have won, the question is how many chances did they have to win the championship (i.e, how many playoff appearances have they had in recent years). Basketball, football, and hockey fans are confident that if their team has a lengthy playoff drought, it wasn't because the best players were, for all practical purposes, not available to the team. Not all baseball fans are as confident, and for good reason.

For the umpteenth time, you're comparing oranges to kumquats.

You are failing to even address a very important point, asindc has brought up. There may be parity in overall world series winners, but there is not a lot of overall parity in the AL. The Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels make the playoffs virtually every year this decade. The AL central is always competitive, but three of the four playoff spots have gone to these three teams more often than not. Outside of the 2005 White Sox, they are the only AL teams to win the WS this decade. Parity in the AL is disappearing rapidly. The Twins are the one exception of a team who can sustain winning, without a large payroll in the AL, but they haven't yet proven they can compete with the big boys come playoff time. The A's made a run in the earlier part of the decade, but they are again with the bottom feeders in the AL. I would love for you to try and sell parity to a O's, Jays, or Rays fan.

I have always been against a hard cap, but my mind has been changing the last few years. The Red Sox, Yankees, and Angels also spend the most money on scouting and international signings. This lack of parity isn't going anywhere. I actually hate what is becoming of the AL.

I think a start would be a salary floor, a true slotted draft system, and an international draft, but these changes won't make a dent in the enormous competitive advantages the few teams in the AL have anytime soon.

asindc
12-29-2009, 12:28 PM
For the umpteenth time, you're comparing oranges to kumquats.

So what is the orange and what is the kumquat is this discussion?

Daver
12-29-2009, 12:41 PM
So what is the orange and what is the kumquat is this discussion?

You're comparing a sport that has very limited revenue sharing to sports that share large amounts, if not all, league revenue.

Here's a hypothetical example of how a baseball salary cap would work.

MLB institutes a salary cap of 80 mil (double the Marlins payroll of this year) then Boston signs X free agent to a salary that fits under the cap, and signs the same player to a deal with their television network for double what his baseball contract is. It's win win for Boston, the cap allows their profits to soar, as they are now paying reserves lower salaries to fit under the cap, and they still have the wherewithal to buy any player they wish.

Exactly how is baseball better from that? Where is it helping small market teams?

asindc
12-29-2009, 12:55 PM
You're comparing a sport that has very limited revenue sharing to sports that share large amounts, if not all, league revenue.

Here's a hypothetical example of how a baseball salary cap would work.

MLB institutes a salary cap of 80 mil (double the Marlins payroll of this year) then Boston signs X free agent to a salary that fits under the cap, and signs the same player to a deal with their television network for double what his baseball contract is. It's win win for Boston, the cap allows their profits to soar, as they are now paying reserves lower salaries to fit under the cap, and they still have the wherewithal to buy any player they wish.

Exactly how is baseball better from that? Where is it helping small market teams?

The solution here would be to include any salary not directly derived from his duties as a baseball player, but paid as a consequence of his association with team, as counting against the cap.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 01:11 PM
You're comparing a sport that has very limited revenue sharing to sports that share large amounts, if not all, league revenue.

Here's a hypothetical example of how a baseball salary cap would work.

MLB institutes a salary cap of 80 mil (double the Marlins payroll of this year) then Boston signs X free agent to a salary that fits under the cap, and signs the same player to a deal with their television network for double what his baseball contract is. It's win win for Boston, the cap allows their profits to soar, as they are now paying reserves lower salaries to fit under the cap, and they still have the wherewithal to buy any player they wish.

Exactly how is baseball better from that? Where is it helping small market teams?

That's your argument against a cap? I think that could very easily be covered in the agreement. Like it is in the NBA and the NFL. That's not a very realistic concern.

Daver
12-29-2009, 01:18 PM
The solution here would be to include any salary not directly derived from his duties as a baseball player, but paid as a consequence of his association with team, as counting against the cap.


How can MLB dictate how a network gets run?

TDog
12-29-2009, 01:27 PM
The solution here would be to include any salary not directly derived from his duties as a baseball player, but paid as a consequence of his association with team, as counting against the cap.

You also could achieve parity by scheduling 16 games in the regular season. If you ended the 2009 baseball season after April 24 last year, when the Royals had played 16 games, you would have had the Royals in first place, one game ahead of the White Sox and Tigers. The Blue Jays and Mariners would have won their divisions, and the Red Sox would have been the wild card. The National League would have had the Marlins, Cardinals and Dodgers winning their divisions with the Padres making it to the posteason as the wild card.

One of the reasons you have parity in the NFL is that the salary cap generates mediocrity (because the owners broke the union and while doing so, fans showed they would continue to pay to see an inferior product). Another reason you have parity in the NFL is the short schedule.

The dynamics of the NFL that allow the league to succeed with a salary cap are different than the dynamics of baseball. You really can't compare the two.

voodoochile
12-29-2009, 01:59 PM
How can MLB dictate how a network gets run?

There are specific prohibitions against that kind of work around in most CBA's that include caps. If a team does it and gets caught they are penalized, though I'm not up on the details.

Heck, in the NFL, they slammed the 49ers hard for buying Super Bowl rings that were too expensive as it was viewed as additional compensation.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:05 PM
There are specific prohibitions against that kind of work around in most CBA's that include caps. If a team does it and gets caught they are penalized, though I'm not up on the details.

Heck, in the NFL, they slammed the 49ers hard for buying Super Bowl rings that were too expensive as it was viewed as additional compensation.

A collective bargaining agreement deals with the players and the league, it has nothing to do with any other business a team owner may also have, or how they conduct that business. It would be different if said business was also subject to sharing revenue with the league, but that would not be the case with MLB.

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:06 PM
You also could achieve parity by scheduling 16 games in the regular season. If you ended the 2009 baseball season after April 24 last year, when the Royals had played 16 games, you would have had the Royals in first place, one game ahead of the White Sox and Tigers. The Blue Jays and Mariners would have won their divisions, and the Red Sox would have been the wild card. The National League would have had the Marlins, Cardinals and Dodgers winning their divisions with the Padres making it to the posteason as the wild card.

One of the reasons you have parity in the NFL is that the salary cap generates mediocrity (because the owners broke the union and while doing so, fans showed they would continue to pay to see an inferior product). Another reason you have parity in the NFL is the short schedule.

The dynamics of the NFL that allow the league to succeed with a salary cap are different than the dynamics of baseball. You really can't compare the two.

I would not call the Patriots, the Colts, the Chargers, the Steelers, or the Giants of this past decade mediocre. Likewise, the Lions, the Raiders, the Bills, and the ___skins of this decade have not been on par with even the average franchise that occasionally makes the playoffs and causes a stir. The whole argument that the NFL "suffers" from parity is fallacious. What some perceive as parity is actually competitiveness, something that is lacking for the Royals and Pirates.

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:07 PM
How can MLB dictate how a network gets run?

It would not be dictating how the network is run, but it would be dictating how the team is run.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:09 PM
It would not be dictating how the network is run, but it would be dictating how the team is run.

They are two separate entities, one of which MLB has no voice whatsoever in.

voodoochile
12-29-2009, 02:18 PM
A collective bargaining agreement deals with the players and the league, it has nothing to do with any other business a team owner may also have, or how they conduct that business. It would be different if said business was also subject to sharing revenue with the league, but that would not be the case with MLB.

Which wouldn't really matter. You can build in a clause preventing owners from paying players from other businesses they own or are involved with. Then if someone violates those rules, they get fined. Make the fines excessive and have the money paid to other teams, not the league (not that it would happen, but I'm just spitballing). Then assign a committee to oversee it all and if a team violates the rules slam them hard.

If a player signs a suspicious contract (like agreeing to play for the Yankees for league minimum when he could sign a $15M contract with the Jays) then look into it.

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:18 PM
A collective bargaining agreement deals with the players and the league, it has nothing to do with any other business a team owner may also have, or how they conduct that business. It would be different if said business was also subject to sharing revenue with the league, but that would not be the case with MLB.

If MLB franchises agree to such restrictions in accordance with MLB bylaws, then there is nothing in law that would preclude such restrictions from being adopted. As has been noted above, other sports have similar restrictions. When Magic Johnson signed his first post-rookie contract, it was $25 million for 25 years. The contract called for him to accept a front office job after he retired from playing. The NBA does not allow for such contracts anymore, for obvious reasons. By the way, the NBA did not establish its salary cap system until the beginning of the 1984-1985 season, after Johnson signed that deal.

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM
They are two separate entities, one of which MLB has no voice whatsoever in.

Your statement is 100% correct when there is no affiliation between the franchise and the network, which is why the restrictions would apply to the MLB franchises and their affiliates, not to any indenpendent businesses that are not so affiliated. MLB has no say in how bookmakers in Las Vegas do their business, yet MLB franchises are prohibited from doing business with them. Such prohibition obviously impacts the way the bookmakers do business, yet none of them seem to be crying (legal) foul about it.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM
They are two separate entities, one of which MLB has no voice whatsoever in.


It's called collusion Daver. It would be rather simple for the collective bargaining agreement to include. The NFL and NBA already do it. It's really not an obstacle.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM
If MLB franchises agree to such restrictions in accordance with MLB bylaws, then there is nothing in law that would preclude such restrictions from being adopted. As has been noted above, other sports have similar restrictions. When Magic Johnson signed his first post-rookie contract, it was $25 million for 25 years. The contract called for him to accept a front office job after he retired from playing. The NBA does not allow for such contracts anymore, for obvious reasons. By the way, the NBA did not establish its salary cap system until the beginning of the 1984-1985 season, after Johnson signed that deal.

Why would anyone willingly agree to let an outside party dictate how they run their non league related business?

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:25 PM
Why would anyone willingly agree to let an outside party dictate how they run their non league related business?

No outside party would be dictating to anyone in this scenario.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:29 PM
No outside party would be dictating to anyone in this scenario.

MLB is if they can dictate to the Steinbrennars on what they do with their broadcasting network.

voodoochile
12-29-2009, 02:29 PM
Why would anyone willingly agree to let an outside party dictate how they run their non league related business?

Because you cannot own a MLB franchise if you don't. And in reality, it's not that you cannot run the business the way you want, you just can't use those businesses to hide money you are paying players to play for your MLB franchise and thus circumvent the salary cap that you agreed to honor.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:33 PM
Because you cannot own a MLB franchise if you don't. And in reality, it's not that you cannot run the business the way you want, you just can't use those businesses to hide money you are paying players to play for your MLB franchise and thus circumvent the salary cap that you agreed to honor.


They wouldn't have to hide it, make it public, then you avoid collusion and you are still honoring the salary cap you agreed to. The player is being paid to do a TV show, not to play baseball.

voodoochile
12-29-2009, 02:39 PM
They wouldn't have to hide it, make it public, then you avoid collusion and you are still honoring the salary cap you agreed to. The player is being paid to do a TV show, not to play baseball.

Well there could be limits, like if you could prove the guy was actually going to do the show but then it would have to be a salary in line with what other people are making to do similar shows. You could petition for exceptions for example, but how many players are currently doing that kind of thing? There aren't many if any I can think of so you're talking about something that isn't widely practiced suddenly becoming a common thing. That would probably make it illegal under the CBA.

You act like this would be impossible to have in the CBA, and I completely disagree with that.

And for the record, I'm not advocating for a salary cap, I just think that this is a simple problem to solve if you actually have one and yes you could easily prevent teams from signing players to contracts with other entities the owner has control of if you wrote it into the CBA and again, if an owner doesn't like that rule then they should feel free to sell.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 02:42 PM
They wouldn't have to hide it, make it public, then you avoid collusion and you are still honoring the salary cap you agreed to. The player is being paid to do a TV show, not to play baseball.

It's not avoiding collusion if it is an affiliate of the parent company. Public or not, that is the very definition of collusion. The language in the contract would not allow a player to be paid by any affiliate of the ownership. This is what the NBA, NFL, and NHL currently do, and they all have teams that would willingly pay over the salary cap. The language isn't as difficult to include as you seem to think it is.

As Voodoo said, you have to follow the rules of MLB, in turn so do your affiliates. You don't like it, sell the team.

asindc
12-29-2009, 02:49 PM
MLB is if they can dictate to the Steinbrennars on what they do with their broadcasting network.

MLB is not an outside party to the NYY baseball franchise. As noted in my Vegas bookmaker analogy, the impact of such a restriction on the Yes network is incidental, yet not illegal to establish. It can be done, and more importantly, is not a valid reason for not establishing a salary cap.

Daver
12-29-2009, 02:57 PM
Well there could be limits, like if you could prove the guy was actually going to do the show but then it would have to be a salary in line with what other people are making to do similar shows. You could petition for exceptions for example, but how many players are currently doing that kind of thing? There aren't many if any I can think of so you're talking about something that isn't widely practiced suddenly becoming a common thing. That would probably make it illegal under the CBA.

You act like this would be impossible to have in the CBA, and I completely disagree with that.


All I'm doing is pointing out the owners are going to do what is in their own best interest, in the other 3 major sports they do what is best for the league as a whole, because most, if not all, of their revenue is shared revenue, that is not the case in MLB. Considering the fact that MLB revenues are at an all time high with the status quo, I doubt you will see a change any time soon.

voodoochile
12-29-2009, 03:16 PM
All I'm doing is pointing out the owners are going to do what is in their own best interest, in the other 3 major sports they do what is best for the league as a whole, because most, if not all, of their revenue is shared revenue, that is not the case in MLB. Considering the fact that MLB revenues are at an all time high with the status quo, I doubt you will see a change any time soon.

I agree. I doubt a salary cap that low would ever get approved by the players anyway. I think $150M would be about the minimum the players would accept and only if the owners were willing to split revenue more evenly and that's not going to happen anytime soon and honestly I can't see why the Steinbrenners would want to hand more money to the owners of the Pirates and Marlins and all the rest who are refusing to spend the money they already get from league sources.

TDog
12-29-2009, 03:24 PM
I would not call the Patriots, the Colts, the Chargers, the Steelers, or the Giants of this past decade mediocre. Likewise, the Lions, the Raiders, the Bills, and the ___skins of this decade have not been on par with even the average franchise that occasionally makes the playoffs and causes a stir. The whole argument that the NFL "suffers" from parity is fallacious. What some perceive as parity is actually competitiveness, something that is lacking for the Royals and Pirates.

If find the NFL unwatchable, but football fans I know bemoan the fact that there aren't any great teams, even among the elite teams in the league. Teams are great relative to the league, but not to the Super Bowl Champion Bears, whatever year in the 1980s that was, or other great teams of the past. Most football fans probably only care about relative greatness, however.

On any given day, the Pirates or Royals can play a great game, shut down the other team (especially when Greinke is pitching) or come up with a ninth inning rally against an elite relief pitcher to win a game. Even the 1970 White Sox scored 11 runs in the ninth inning in Boston one August night when the Red Sox sent an elite closer of the day, Sparky Lyle, to protect a three-run lead. If baseball's regular season were played once a week for 16 weeks, the Royals might go undefeated (even if they didn't have an easier schedule earned by finishing the previous year in last place). You cannot compare football to baseball in any meaningful way.

The NFL has a salary cap because the owners broke the union so they wouldn't have to pay escalating salaries. (There are many who used to consider hockey a major American sport but no longer do because of what the NHL did to put their salary cap in place.) The owners were more concerned with reducing operating expenses than building great teams. Certainly there are baseball owners that function with the same mindset.

You can't assume a baseball salary cap would ensure small market teams could keep the talent they develop. A baseball salary cap would not ensure small market teams would sign free agents who will produce.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 03:49 PM
All I'm doing is pointing out the owners are going to do what is in their own best interest, in the other 3 major sports they do what is best for the league as a whole, because most, if not all, of their revenue is shared revenue, that is not the case in MLB. Considering the fact that MLB revenues are at an all time high with the status quo, I doubt you will see a change any time soon.

You're right that the owners are going to do what's best for them, and there are a lot of obstacles to creating any type of cap scenario, but I don't think it's impossible, and I think it's something that needs to be addressed soon.

You and Tdog are also right in stating that the NFL is a very poor comparison for MLB. But, it doesn't mean that MLB couldn't learn a lot from the NFL. What the NFL has done best is not create parity(as asindc was aluding to earlier), rather they have made every team in the league relevant, with very few exceptions. The Lions are probably the true exception, as even the Browns have made the playoffs this decade, and the Raiders were in the Super Bowl earlier in the decade. A large majority of teams have hope and have the opportunity to contend most seasons.

In MLB there are easily 10-15 teams per season that have no chance at competing. A salary cap would not guarantee them to be competetive, but it would give them an opportunity to compete. Many of these teams don't have that, and it's just getting worse. The current system doesn't even allow them to get the best amateur or international players, and by the time they figure it out these teams can't even afford to pay their arbitration salaries, let alone retain them when they reach free agency. And who gets them? The teams with deep pockets who get even better. The current system is very broke and getting worse.

Now, the Red Sox, Yankees, and Angels(who have been doing this for a long time), are spending their large earnings not only on the team salary, but international scouting, international players, and paying over slot for draft picks. The rich are getting richer and stronger every year, to the point where the above mentioned teams are almost guaranteed a playoff spot and it doesnt look to be changing.

How would you feel if you were a fan of the Orioles or the Blue Jays? Would you think baseball is worth watching?

Do you really thing changes aren't in order? At least some sort of limitations?

Daver
12-29-2009, 04:00 PM
How would you feel if you were a fan of the Orioles or the Blue Jays? Would you think baseball is worth watching?


I'm a fan of a team that didn't win a damn thing for 88 years.

asindc
12-29-2009, 04:00 PM
You're right that the owners are going to do what's best for them, and there are a lot of obstacles to creating any type of cap scenario, but I don't think it's impossible, and I think it's something that needs to be addressed soon.

You and Tdog are also right in stating that the NFL is a very poor comparison for MLB. But, it doesn't mean that MLB couldn't learn a lot from the NFL. What the NFL has done best is not create parity(as asindc was aluding to earlier), rather they have made every team in the league relevant, with very few exceptions. The Lions are probably the true exception, as even the Browns have made the playoffs this decade, and the Raiders were in the Super Bowl earlier in the decade. A large majority of teams have hope and have the opportunity to contend most seasons.

In MLB there are easily 10-15 teams per season that have no chance at competing. A salary cap would not guarantee them to be competetive, but it would give them an opportunity to compete. Many of these teams don't have that, and it's just getting worse. The current system doesn't even allow them to get the best amateur or international players, and by the time they figure it out these teams can't even afford to pay their arbitration salaries, let alone retain them when they reach free agency. And who gets them? The teams with deep pockets who get even better. The current system is very broke and getting worse.

Now, the Red Sox, Yankees, and Angels(who have been doing this for a long time), are spending their large earnings not only on the team salary, but international scouting, international players, and paying over slot for draft picks. The rich are getting richer and stronger every year, to the point where the above mentioned teams are almost guaranteed a playoff spot and it doesnt look to be changing.

How would you feel if you were a fan of the Orioles or the Blue Jays? Would you think baseball is worth watching?

Do you really thing changes aren't in order? At least some sort of limitations?

Well put, Dudeabides. It is not about guaranteeing anything except a level playing field with regard to opportunities to build a winner. I know a lot of passionate Lions fans, and not one of them would argue that the Lions have not had the same chances to win over the years that the Steelers have had. If you ask Royals and Pirates fans the same question, however, the answer from many would be quite different. You can look at the front office track record of the NYY as compared to the Royals for the past decade and discern one big difference: the NYY can just spend more money to correct big mistakes (Pavano, Giambi, Randy Johnson), while the Royals have to simply suffer the consequences of similar mistakes. It establishes an atmosphere in which the NYY are not afraid to take huge risks, while the Royals have to be more judicious in utilizing their resources and therefore sometimes miss out on good opportunities. Put another way, the NYY's front office might not be much better than the Royals front office, but we don't really know because of the NYY's economic advantage.

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 04:09 PM
I'm a fan of a team that didn't win a damn thing for 88 years.

So, you're willing to look away from the current problems? Or do you just not see problems with what is going on right now?

TDog
12-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Well put, Dudeabides. It is not about guaranteeing anything except a level playing field with regard to opportunities to build a winner. ...

Salary caps have never been about that, not even remotely.

If you want a level playing field for baseball, eliminate free agency, bind a player to a team for life with the reserve clause and institute an amateur draft. That was the system baseball worked under for about a decade beginning in the mid-1960s that turned the doormat A's into a baseball dynasty despite having an owner who moved his team to a lousy market and wasn't interested in paying players what they could earn on other teams and was so reviled by his players on other grounds that he would have had to pay substantially more under free agency to keep his players. During this period, the Yankees struggled. To make it work today, you would have to institute an international draft.

By the way, none of that is going to happen.

Looking at what football does and suggesting baseball does the same is pointless and silly.

asindc
12-29-2009, 04:58 PM
Salary caps have never been about that, not even remotely.

If you want a level playing field for baseball, eliminate free agency, bind a player to a team for life with the reserve clause and institute an amateur draft. That was the system baseball worked under for about a decade beginning in the mid-1960s that turned the doormat A's into a baseball dynasty despite having an owner who moved his team to a lousy market and wasn't interested in paying players what they could earn on other teams and was so reviled by his players on other grounds that he would have had to pay substantially more under free agency to keep his players. During this period, the Yankees struggled. To make it work today, you would have to institute an international draft.

By the way, none of that is going to happen.

Looking at what football does and suggesting baseball does the same is pointless and silly.

On bolded point one, I am well aware of the real reason why owners love salary caps: they ensure cost-control and give the owners cover to argue that it maintains competitive balance. That the salary cap really saves the owners from themselves does not lessen the ancillary benefit (from a fan's perspective) of giving the Lions, Bills, and Rams of the world the real opportunity to improve their teams.

On bolded point two, I think an international draft will be established sooner than you think. Selig has already alluded to the lack of one being a problem that needs to be addressed.

Daver
12-29-2009, 05:53 PM
So, you're willing to look away from the current problems? Or do you just not see problems with what is going on right now?

The biggest problem I see with the game is that there are a handful of owners that are more than happy to keep their payroll as low as possible and pocket the revenue sharing they do receive from the league.

Oblong
12-29-2009, 06:39 PM
Still goes back to the concept that the goals of the fans differ from the goals of certain owners. Business success does not necessarily mean on the field success.

I liken it to two competing franchises of the same brand, like a Subway or Pizza Hut. The corporate office may institute some type of competition between the stores, like fastest delivery times, most sales of cookies, highest # of foot longs sold on Thursdays.... that's all inter-brand competition that's independant of the overall success of each franchise. Yes you may win the contest but did your profits sink because of it? So who really won?

That's what the on the field competition is in baseball. Outside of places like Chicago, NY, and LA, most of the teams are not business competitors, they're partners. The Sox and Cubs are competitors, even before interleague play, because they are fighting for the same fan base. But that's unique to those towns/areas. The Tigers and Sox are not competitors in a business sense. (Well maybe on the west side of Michigan but it's negligible)

DSpivack
12-29-2009, 06:49 PM
Still goes back to the concept that the goals of the fans differ from the goals of certain owners. Business success does not necessarily mean on the field success.

I liken it to two competing franchises of the same brand, like a Subway or Pizza Hut. The corporate office may institute some type of competition between the stores, like fastest delivery times, most sales of cookies, highest # of foot longs sold on Thursdays.... that's all inter-brand competition that's independant of the overall success of each franchise. Yes you may win the contest but did your profits sink because of it? So who really won?

That's what the on the field competition is in baseball. Outside of places like Chicago, NY, and LA, most of the teams are not business competitors, they're partners. The Sox and Cubs are competitors, even before interleague play, because they are fighting for the same fan base. But that's unique to those towns/areas. The Tigers and Sox are not competitors in a business sense. (Well maybe on the west side of Michigan but it's negligible)

Just look at two of the most profitable sports franchises in the world, the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys. Neither club has done much of anything on the field this decade, but they've done an amazing job at maximizing revenue.

TDog
12-29-2009, 06:57 PM
On bolded point one, I am well aware of the real reason why owners love salary caps: they ensure cost-control and give the owners cover to argue that it maintains competitive balance. That the salary cap really saves the owners from themselves does not lessen the ancillary benefit (from a fan's perspective) of giving the Lions, Bills, and Rams of the world the real opportunity to improve their teams.

On bolded point two, I think an international draft will be established sooner than you think. Selig has already alluded to the lack of one being a problem that needs to be addressed.

The ancillary benefit of a salary cap consists of public relations and establishing the myth that salary caps benefit fans by ensuring competitive balance. That is easier to do with football than it would be in baseball for numerous reasons.

You may be right about the international draft, though. I see no reason for the players' union to object to such a thing when the lack of such a draft benefits people who don't belong to the union and sometimes takes money away from union members. Players who oppose it can only be listening to their agents to their own detriment.

fox23
12-29-2009, 07:08 PM
On bolded point one, I am well aware of the real reason why owners love salary caps: they ensure cost-control and give the owners cover to argue that it maintains competitive balance. That the salary cap really saves the owners from themselves does not lessen the ancillary benefit (from a fan's perspective) of giving the Lions, Bills, and Rams of the world the real opportunity to improve their teams.


Thank you, that is exactly my point. While it may not be the main goal or even the reason why it was started, a salary cap still gives everyone a chance to compete over an extended period of time. As was alluded to earlier, that is no longer happening in baseball, especially the American League.

If you don't like the NFL analogy, then fine, use the NHL. It proves the same point.

Daver
12-29-2009, 07:29 PM
If you don't like the NFL analogy, then fine, use the NHL. It proves the same point.

What point?

That it is another sports league that the owners broke the players union of to guarantee the owners profit margins?

Can you please provide examples that are a bit more relevant to MLB as it exists right now?

thedudeabides
12-29-2009, 07:57 PM
What point?

That it is another sports league that the owners broke the players union of to guarantee the owners profit margins?

Can you please provide examples that are a bit more relevant to MLB as it exists right now?

The current system in MLB has the owners lining their pockets without spending on the team. That is worse than the current situation in any other sport. What teams like the Marlins and Royals do is despicable. This is another reason baseball needs an overhaul.

Daver
12-29-2009, 08:10 PM
The current system in MLB has the owners lining their pockets without spending on the team. That is worse than the current situation in any other sport. What teams like the Marlins and Royals do is despicable. This is another reason baseball needs an overhaul.

Do you really think the rest of the owners give a rat's ass? Or that they do to the point that they would be willing to change a system that is bringing in record profits?

Ideals and reality are two completely different entities.

TDog
12-29-2009, 10:29 PM
The current system in MLB has the owners lining their pockets without spending on the team. That is worse than the current situation in any other sport. What teams like the Marlins and Royals do is despicable. This is another reason baseball needs an overhaul.

If what the Marlins and Royals act in a despicable way without a salary cap, what makes you think they wouldn't act in a despicable way with a salary cap reining in the Yankees a bit?

Of course, both the Marlins and Royals were in first place in their divisions after 16 games. Maybe what they were doing would work in the NFL.

DSpivack
12-30-2009, 01:21 AM
If what the Marlins and Royals act in a despicable way without a salary cap, what makes you think they wouldn't act in a despicable way with a salary cap reining in the Yankees a bit?

Of course, both the Marlins and Royals were in first place in their divisions after 16 games. Maybe what they were doing would work in the NFL.

The current system in MLB has the owners lining their pockets without spending on the team. That is worse than the current situation in any other sport. What teams like the Marlins and Royals do is despicable. This is another reason baseball needs an overhaul.

The Marlins have had a winning record 5 of the last 7 seasons, including 1 World series victory [the same is true of the White Sox]. Is that really despicable?

thedudeabides
12-30-2009, 11:06 AM
If what the Marlins and Royals act in a despicable way without a salary cap, what makes you think they wouldn't act in a despicable way with a salary cap reining in the Yankees a bit?

Of course, both the Marlins and Royals were in first place in their divisions after 16 games. Maybe what they were doing would work in the NFL.

The Marlins have had a winning record 5 of the last 7 seasons, including 1 World series victory [the same is true of the White Sox]. Is that really despicable?

TDog,

I'm not sure why you are directing the NFL comment at me, as I stated earlier, I agree that the NFL model is not an appropriate comparison for MLB. And to answer your question, I'm not necessarily advocating a hard salary cap, although I think it could work, but something that needs to be done, First and foremost with the current revenue sharing program, is a salary floor.

DSpivack,

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with on field performance of teams like the Rays, Royals, and Marlins. It has everything to do with their spending, specifically of the revenue sharing money they receive.

It seems that a lot of people here are worried about the owners stuffing their pockets with money if there is a cap. I guess many of you don't know that this is already happening. Some of the teams with the smallest payrolls are pulling in the biggest profits. In 2006 the Marlins had a $14.9 million payroll. That year they received $31 million in MLB revenue sharing money, that led to an MLB best $43 million profit in 2006. From 2002-2006 the Rays averaged a $27 million payroll, while receiving $32 million in revenue sharing. They had an average profit of $20 million during that time period. The Royals are starting to put money back into the team and stadium, but for years were pocketing large amounts of money with little put into the team.

There is currently no guidelines or enforcement on how the revenue sharing money is spent.

There are plenty of examples out there why this revenue sharing is a failure and is doing nothing but making owners rich, so why is everyone worried about owners stuffing there pockets if there is a cap, or some sort of change? Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox would probably stand to turn a larger profit, but frankly I don't have a problem with that. They care more about fielding a winner than anything else.

The competitive inbalance in baseball is growing large. As it stands, we will see the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels battle it out in the playoffs for the next decade, with few exceptions. I guess as Sox fans, we're lucky to be in the one division that has a lot of competition left.

raven1
12-30-2009, 02:39 PM
There is currently no guidelines or enforcement on how the revenue sharing money is spent.

There are plenty of examples out there why this revenue sharing is a failure and is doing nothing but making owners rich, so why is everyone worried about owners stuffing there pockets if there is a cap, or some sort of change? Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox would probably stand to turn a larger profit, but frankly I don't have a problem with that. They care more about fielding a winner than anything else.

The competitive inbalance in baseball is growing large. As it stands, we will see the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels battle it out in the playoffs for the next decade, with few exceptions. I guess as Sox fans, we're lucky to be in the one division that has a lot of competition left.

This is why having a strictly enforced salary floor is just as important as a cap. That will make it work & force competitive balance since teams will need to spend a certain amount on player salaries. Having a cap & a floor has worked very well in the NHL.

Daver
12-30-2009, 03:19 PM
There is currently no guidelines or enforcement on how the revenue sharing money is spent.


Yes there is, it is dispersed from MLB funds at the commissioners sole discretion, if he feels that a team is misusing the funds then he can choose to cut the amount that team receives.

doublem23
12-30-2009, 03:41 PM
Having a cap & a floor has worked very well in the NHL.

If you think the NHL is the model sports league, you're out of your mind.

TDog
12-30-2009, 03:58 PM
This is why having a strictly enforced salary floor is just as important as a cap. That will make it work & force competitive balance since teams will need to spend a certain amount on player salaries. Having a cap & a floor has worked very well in the NHL.

What would they have to spend on scouting, international and domestic? What would they have to spend on player development?

Where would you set the minimum salary? People complain at WSI about the White Sox being cheap, or at least that they don't spend enough (even that the ownership should suck it up and take a loss for the good of the city), but would they have to increase salary if a minimum salary were set?

A salary cap with a salary minimum doesn't change the dynamic between the haves and the have-nots, especially if the have-nots have prefer profit over reinvestment under the current financial structure. A salary floor is meaningless unless the floor and the ceiling are practically the same, for example, requiring all teams to have a pay roll of between $140 million and $150 million.

Salary caps are not about fairness and parity, not in intent and not in effect, although they are presented to the public as such and some people buy the company line.

DumpJerry
12-30-2009, 04:23 PM
This is why having a strictly enforced salary floor is just as important as a cap. That will make it work & force competitive balance since teams will need to spend a certain amount on player salaries. Having a cap & a floor has worked very well in the NHL.
A floor makes less sense than a cap. MLB has minimum salaries under the CBA, so there is a floor in place already. The floor is the minimum salary X 25.

How has the system worked out "very well" in the NHL? Teams are forced to trade their best players or let them go to free agency because if they have too many great players they developed, they cannot sign everyone.

voodoochile
12-30-2009, 04:30 PM
A floor makes less sense than a cap. MLB has minimum salaries under the CBA, so there is a floor in place already. The floor is the minimum salary X 25.

How has the system worked out "very well" in the NHL? Teams are forced to trade their best players or let them go to free agency because if they have too many great players they developed, they cannot sign everyone.
The players were the ones who rejected a salary floor last negotiating round because they didn't think the money would go to established players but that low payroll teams would simply sign their prospects to longer term deals and hope things worked out.

I can understand that too. I mean if you were the Royals would you rather sign some mid level FA who won't make a huge difference or take a chance that some of your prospects will go big time and take you over the top in 3 years?

thedudeabides
12-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Yes there is, it is dispersed from MLB funds at the commissioners sole discretion, if he feels that a team is misusing the funds then he can choose to cut the amount that team receives.

But he has never done that. Even with the egregious pocketing of the funds by teams for years. Forgive me If I don't trust Bud Selig to have sole discretion over the dispersement of funds.

The agreement states the money is to be spent "to improve the product on the field." Nothing more in description. How did the Marlins do that in 2006 when the money they received was twice as much as their payroll, and they had a $43 million profit? They didn't, and Bud has continued to give them more money than any other team year after year. Even after Loria cries poor and demands the tax payers build him a new stadium.

I'm sorry, the system is a failure and it is doing nothing but lining the pockets of ownership while depleting the competition. It's a joke.

You keep saying any type of cap will line the pockets of ownership, but the fact is it's already happening, and nothing good is coming out of it except the rich get richer.

thedudeabides
12-30-2009, 04:45 PM
A floor makes less sense than a cap. MLB has minimum salaries under the CBA, so there is a floor in place already. The floor is the minimum salary X 25.

How has the system worked out "very well" in the NHL? Teams are forced to trade their best players or let them go to free agency because if they have too many great players they developed, they cannot sign everyone.

Why should teams get to spend less than they recieve in profit sharing? That's the type of regulation that needs to be instituted.

raven1
12-30-2009, 07:08 PM
A floor makes less sense than a cap. MLB has minimum salaries under the CBA, so there is a floor in place already. The floor is the minimum salary X 25.

How has the system worked out "very well" in the NHL? Teams are forced to trade their best players or let them go to free agency because if they have too many great players they developed, they cannot sign everyone.

Yes, the NHL is the model for parity & competitiveness - almost every year since the cap & floor (which I agree need to be reasonably close to each other to work) were implemented almost every team finishes within a few points of making the playoffs, and there is considerable turnover in who makes the playoffs from year to year. You can't argue with the results - in hockey there are no Pittsburgh Pirates equivalents.

khan
12-30-2009, 07:30 PM
[I know this wasn't directed at me, but your responses have intrigued me so for, so I'll jump in, if that's ok.]

What would they have to spend on scouting, international and domestic? What would they have to spend on player development?
I'm sure there are ways to work these issues out. If other business groups and other leagues have done so, I'm sure that MLB could as well. None of these things are even remotely insurmountable.

Where would you set the minimum salary? People complain at WSI about the White Sox being cheap, or at least that they don't spend enough (even that the ownership should suck it up and take a loss for the good of the city), but would they have to increase salary if a minimum salary were set?
Are you talking about for a team, or for an individual? Minimum salaries for an individual protect the individual members of the union, while minimums for a team assure that teams don't "tank it," just for the purpose of getting free money from the league.

A salary cap with a salary minimum doesn't change the dynamic between the haves and the have-nots,
I disagree. Over the longer term, cost certainty curbs the explosive growth of salaries by causing rich [but stupid] teams to use more than financial might to build their rosters. [Honestly, with a salary cap, morons like Jim Hendry and Brian Cashman would have been unemployed years ago.]

especially if the have-nots have prefer profit over reinvestment under the current financial structure.
I can agree to this. But there are ways to avoid this from happening, via agreements between ownership groups.

A salary floor is meaningless unless the floor and the ceiling are practically the same, for example, requiring all teams to have a pay roll of between $140 million and $150 million.
Why do you believe this to be the case? I actually believe the opposite, but perhaps you can convince us as to why you see it this way.

Salary caps are not about fairness and parity, not in intent and not in effect, although they are presented to the public as such and some people buy the company line.
Why do you believe this?

There are examples in the MLB and in other leagues where a lack of cost certainty have driven teams to bankruptcy, to moving, or to simply providing a ****ty product to their fans.

There are examples in other leagues WITH cost certainty that have enabled teams to survive and thrive.

While it is improper to suggest that a salary cap & floor would CERTAINLY provide parity in MLB, it is improper to suggest that it absolutely wouldn't.

khan
12-30-2009, 07:34 PM
But he has never done that. Even with the egregious pocketing of the funds by teams for years. Forgive me If I don't trust Bud Selig to have sole discretion over the dispersement of funds.

The agreement states the money is to be spent "to improve the product on the field." Nothing more in description. How did the Marlins do that in 2006 when the money they received was twice as much as their payroll, and they had a $43 million profit? They didn't, and Bud has continued to give them more money than any other team year after year. Even after Loria cries poor and demands the tax payers build him a new stadium.

I'm sorry, the system is a failure and it is doing nothing but lining the pockets of ownership while depleting the competition. It's a joke.

You keep saying any type of cap will line the pockets of ownership, but the fact is it's already happening, and nothing good is coming out of it except the rich get richer.
Well said. In some ways, the current system in MLB rewards the owners of small market teams, while punishing their fandoms.

For example, ****tsburgh fans have to deal with decades of ****ty teams, while their owner pockets Steinbrenner's cash.

Daver
12-30-2009, 08:02 PM
There are examples in the MLB and in other leagues where a lack of cost certainty have driven teams to bankruptcy, to moving, or to simply providing a ****ty product to their fans.


Please name one team associated with MLB that has filed for bankruptcy in the last twenty five years.

khan
12-30-2009, 08:14 PM
Please name one team associated with MLB that has filed for bankruptcy in the last twenty five years.

Fair point on your part. But I can name teams that moved and/or provided a ****ty product to their customers.

Now, please name one team in MLB that was in the bottom 5 in team salaries that won the World Series in the past 50 years.

Daver
12-30-2009, 08:29 PM
Now, please name one team in MLB that was in the bottom 5 in team salaries that won the World Series in the past 50 years.

What difference does it make?

Even with a cap the low payroll teams with profit first owners are still going to be low payroll teams with profit first owners, the only difference will be stabilizing the profit margins.

When the NFL broke the players union and instituted a salary cap they created the perception of doing it to create parity, and people bought it hook line and sinker. What they actually created was mediocrity.

khan
12-30-2009, 08:41 PM
What difference does it make?
It makes a difference in terms of the nature of the competition. As currently comprised, the overarching majority of the difference between the Yankees and ****tsburgh has already been decided before even one pitch is thrown in anger in a given season.

Removing [some of] those differences places more of the onus back on the field, not on the owners' business models. [Spend a ton/make a ton in the Bronx vs. spend nothing, make a ton in small markets.]

In turn, if a small market team's free money comes to an end by instituting caps/floors, they will either change their models to produce better-quality teams capable of making more money and winning more. OR, they will continue to suck and make much less money.

Even with a cap the low payroll teams with profit first owners are still going to be low payroll teams with profit first owners, the only difference will be stabilizing the profit margins.
Actually, I'd tend to believe that there will be more effects than this.

When the NFL broke the players union and instituted a salary cap they created the perception of doing it to create parity, and people bought it hook line and sinker. What they actually created was mediocrity.
I don't know, they seem to be doing just fine. Maybe with the crappy team locally, you seem to view the NFL as mediocre.

Daver
12-30-2009, 08:47 PM
It makes a difference in terms of the nature of the competition. As currently comprised, the overarching majority of the difference between the Yankees and ****tsburgh has already been decided before even one pitch is thrown in anger in a given season.

Removing [some of] those differences places more of the onus back on the field, not on the owners' business models. [Spend a ton/make a ton in the Bronx vs. spend nothing, make a ton in small markets.]

In turn, if a small market team's free money comes to an end by instituting caps/floors, they will either change their models to produce better-quality teams capable of making more money and winning more. OR, they will continue to suck and make much less money.


Actually, I'd tend to believe that there will be more effects than this.


I don't know, they seem to be doing just fine. Maybe with the crappy team locally, you seem to view the NFL as mediocre.


Why would a league that is enjoying record revenues right now want to change the way they are running their business?

And I'm not a Bears fan, and the NFL is mediocre compared to the sixties and seventies when teams were able to have rosters deep enough to cover for injuries, unlike now when a team loses a key player and their season goes right down the toilet.

khan
12-30-2009, 09:00 PM
Why would a league that is enjoying record revenues right now want to change the way they are running their business?
Record revenues does not necessarily mean record profitability. Revenues are only one part of a balance sheet. But there are other reasons to change the way a group is running a business, beyond one part of a balance sheet. Controlling expenses is one reason, but not the ONLY reason.

And I'm not a Bears fan, and the NFL is mediocre compared to the sixties and seventies when teams were able to have rosters deep enough to cover for injuries, unlike now when a team loses a key player and their season goes right down the toilet.

But this has nothing to do with the salary cap, and everything to do with over-expansion, relative to those years. [As an aside, I think the '60s and '70s sucked ass for the NFL, but that's just one man's opinion, inasmuch as your opinion that the 60s and 70s were great.]

TDog
12-30-2009, 11:25 PM
...
While it is improper to suggest that a salary cap & floor would CERTAINLY provide parity in MLB, it is improper to suggest that it absolutely wouldn't.

Baseball is where it is with haves and have-nots because of the dynamics that would not be changed at all by the implementation of a salary cap.

DSpivack
12-31-2009, 01:45 AM
Baseball is where it is with haves and have-nots because of the dynamics that would not be changed at all by the implementation of a salary cap.

Yep, it's simply facts of the sport. One model working for one sport doesn't mean it'll work for another.

That said, the competitive balance in the MLB really isn't bad at all. 8 different franchises won titles this decade. Sounds like good balance.

Beats, say, soccer's English Premier League [which many view as the best soccer league on the planet, and is probably the most viewed sports league on earth] where only 4 teams have ever won titles [league started in the early 90's.

cws05champ
12-31-2009, 10:32 AM
Yep, it's simply facts of the sport. One model working for one sport doesn't mean it'll work for another.

That said, the competitive balance in the MLB really isn't bad at all. 8 different franchises won titles this decade. Sounds like good balance.

Beats, say, soccer's English Premier League [which many view as the best soccer league on the planet, and is probably the most viewed sports league on earth] where only 4 teams have ever won titles [league started in the early 90's.

As stated before, it's not just about teams winning the title that determines whether you have competitive balance. It's opportunity to play on an even playing field. The Yankees, Red Sox have made the playoffs almost every year this decade...this gives them an eminently higher chance of winning the title than a team that makes it to the playoffs once or twice a decade, if they make it at all.

IMO a salary cap/floor will not work in baseball because there are so many other factors that would still allow the higher revenue teams a big advantage. I don't buy into Daver's argument that a team's network could employ a player at a exorbitant amount to make up the difference in a contract. I think that could be worked into the legal language and I think the other owners would quickly diffuse that. If they other owners would not benefit from that move financially then they would have no reason to let a team/network do that to throw off competitive balance.

To my earlier point, a salary cap/floor would not work. If there was a cap then the Yankees/Red Sox would just pump a huge amount of money and resources into signing all the Int'l talent and scouting development. There would have to be an Int'l draft, and a hard slotting system for the draft...in concession to the PA, the whole arbitration system would probably have to be changed to allow free agency earlier from an initial contract(maybe 4 yrs instead of 6).

I think the only thing you can do is have a more severe Luxury tax. If you made it a dollar for dollar penalty over a certain amount (say $120M) then the luxury tax would be very expensive for teams to go over(instead of the Yanks getting a $25M bill, they would have received an $80M+ bill).

Also, there wouldn't be a salary floor, but baseball could say to the lower payroll teams, if you are not at a certain amount (say $50M) you will not get any revenue sharing from the luxury tax central fund. It's not a perfect system but I think better than what we have right now.

Daver
12-31-2009, 10:43 AM
As stated before, it's not just about teams winning the title that determines whether you have competitive balance. It's opportunity to play on an even playing field. The Yankees, Red Sox have made the playoffs almost every year this decade...this gives them an eminently higher chance of winning the title than a team that makes it to the playoffs once or twice a decade, if they make it at all.

IMO a salary cap/floor will not work in baseball because there are so many other factors that would still allow the higher revenue teams a big advantage. I don't buy into Daver's argument that a team's network could employ a player at a exorbitant amount to make up the difference in a contract. I think that could be worked into the legal language and I think the other owners would quickly diffuse that. If they other owners would not benefit from that move financially then they would have no reason to let a team/network do that to throw off competitive balance.

To my earlier point, a salary cap/floor would not work. If there was a cap then the Yankees/Red Sox would just pump a huge amount of money and resources into signing all the Int'l talent and scouting development. There would have to be an Int'l draft, and a hard slotting system for the draft...in concession to the PA, the whole arbitration system would probably have to be changed to allow free agency earlier from an initial contract(maybe 4 yrs instead of 6).

I think the only thing you can do is have a more severe Luxury tax. If you made it a dollar for dollar penalty over a certain amount (say $120M) then the luxury tax would be very expensive for teams to go over(instead of the Yanks getting a $25M bill, they would have received an $80M+ bill).

Also, there wouldn't be a salary floor, but baseball could say to the lower payroll teams, if you are not at a certain amount (say $50M) you will not get any revenue sharing from the luxury tax central fund. It's not a perfect system but I think better than what we have right now.


The luxury tax is not shared revenue, shared revenue is money paid to MLB for national TV contracts and merchandising rights.

thedudeabides
12-31-2009, 11:33 AM
As stated before, it's not just about teams winning the title that determines whether you have competitive balance. It's opportunity to play on an even playing field. The Yankees, Red Sox have made the playoffs almost every year this decade...this gives them an eminently higher chance of winning the title than a team that makes it to the playoffs once or twice a decade, if they make it at all.

IMO a salary cap/floor will not work in baseball because there are so many other factors that would still allow the higher revenue teams a big advantage. I don't buy into Daver's argument that a team's network could employ a player at a exorbitant amount to make up the difference in a contract. I think that could be worked into the legal language and I think the other owners would quickly diffuse that. If they other owners would not benefit from that move financially then they would have no reason to let a team/network do that to throw off competitive balance.

To my earlier point, a salary cap/floor would not work. If there was a cap then the Yankees/Red Sox would just pump a huge amount of money and resources into signing all the Int'l talent and scouting development. There would have to be an Int'l draft, and a hard slotting system for the draft...in concession to the PA, the whole arbitration system would probably have to be changed to allow free agency earlier from an initial contract(maybe 4 yrs instead of 6).

I think the only thing you can do is have a more severe Luxury tax. If you made it a dollar for dollar penalty over a certain amount (say $120M) then the luxury tax would be very expensive for teams to go over(instead of the Yanks getting a $25M bill, they would have received an $80M+ bill).

Also, there wouldn't be a salary floor, but baseball could say to the lower payroll teams, if you are not at a certain amount (say $50M) you will not get any revenue sharing from the luxury tax central fund. It's not a perfect system but I think better than what we have right now.

These are all excellent ideas, and I think are much more realistic options than a hard cap.

The international draft and slotting systems are the first steps that need to happen, and they have been discussed. I think it's something we could see happen over the next few years.

As far as revenue sharing distribution goes, there needs to be a committee that oversees distribution and spending. Bud Selig having sole discretion has really been a failure, and is just an abuse of power. With him at the helm, there has been no oversite, and there are no consequences. Teams like the Marlins and Pirates cry that they can't afford to keep their own players, and trade them off once they become arbitration eligable, then turn around and pocket millions from revenue sharing. It does need to be addressed.

Raising the dollar amount on the luxury tax is also a good idea, as long as there is regulation over the spending. Although, there should be breaks given in order to retain your own players. Similar to what the NBA does. As a whole, there should be more advantages in being able to retain home grown players. But, that would require a major overhaul in the arbitration process, which I would like but is probably not going to happen.

voodoochile
12-31-2009, 11:48 AM
The players would never agree to a dollar for dollar luxury tax especially not on a low limit like $120M. It's the same thing as a salary cap at that point in time and they have fought tooth and nail against anything that restrains player salaries.

khan
12-31-2009, 11:58 AM
Baseball is where it is with haves and have-nots because of the dynamics that would not be changed at all by the implementation of a salary cap.

Could you elaborate? I tend to disagree, but perhaps you could convince us otherwise.

khan
12-31-2009, 12:04 PM
Yep, it's simply facts of the sport. One model working for one sport doesn't mean it'll work for another.

That said, the competitive balance in the MLB really isn't bad at all. 8 different franchises won titles this decade. Sounds like good balance.
How many teams have made it to the playoffs?

Beats, say, soccer's English Premier League [which many view as the best soccer league on the planet, and is probably the most viewed sports league on earth] where only 4 teams have ever won titles [league started in the early 90's.
Two things:

1. The English FA NEVER should have let the big clubs break away and form the EPL in the first place, for a NUMBER of reasons.
2. The best soccer league on the planet has been La Liga for a few years, and the best soccer in the most recent years is played in Spain. [EDIT] Note how Barcelona punished, pummelled and utterly humiliated Man U in the Champions' League last season, and how Barcelona went on to win the first-ever Sextuple. Also note where the Spanish National Team is, compared to that of England's.

I do agree that the EPL is the most-watched league, however.

doublem23
12-31-2009, 01:06 PM
I don't know, they seem to be doing just fine. Maybe with the crappy team locally, you seem to view the NFL as mediocre.

The NFL is mediocre compared to what it once was. Look at the powerhouses from the '80s and '90s... Do you really think any of the better teams from this decade would even stand a chance against the Bears, Giants, or 49ers from the 80s or Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s? Absolutely not.

The NFL has just convinced all its fans that somehow having 20 teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 is "good football." Its laughable.

MISoxfan
12-31-2009, 01:21 PM
The NFL is mediocre compared to what it once was. Look at the powerhouses from the '80s and '90s... Do you really think any of the better teams from this decade would even stand a chance against the Bears, Giants, or 49ers from the 80s or Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s? Absolutely not.

The NFL has just convinced all its fans that somehow having 20 teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 is "good football." Its laughable.

More like 12-13 teams, but having a third of the teams finishing around .500 seems pretty reasonable.

thedudeabides
12-31-2009, 01:51 PM
The NFL is mediocre compared to what it once was. Look at the powerhouses from the '80s and '90s... Do you really think any of the better teams from this decade would even stand a chance against the Bears, Giants, or 49ers from the 80s or Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s? Absolutely not.

The NFL has just convinced all its fans that somehow having 20 teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 is "good football." Its laughable.

I don't see anyone pining for an NFL model. As stated by pretty much everyone here, it wouldn't work for baseball.

Honestly, that's just your opinion. Baseball is my favorite sport, but the NFL is easily the most watchable. There is nothing more exciting to me, than getting the NFL ticket and watching every game on Sundays. Just because I don't think the 2008 Steelers could have beaten the 1989 49ers, doesn't make me enjoy the NFL any less. And I think there are a couple of teams from this decade that could hang with those teams, but I would rather discuss that in another thread than hijack this one, because it is nothing but opinion.

TDog
12-31-2009, 02:05 PM
Could you elaborate? I tend to disagree, but perhaps you could convince us otherwise.

Baseball is very different than football because the baseball regular season is played just about every day for six months. The football regular season is played once a week, with all of its television revenue being national. That alone makes comparisons between the the two sports ridiculous.

Small market baseball teams indeed have less money to spend because local broadcast revenue will be less, but it isn't just a matter of small-market teams not spending the money they have to sign free agents. Each team works with a different business model. Connie Mack, who built two great A's teams in Philadelphia and sold them off for profit in pre-broadcast-revenue days, said he found his best business model was to field a team that would finish fourth or fifth (in an eight-team league) because that would hold down his payroll. There are owners today who profit from unsuccessful teams. Increased revenues they would see from success would not make up for the additional money they would have to spend to make those teams successful. After the A's moved to Kansas City, the team remained profitable by acting as a pseudo-farm team for the Yankees.

In baseball, it isn't just a matter of signing free agents. Few teams have been able to go out and "buy" a championship. Often emerging talent is of bigger help to a team than established talent being paid for what they have done in the past and teams that sign free agents often need that emerging talent to step up. Success in baseball, more than other sports, involves spending money on scouting and player development. But free agents are free to sign where they wish. A salary cap would not funnel free agents to places they don't want to play. A salary cap would not guarantee that the Kansas Cities and Pittsburghs of major league baseball would offer free agents money that would entice them to go to such places, especially if signing them would be contrary to a successful business model.

For a salary floor to change this, the floor would have to be very close to the ceiling. Even requiring that all teams work with the same payroll doesn't create a level playing field because teams are fielded with people who stepped up to the majors out of college, but were developed by the sport in its minor league system. With a salary floor, teams would pay their prospects more if the alternative was to go out and sign low-level and mid-level free agents.

In that decade-window where players were bound for life to a team that drafted them as amateurs, at the team's discretion, some powerhouse teams were the Oakland A's, the Reds, Pirates and Twins. You still had have-nots. The White Sox were have-nots in that decade, except for 1967 and 1972, Although they were successful before that era, when players were free to sign wherever they wanted out of high school or college, and players often signed for less to play for the Yankees. Bobby Murcer said he would make up the difference in World Series money.

Setting a salary cap (which the players won't let happen unless ownership shuts down major league baseball for a couple of seasons) won't turn the Royals or Pirates into contenders.

The only way to create a level playing field (which is a myth in other sports, anyway), is for all players to be paid by the league and teams to choose up sides in February to determine where players are going to go. Of course, the team finishing last the previous year would get to pick first.

But no one wants that.

khan
01-01-2010, 06:37 PM
The NFL is mediocre compared to what it once was. Look at the powerhouses from the '80s and '90s... Do you really think any of the better teams from this decade would even stand a chance against the Bears, Giants, or 49ers from the 80s or Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s? Absolutely not.
It's incredibly impossible to compare eras. However, I do think that the much more sophisticated offenses of today would do much better than the relatively simpler offenses of the '80s. [Try watching the BEARS or giants of the '80s: A WHOLE LOT of runs between the tackles...]

The NFL has just convinced all its fans that somehow having 20 teams 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 is "good football." Its laughable.
Actually, in looking at the standings, there are but 13 teams that are in line for 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7 records:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/standings

What's laughable is taking a "rumor" of mediocrity as fact. Were the '80s BEARS or Giants or 49ers really more dominant than this decade's Colts, Patriots, or Steelers? We tend to look back at the "good old days" as being better than they really were. [Especially geezing geezers over ~50 or so; Since I'm approaching 40, I fear developing this very same tendency in the future...] The reality is that there are ALWAYS great teams in any era, inasmuch as there are always ****ty teams, and middling teams.

What's true in ANY league [irrespective of whether or not there is a salary cap] is that great management yields great teams.

In MLB, moronic, mouth breathing management [see Cashman, B and Hendry, J as examples], but with greater financial might can lead to 1st place finishes.

khan
01-01-2010, 07:03 PM
Increased revenues they would see from success would not make up for the additional money they would have to spend to make those teams successful.
On a case-by-case basis, perhaps. I'm not sure we can make this statement as a generality, however. [i.e. Why do the twins seem to continue to "try" to make a decent product, while ****tsburgh hasn't bothered to do so since the Reagan Administration?]

In baseball, it isn't just a matter of signing free agents.
Sure. It's also about being able to keep players as well.

Few teams have been able to go out and "buy" a championship.
But those few seem to be able to "buy" divisions. In turn, they shorten a 6 month marathon of a season into a 2 to 4 week playoff sprint. The unpredictabilities of a few series in the playoffs have given arise to the myth of competitive balance in MLB.

Often emerging talent is of bigger help to a team than established talent being paid for what they have done in the past and teams that sign free agents often need that emerging talent to step up. Success in baseball, more than other sports, involves spending money on scouting and player development.
Were this the case, then why don't Minnesota have multiple championships over the past decade?

But free agents are free to sign where they wish. A salary cap would not funnel free agents to places they don't want to play.
A team's location has far less to do with it than the quality of a player's team mates and the amount of money they have to pay. Since more money tends to bring in [and equally importantly, RETAIN] better players, the top free agents do gravitate towards the richer teams. Do you disagree?

A salary cap would not guarantee that the Kansas Cities and Pittsburghs of major league baseball would offer free agents money that would entice them to go to such places, especially if signing them would be contrary to a successful business model.
But [assuming they had even competent management and a middling desire or impetus to have a reasonable product], they'd be better-positioned to RETAIN their top talent. This is probably more important than a team's location.

For a salary floor to change this, the floor would have to be very close to the ceiling.
Why? As an aside, do you think that ****tsburgh and florida are even trying any more? Or are they simply leeching off Steinbrenner?

Even requiring that all teams work with the same payroll doesn't create a level playing field because teams are fielded with people who stepped up to the majors out of college, but were developed by the sport in its minor league system.
Sure. And this is why good front office management, in ANY league is a strong advantage to a team.

With a salary floor, teams would pay their prospects more if the alternative was to go out and sign low-level and mid-level free agents.
Or maybe they wouldn't give away Aramis Ramirez for free.

Setting a salary cap (which the players won't let happen unless ownership shuts down major league baseball for a couple of seasons) won't turn the Royals or Pirates into contenders.
Why? If Aramis Ramirez [or Steroid Bonds] stayed in ****tsburgh, you don't think they might have won more recently? A cap also helps retention. It repays teams that do a good job in developing players. Retaining [SOME] good-to-great players makes a location more desireable to other players and potential free agents.

The only way to create a level playing field (which is a myth in other sports, anyway),
Why is this a myth? The "myth" [as we've seen above] is that the NFL is a mediocre league.

TDog
01-01-2010, 08:43 PM
...

Why is this a myth? The "myth" [as we've seen above] is that the NFL is a mediocre league.

Certainly you can't be working under the premise that that the NFL labor structure inspires greatness to flourish. "Parity" by definition is mediocrity. If there is parity, as the NFL insists, you only have great teams relative to a mediocre league.

If you believe the NFL labor structure gives every team a chance to be great going into every season, you are mistaken. Football can get away with putting out an inferior product because fans will watch it anyway. If all the teams are inferior, they can still provide entertaining contents if they are more evenly matched. The season is only 16 games long, so the difference between making the postseason (watered down with multiple wild card teams from each conference) is only going to be no more than a couple of games for most teams anyway.

But football is really irrelevant to the discussion of a baseball salary cap, both in reality and in hypothetical implementation. First of all, major league baseball has been unable to break the players' union to get one in place to increase the profits of management. Secondly, the fundamentals of the sports, as I attempted to show, are entirely different. A salary cap wouldn't have inspired the Pirates to hang on to Bonds or Ramirez any more than Connie Mack held on to his star players after winning championships to increase his team's profits. If teams aren't even trying to win now, (and the Marlins have won twice as many World Series as the Cubs, Indians, Mets, Giants and White Sox combined during their history), a salary cap isn't going to make them try.

I resent football fans insisting that baseball is getting it wrong. It's too bad labor problems will never shut down the NFL.

khan
01-02-2010, 12:30 PM
"Parity" by definition is mediocrity.
Why do you state this?
[No offense, but you have a tendency to make grandiose statements, without supporting them.]

If you believe the NFL labor structure gives every team a chance to be great going into every season, you are mistaken.
Why? Compare the relative potential for championships of the Milwaukee Brewers to that of the Green Bay Packers. The former haven't been relevant to winning it all since the Reagan Administration, while the latter have been in the final 4 as recently as 2007.

This example DEFINES every team having a chance. And there are others. What examples or supporting statements can YOU make to clarify your belief that one would be mistaken about the NFL's labor contract giving fewer chances for teams than that of MLB's? [This is another unsupported statement on your part, BTW.]

Football can get away with putting out an inferior product because fans will watch it anyway.
This is true with all sports, BTW. It isn't limited to football. [And BTW, why do you keep going back to football? I didn't bring it up in the first place.]

But football is really irrelevant to the discussion of a baseball salary cap, both in reality and in hypothetical implementation.
OK. But if you go back to my posts [starting with #97 in this thread], I didn't make the comparison. I asked you to clarify some of your statements, but you haven't done so.

First of all, major league baseball has been unable to break the players' union to get one in place to increase the profits of management.
Good. They should. The greedy UAW conspired to speed the Big Three automakers to bankruptcy, while the MLBPA has resisted steroids testing, and a sensible labor contract. MLB SHOULD lock them out for a few seasons.

Exactly what is wrong with a business remaining healthy and profitable? [Ask the clowns over at the UAW that question, BTW.]

A salary cap wouldn't have inspired the Pirates to hang on to Bonds or Ramirez
Why do you believe this? A salary floor would have provided them with the impetus to hold onto their top players, while a salary cap would have better-positioned ****tsburgh to keep them. This phenomenon has occurred in every other sport with a cap and floor.

Why do you believe that this phenomenon would magically NOT occur in MLB, were they to install a cap and floor?

any more than Connie Mack held on to his star players after winning championships to increase his team's profits.
Everything that happened before the Curt Flood case is irrelevant to what is happening today.

If teams aren't even trying to win now, a salary cap isn't going to make them try.
But a floor would. And a cap might keep the Yankees from assembling a $100M starting rotation, and artificially gaining an advantage. These two things together seem to have worked elsewhere in sport.

I resent football fans insisting that baseball is getting it wrong. It's too bad labor problems will never shut down the NFL.
OK. But make some attempt to clarify and support your statements. You haven't done so in many cases hereto fore.

I might actually agree with you if you support your statements. Other posters might agree with you as well, who knows?

TDog
01-02-2010, 04:11 PM
...

OK. But make some attempt to clarify and support your statements. You haven't done so in many cases hereto fore.

I might actually agree with you if you support your statements. Other posters might agree with you as well, who knows?

I've written a lot here in support of my statements. I've been accused of writing "essays." People who agree with me have done so as well. If you don't want to accept the argument that a system that distributes the available talent across the league lessens the quality of the top teams while increasing the quality of the bottom teams -- creating parity --actually diminishes the quality of the top teams, that is your prerogative. Perhaps you believe that being paid less without promise of being paid substantially more inspires players to play better. If you take good players from the best teams and redistribute them around the league, which seems to be the goal of someone who believes the myth of a salary cap improving the quality of a sport, the best teams would need some sort of such outside effect not to be better.

I've followed baseball for awhile. I have actually talked with Curt Flood (who has since died) about baseball and economics of the sport. Free agency isn't just about players being paid more money. It is about players playing where they want to play. A salary cap isn't going to tell them where they can play. If you want parity in baseball, you won't get it through free agency, even if you have a salary cap. (The best way to establish a level playing field in baseball would be the system in place the decade before free agency, as evidenced by the powerhouse small-market teams of the day.) The mindset of many owners has not changed since the time of Connie Mack. Only the income and expenditures have changed. The composition of most baseball teams today would be unaffected by a salary cap. A salary cap would do nothing to address money spent on scouting and player development.

Baseball is different from football not just because broadcast revenues vary wildly from team to team, but because baseball develops its own talent and plays nearly every day for six months. Also, two lousy football teams squaring off in a game can be much more entertaining for football fans than two lousy baseball teams squaring off is for baseball fans.

It doesn't bother me in the least that football has been "dumbed down." The fans who are happy with it who believe the same glorious future awaits baseball under such as system are mistaken.

whitesoxfan1986
01-02-2010, 04:15 PM
Has anyone thought of how next year(2011) might be a year without two major sports? Both the NFL and MLB CBAs expire next year. I think that the NFL and MLB might be headed for a prolonged lockout. It seems as the new union head of the NFL feels that the NFL players union has been pushed around for too long and wants the NFL labor structure to be similar to what baseball has now, and will lock the league out if he doesn't get close. OTOH, I think that the owners of MLB will try to break the players union a bit. We could be without the two most popular sports in the US next year. What a disaster that would be.

Nellie_Fox
01-03-2010, 03:11 AM
I think that the NFL and MLB might be headed for a prolonged lockout. It seems as the new union head of the NFL feels that the NFL players union has been pushed around for too long and wants the NFL labor structure to be similar to what baseball has now, and will lock the league out if he doesn't get close.Unions don't "lock out," they strike. Management locks out. Huge difference.

whitesoxfan1986
01-03-2010, 08:24 PM
Unions don't "lock out," they strike. Management locks out. Huge difference.
Oh, I thought either side could force a lockout by failing to negotiate with the other on a new CBA.

Daver
01-03-2010, 09:19 PM
Oh, I thought either side could force a lockout by failing to negotiate with the other on a new CBA.

No.

And I highly doubt the will be a work stoppage in MLB, the concessions made by the MLBPA during this contract are unprecedented, and I doubt MLB will try and push any agenda that allows the MLBPA to use that to their advantage in the court of public opinion, because at the end of the day, perception is reality. This thread really does of good job of proving that cliche to be extremely accurate.

whitesoxfan1986
01-03-2010, 10:02 PM
No.

And I highly doubt the will be a work stoppage in MLB, the concessions made by the MLBPA during this contract are unprecedented, and I doubt MLB will try and push any agenda that allows the MLBPA to use that to their advantage in the court of public opinion, because at the end of the day, perception is reality. This thread really does of good job of proving that cliche to be extremely accurate.
What concessions are you referring to? If you're referring to drug testing, if the MLBPA tried to use that as "we made concessions" in negotiations I find it hard to believe that the court of public opinion would side with the MLBPA on that, in fact I'd argue that it would sway public opinion toward the owners and the league, rather than the players' union.

Daver
01-03-2010, 11:01 PM
What concessions are you referring to? If you're referring to drug testing, if the MLBPA tried to use that as "we made concessions" in negotiations I find it hard to believe that the court of public opinion would side with the MLBPA on that, in fact I'd argue that it would sway public opinion toward the owners and the league, rather than the players' union.

The fact that the MLBPA agreed to changes in the current CBA regarding drug testing creates a milestone, it has never been done before, in every other case no action was taken and it was carried over to the next negotiation, the MLBPA did this in an effort to aid MLB.

voodoochile
01-03-2010, 11:34 PM
Oh, I thought either side could force a lockout by failing to negotiate with the other on a new CBA.

It's called a strike when that happens. The term lockout refers to the players (union workers) being locked out of the ballparks (buildings) where they do the work to earn their money. Only the owner of the building can lock someone out of it.

It's semantics, the end result is the same. If either side decides they cannot get what they want without a work stoppage then they will have one. Depending on which side creates the stoppage will determine what that stoppage is referred to as.

WhiteSox5187
01-04-2010, 04:14 AM
The fact that the MLBPA agreed to changes in the current CBA regarding drug testing creates a milestone, it has never been done before, in every other case no action was taken and it was carried over to the next negotiation, the MLBPA did this in an effort to aid MLB.

Well, that and Congress was breathing down their necks with grumbles of threatening to remove the anti-trust exemption. The MLBPA was more or less forced into accepting testing.

TDog
01-04-2010, 01:35 PM
Well, that and Congress was breathing down their necks with grumbles of threatening to remove the anti-trust exemption. The MLBPA was more or less forced into accepting testing.

The players' union was more or less forced into accepting testing because Congress was grumbling about the possibility removing the owners' antitrust exemption?

Accepting testing was a union concession, one that most labor unions wouldn't have made. But, electrical workers or longshoremen, for example, don't have to be as concerned about how their demands appear in headlines.

Daver
01-04-2010, 03:47 PM
Well, that and Congress was breathing down their necks with grumbles of threatening to remove the anti-trust exemption. The MLBPA was more or less forced into accepting testing.

The MLBPA would benefit from the removal of the anti trust exemption, so I guess I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

khan
01-05-2010, 04:18 PM
I've been accused of writing "essays." People who agree with me have done so as well.
Sure. But little to support some of your statements.

If you don't want to accept the argument that a system that distributes the available talent across the league lessens the quality of the top teams while increasing the quality of the bottom teams -- creating parity --actually diminishes the quality of the top teams, that is your prerogative.
And if you don't want to accept the argument that a system that forces the Clevelands of the world to give away Sabathia and Lee lessens their quality, that is your prerogative as well. If you don't want to accept that this system wherein a team can artificially improve themselves, with little effort, that's up to you. Multiplied over the course of a few seasons with the majority of the small market teams, and the overall MLB product suffers under the status quo.

If you take good players from the best teams and redistribute them around the league, which seems to be the goal of someone who believes the myth of a salary cap improving the quality of a sport, the best teams would need some sort of such outside effect not to be better.
If you take great players from the small market teams, and redistribute them to the Yankees and the Red Sawx and the Mets of the world, which seems to be the mistaken goal of the status quo, the small market teams are therein given added incentive NOT to compete. [As is often the case in MLB.]

Free agency isn't just about players being paid more money. It is about players playing where they want to play. A salary cap isn't going to tell them where they can play.
Sure. Torii Hunter "wanted" to play in Chicago, right? So why isn't he patrolling CF now? Is there some other "mystical" draw to the LAAAAAAAA?

Oh yeah: It had exactly jack and **** to do with "where Hunter wanted to play," and EVERYTHING to do with dollars and cents. I'm guessing that these "dollars and cents" have impacted a few other players' destinations in FA. [Do I need teal for that sentence?]

If you want parity in baseball, you won't get it through free agency, even if you have a salary cap.
I don't know, it seems to have happened in other sports.

Again: Why do you believe that parity would "magically" NOT occur in MLB, were they to adopt a cap and floor?

The composition of most baseball teams today would be unaffected by a salary cap.
I don't know, maybe if there was, say a $175M cap, the Yankees wouldn't be able to assemble a $100M starting rotation. In turn, one or more of their expensive players would be playing elsewhere. Therefore, some other team might benefit. At the same time, the Yankees would have to have some home-grown quality players in their system, so they might actually benefit as well from a salary cap.

But despite the reality of finite nature of resources under a cap/floor system: Why do you believe that the laws of arithmetic would NOT cause a significant change in the composition of baseball teams?

A salary cap would do nothing to address money spent on scouting and player development.
Sure. Maybe quality prospects that are "blocked" in some minor league system would more readily get an opportunity in a salary cap/floor system. Maybe these players are being held back by the status quo.

Maybe the Yankees would still be dominant, in that they'd have to actually put forward some effort in scouting and player development. But they still wouldn't be able to sign every high-priced FA every year they want, and improve through artificial means.

Maybe mopes like Sabean and Hendry would be [rightfully] punished for their stupid FA pickups of geezers and has-beens. Maybe there would be an overall improvement in the management of MLB teams, as they would have to adapt or suffer the ridicule of having a ****ty product. And maybe players' salaries wouldn't be artificially inflated as a result.

In sum, there are so many variables that would be likely to occur under a cap/floor system, that it seems silly for you to suggest that "the composition of most teams would be unaffected."

It doesn't bother me in the least that football has been "dumbed down."
Actually, the complexity of offensive and defensive systems TODAY is far greater than ever before. If anything, the "good old" 60s and 70s and 80s were "dumbed down," when compared to the game today. Watch video of the "good old days," and then compare them to games today. The reality is that there is much more thought being put into the NFL game, with the notable exception of our local franchise.

The fans who are happy with it who believe the same glorious future awaits baseball under such as system are mistaken.
I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. Football is better than ever, for a number of reasons BEYOND just the salary cap/floor. At the same time, many observers point to a concomitant declination in the quality of play in MLB.