PDA

View Full Version : Salary cap in Baseball, is it needed?


ZombieRob
12-13-2010, 11:04 PM
I'm not savvy on what happened during the labor agreement. But isn't it time to start implementing a cap? This spending is a joke. Sure, stars should get paid and paid well, but has it gone to far?

There are teams in baseball that should fold. Florida being the main ones. What happened to the Royals and Pirates? Those teams were once powerhouses. maybe someone familiar with the collective bargaining agreement can explain if what we are seeing now is good or bad. I thought I'd never see the day contracts got this crazy.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2010, 11:51 PM
Zombie:

It's a moot question. The MLBPA will never, repeat never agree to anything that has those words involved particularly as long as Marvin Miller is alive.

Perhaps a better way to look at the question is this.

Is it time to get rid of revenue sharing, particularly to those clubs who take the money and do little to nothing to improve the on field product?

In other words, get rid of deadbeat owners who throw up their hands and say, "we can't compete" while raking in millions upon millions of dollars. Prime examples were the backlash that resulted this past summer when figures were released for the Pirates showing a monster profit margin as well as the Marlins.

Lip

doublem23
12-14-2010, 12:21 AM
Zombie:

It's a moot question. The MLBPA will never, repeat never agree to anything that has those words involved particularly as long as Marvin Miller is alive.

Perhaps a better way to look at the question is this.

Is it time to get rid of revenue sharing, particularly to those clubs who take the money and do little to nothing to improve the on field product?

In other words, get rid of deadbeat owners who throw up their hands and say, "we can't compete" while raking in millions upon millions of dollars. Prime examples were the backlash that resulted this past summer when figures were released for the Pirates showing a monster profit margin as well as the Marlins.

Lip

That's an awfully simplistic way of looking at things. The Pirates gigantic profits were in the $20-25 M per year range, right? The Pirates started the 2010 season with a $34 M payroll, lowest in the league, so if they took every dime they pocketed and boosted payroll to $59 M, they'd be... 25th in the league. WOWZERS.

This is still a business, too, anyone whose taken Econ 100 at a community college could tell you that whatever on-field gains the Pirates might make from investing all their profits into their 57-win team are probably DWARFED by the benefits of just sitting on that cash cow.

The Rays have basically proven the only chance these tiny market teams have of competing is being GOD AWFUL for 5-6 years and praying your ass off you strike it rich in the Draft. Pittsburgh, BTW, has been spending money in the Draft the last few years, so we'll see where that goes.

But don't make it sound like the Pirates aren't spending $150 M on players because their owner wants to add a new story to his mansion in Beverly Hills, they don't spend any money because they don't have any.

WhiteSox5187
12-14-2010, 01:17 AM
A salary cap is never going to happen and all it really does is maximize owners' profits. I think what is needed however is a salary floor, which the MLBPA rejected in 2006.

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 07:05 AM
A salary cap accomplishes only one thing: it lines the pockets of the owners with more pictures of George Washington.

Salary caps is the most detrimental notion ever introduced in professional sports.

g0g0
12-14-2010, 08:02 AM
I support salary caps but also support ticket/food/parking caps too. If you limit the players you should limit the costs to consumers.

asindc
12-14-2010, 08:32 AM
I think the NBA does it right. A soft cap that allows a team to go over the limit to re-sign any of its current players, all trades have to be within 10% as a salary match, and the luxury tax kicks in when over the cap limit at a dollar-for-dollar rate. MLBPA still wouldn't go for this plan, but if it had been in place at the start of the wild card era, I'm guessing that the Yanks would have missed the playoffs at least half the time since then.

seventyseven
12-14-2010, 08:32 AM
A salary cap accomplishes only one thing: it lines the pockets of the owners with more pictures of George Washington.

Salary caps is the most detrimental notion ever introduced in professional sports.

Yeah, parity sucks. :scratch:

Fenway
12-14-2010, 08:42 AM
MLB needs a salary floor -too many teams are pocketing revenue sharing.

russ99
12-14-2010, 08:46 AM
MLB needs a salary floor -too many teams are pocketing revenue sharing.

Heck yeah. Do a cap and floor tied to overall leaguewide revenue like in the NHL. That's not stopping players like Kovalchuk from breaking the bank, but there is competitive balance and each team has to spend their revenue sharing. If you kill revenue sharing, we'll end up with 10 teams.

I also think current contracts could be grandfathered in and/or a few signings per team would be exempt or count partly to the cap, which is how the MLBPA would have any chance of going for it. How much better would MLB talent level be if the Yankees or Red Sox would need to let go 3-4 players to get under the cap like the Hawks had to this offseason?

Besides, MLBPA is splintered. We have a handful of megamillionaires and a whole bunch of guys making minimum-$3M. If MLB can appeal to the rank and file, a cap proposal could pass. Still it's a doubtful proposition. The NHL and NFL had to break the union to get their current structures in place.

Otherwise, move the Yankees and Red Sox into a "MLB Premier League" and most of the league's problems go away.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 08:46 AM
I think the NBA does it right. A soft cap that allows a team to go over the limit to re-sign any of its current players, all trades have to be within 10% as a salary match, and the luxury tax kicks in when over the cap limit at a dollar-for-dollar rate. MLBPA still wouldn't go for this plan, but if it had been in place at the start of the wild card era, I'm guessing that the Yanks would have missed the playoffs at least half the time since then.the nba model is horrible. which is why a lockout is looming.

and again, it benefits the OWNERS.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 08:48 AM
mlb is in a perio of record revenues, even when factoring in a global recession. so if the yankees or phillies wants to spend thier cash, so be it.

Oblong
12-14-2010, 09:00 AM
The point of a salary cap isn't to increase parity, it's to protect the owners from themselves and gives them an excuse to not be disciplined.

I don't like a salary floor either. What's better? Spending $3 million on a replacement level player when a guy from AAA would do just as well, or spending that $3 million in the draft? Or building a baseball acadamy in the Far East?

Anyone talking about the financials of MLB needs to read this (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/about-those-leaked-financial-statements/).

The whole problem for fans boils down to two often competing principles. Winning vs. profit. The Rays went to the WS in 2008 and saw their net income drop by 1/3 even after getting $11 million in postseason revenue.

asindc
12-14-2010, 09:02 AM
the nba model is horrible. which is why a lockout is looming.

and again, it benefits the OWNERS.

Some random NBA salaries:

Samuel Dalembert-$12.2 million.
Beno Udrih-$6.65 million.
Anderson Varejao-$7 million.
Nick Collison-$13.5 million.
Trevor Ariza-$6.62 million.
Marco Jaric-$7.625 million.

All of these players are on small-market teams, and except for Dalembert and Collison, none of them is the highest paid player on his team. There are more examples like these. Only Dalembert has made an All-Star team among this group. The NBA salary cap does not keep salaries from inflating. The lockout is looming for a number of different reasons, salary inflation in the face of decreasing revenues is among them. Unlike baseball owners, basketball owners have opened their books and have shown where some of them are losing big time money.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 09:03 AM
mlb is in a perio of record revenues, even when factoring in a global recession. so if the yankees or phillies wants to spend thier cash, so be it.

That's an awfully short-sighted response to this issue. There'd be no problem is there was a natural ebb and flow of talent in respective teams, but there is not, the Yankees have made the postseason 13 of the last 14 years or whatever. There's a reason teams all over the American League are struggling more and more with attendance issues, people are simply losing interest because of the real and percieved lack of competitive balance across the sport.

I don't bemoan that the Yankees and Phillies ownership want to spend money to improve their product, the problem is they have about 100x more resources to work with than just about every other team, and ultimately, it hurts the sport in the long run if fans of 2/3 of the teams don't feel they have a realistic chance at winning anything.

Hitmen77
12-14-2010, 09:06 AM
Something needs to be done. I think it's clear that a simple "salary cap" isn't going to work. But there needs to be some approach to reign in NYY and Boston because they pretty much have permanent locks on not only the playoffs, but it's almost a lock that one of them will be in the ALCS every year (it's happened 10 of the last 13 years).

Perhaps a salary floor can be part of that solution. It's just a multi-faceted issue. It isn't that the Yanks and Red Sox choose to spend money while everyone else is just sitting on that much money. Those two teams simply have revenue that the other teams can't match.

Also, it isn't as simple as getting the Pirates to stop making a profit. Like Doublem said, even if they poured that extra $20 million into payroll, they'd still be left in the dust by the big market teams.

But just because there isn't a simple solution to this big problem doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

I don't know.....maybe they have to lower that luxury tax threshold to make sure it actually has an impact on NYY and Bos. Maybe some of that money should be funneled back to other competitive teams (like the Sox and Twins) instead of just going to bottom feeders for whom it won't make a difference anyway. Maybe that won't work either, but it's just a quick thought.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 09:12 AM
That's an awfully short-sighted response to this issue. There'd be no problem is there was a natural ebb and flow of talent in respective teams, but there is not, the Yankees have made the postseason 13 of the last 14 years or whatever. There's a reason teams all over the American League are struggling more and more with attendance issues, people are simply losing interest because of the real and percieved lack of competitive balance across the sport.

I don't bemoan that the Yankees and Phillies ownership want to spend money to improve their product, the problem is they have about 100x more resources to work with than just about every other team, and ultimately, it hurts the sport in the long run if fans of 2/3 of the teams don't feel they have a realistic chance at winning anything.From 2001-2010, the Yankees have won only ONE WS. The Red Sox 2. And 7 different teams won it the rest of the decade. BOS/NYY only combined to win 30% of the available WS championships in the last decade. Balance may not be perfect, but it's better than it was from 1991-2000, where the yankees alone combined for 40% of the availale championships, with toronto alone responsible for an additional 20%.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 09:21 AM
From 2001-2010, the Yankees have won only ONE WS. The Red Sox 2. And 7 different teams won it the rest of the decade. BOS/NYY only combined to win 30% of the available WS championships in the last decade. Balance may not be perfect, but it's better than it was from 1991-2000, where the yankees alone combined for 40% of the availale championships, with toronto alone responsible for an additional 20%.

And that's just due to the wackiness of play-off baseball, which I will agree, has been the one saving grace in the sport's pathetic attempt at competitive balance, thankfully any number of bizarre crazy things can happen in the span of a 5 or 7 game series.

The problem is, however, the few teams outside of the Yankees and Red Sox can sustain any level of success for more than a few years because their players simply become to expensive. And where do these guys always end up going? One of the select few major market teams that constantly dominate only on account of their massive, off-the-field incomes.

Look at Tampa Bay, one of the best teams in the league, is already starting the process of dismantling its team, not because they're trying to make savvy baseball moves, they can't afford to keep their players. And they've made the playoffs 2 of the past 3 years and were in the World Series 3 seasons ago.

I agree with your basic principle in that owners who spend money > than owners who use their teams for their own personal gaing, but that simply does not address the larger, more pressing issue facing baseball and that is the ENORMOUS disparity of resources available to large market teams that small market teams simply cannot match. That's where the source of the problem lies.

asindc
12-14-2010, 09:33 AM
From 2001-2010, the Yankees have won only ONE WS. The Red Sox 2. And 7 different teams won it the rest of the decade. BOS/NYY only combined to win 30% of the available WS championships in the last decade. Balance may not be perfect, but it's better than it was from 1991-2000, where the yankees alone combined for 40% of the availale championships, with toronto alone responsible for an additional 20%.

The balance is not better now. The NYY have missed the playoffs only once in the wild card era (2008) and responded by adding $59.5 million dollars to its annual payroll. The issue isn't that they win the WS every year (obviously, they don't), but that their money virtually guarantee's them a playoff berth every year, while effectively shutting out 2-3 teams every year from a realistic chance of making the playoffs, let alone winning the WS.

Your statements are very much of a fan of a team that has a realistic chance to compete because it is not in the same division with NYY and Boston. You should see how disillusioned Baltimore fans have become, as if they have been beat into submission. Yes, much of it has been mismanagement, but the last 3-4 years they have made a concerted effort to build through the draft and have made some really shrewd choices, evidenced by the young talent they have in their system.

But no matter how well managed they are, they don't have the financial resources to pay a 1B $23 million a year after having paid a broken-down washed up 37-year-old 1B that same amount, or pay a 3B $8 million a year when they are already paying a broken-down, washed up 34-year-old 3B $12.5 million a year. NYY and Boston's money allows them to pay more money to make up for big money mistakes, which maybe 1-2 other teams in MLB can afford to do. So while Pittsburgh, KC, or Baltimore might have been able to sign either Jason Giambi or Mike Lowell to the contracts they got from NYY or Boston, none of those three teams could afford to miss badly with those players at that money. NYY and Boston can afford to gamble like that and they continually do. That is the big difference.

Hitmen77
12-14-2010, 09:52 AM
From 2001-2010, the Yankees have won only ONE WS. The Red Sox 2. And 7 different teams won it the rest of the decade. BOS/NYY only combined to win 30% of the available WS championships in the last decade. Balance may not be perfect, but it's better than it was from 1991-2000, where the yankees alone combined for 40% of the availale championships, with toronto alone responsible for an additional 20%.

All that proves is that all of NYY's and Boston's riches can't prevent an NL team from making it to the World Series.

Those two teams have won the AL pennant SIX TIMES in the decade of 2000-2010. We don't have to wait until these teams win ten of ten pennants before we see a problem. Also, like I said earlier, these two teams have been in 10 of the last 13 ALCSs (including 3 seasons where both teams where in it). How much domination is enough?

As far as other years go, Los Angeles (2nd largest market) won a pennant in '02, Chicago (3rd largest market) won a pennant in '05, Detroit (totally in bed with Boras) won '06, and Texas (Dallas/5th largest metro area in US) won in '10.

That leaves just Tampa Bay as the only team in 11 seasons not from a big market to have won the AL pennant. Detroit is not a big market (anymore) but the way that Illitch throws a ton of money to Boras clients like Maggs and I-Rod, I wouldn't exactly use them as an example of how well things are working in MLB.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 09:57 AM
The balance is not better now. The NYY have missed the playoffs only once in the wild card era (2008) and responded by adding $59.5 million dollars to its annual payroll. The issue isn't that they win the WS every year (obviously, they don't), but that their money virtually guarantee's them a playoff berth every year, while effectively shutting out 2-3 teams every year from a realistic chance of making the playoffs, let alone winning the WS.

Your statements are very much of a fan of a team that has a realistic chance to compete because it is not in the same division with NYY and Boston. You should see how disillusioned Baltimore fans have become, as if they have been beat into submission. Yes, much of it has been mismanagement, but the last 3-4 years they have made a concerted effort to build through the draft and have made some really shrewd choices, evidenced by the young talent they have in their system.

But no matter how well managed they are, they don't have the financial resources to pay a 1B $23 million a year after having paid a broken-down washed up 37-year-old 1B that same amount, or pay a 3B $8 million a year when they are already paying a broken-down, washed up 34-year-old 3B $12.5 million a year. NYY and Boston's money allows them to pay more money to make up for big money mistakes, which maybe 1-2 other teams in MLB can afford to do. So while Pittsburgh, KC, or Baltimore might have been able to sign either Jason Giambi or Mike Lowell to the contracts they got from NYY or Boston, none of those three teams could afford to miss badly with those players at that money. NYY and Boston can afford to gamble like that and they continually do. That is the big difference.baltimore is screwed becuase they spend like drunken sailors evey coucple of years and end up with broken down vets. hell, they tried to outbid the sox TWICE on konerko.

asindc
12-14-2010, 10:08 AM
baltimore is screwed becuase they spend like drunken sailors evey coucple of years and end up with broken down vets. hell, they tried to outbid the sox TWICE on konerko.

1) They don't do that anymore.

2) Konerko is not broken down---yet.

3) NYY and Boston do that, but make up for it by signing younger in-prime players to big money even when they are still paying the broken down vets big money (Lowell, Cameron, Drew, Posada, Jeter).

Lip Man 1
12-14-2010, 11:11 AM
Again as I've said in the past another "solution" is this. Put a 3rd team in New York and a 2nd team in Boston. Fan loyalty is divided again, the worth of the Yankees - Red Sox is reduced, ditto for the worth of their advertising and media contracts.

Suddenly they don't have the enormous disparity in resources.

Of course that would also take a commissioner with stones.

Lip

asindc
12-14-2010, 11:23 AM
Again as I've said in the past another "solution" is this. Put a 3rd team in New York and a 2nd team in Boston. Fan loyalty is divided again, the worth of the Yankees - Red Sox is reduced, ditto for the worth of their advertising and media contracts.

Suddenly they don't have the enormous disparity in resources.

Of course that would also take a commissioner with stones.

Lip

I like this suggestion. Makes total sense. Braves back to Boston, Rays to NJ, Fla. to Atlanta, or some other kind of re-arrangement.

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 11:26 AM
A salary cap accomplishes only one thing: it lines the pockets of the owners with more pictures of George Washington.

Salary caps is the most detrimental notion ever introduced in professional sports.

Yeah, parity sucks. :scratch:
Where did I say anything about parity? Salary caps do not create parity. The NBA has salary caps, do you think Clipper fans think there is parity? The NHL has a hard cap, do Maple Leaf fans think there is parity? The NFL has salary caps, I think you get the picture (Patriots and Carolina).

One more time, the only thing salary caps do is line the owners' pockets with more money. They get to spend less on salaries while taking in more in revenues.

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 11:29 AM
Again as I've said in the past another "solution" is this. Put a 3rd team in New York and a 2nd team in Boston. Fan loyalty is divided again, the worth of the Yankees - Red Sox is reduced, ditto for the worth of their advertising and media contracts.

Suddenly they don't have the enormous disparity in resources.

Of course that would also take a commissioner with stones.

Lip
How would fan loyalty suddenly become divided in New York and Boston. I a team showed up in one of those cities, will the fans of the current teams suddenly burn their Red Sox/Mets/Yankees tee shirts and jerseys to back a team they had no previous positive emotional connection to? I doubt it.

I don't doubt for a minute that the New York area could support a third team (I'm not as certain about Boston being a sub-1,000,000 city). But all a third team in New York would do is pick up baseball fans who can't afford Mets or Yankee tickets or live too far to make the trek to the ballpark frequently.

asindc
12-14-2010, 11:37 AM
How would fan loyalty suddenly become divided in New York and Boston. I a team showed up in one of those cities, will the fans of the current teams suddenly burn their Red Sox/Mets/Yankees tee shirts and jerseys to back a team they had no previous positive emotional connection to? I doubt it.

I don't doubt for a minute that the New York area could support a third team (I'm not as certain about Boston being a sub-1,000,000 city). But all a third team in New York would do is pick up baseball fans who can't afford Mets or Yankee tickets or live too far to make the trek to the ballpark frequently.

1) Raiders moving to LA.

2) Jets expanding to NY.

3) Mets expanding to NY.

4) Islanders expanding to NY.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 11:52 AM
Where did I say anything about parity? Salary caps do not create parity. The NBA has salary caps, do you think Clipper fans think there is parity? The NHL has a hard cap, do Maple Leaf fans think there is parity? The NFL has salary caps, I think you get the picture (Patriots and Carolina).

The Clippers are awful because they don't spend money and when they do, they spend it stupidly. 1 horrendous franchise doesn't break an argument. Look at the rest of the league, the Heat won an NBA Title, came crashing back to Earth, and are now again one of the 5 best teams in the league. The Celtics were in last place the year before they won the NBA Title. Look at how Oklahoma City has rebuilt. Look at how the Bulls have rebuilt (a few times) in the post-Jordan era.

The NFL has extreme parity. OK, the Panthers suck this year, but they're no more than a few years removed from being perennial playoff contenders and came 3 points from winning the Super Bowl 7 years ago. Look at the New Orleans Saints or Indianapolis Colts or hell, even the New England Patriots, all teams who have had YEARS of being forgotten also-rans.

The object of creating parity isn't to have a league full of 30 teams that finish 81-81, the object of parity is to create an environment where teams have equal chance to succeed. That does not happen in MLB.

ZombieRob
12-14-2010, 11:55 AM
Again as I've said in the past another "solution" is this. Put a 3rd team in New York and a 2nd team in Boston. Fan loyalty is divided again, the worth of the Yankees - Red Sox is reduced, ditto for the worth of their advertising and media contracts.

Suddenly they don't have the enormous disparity in resources.

Of course that would also take a commissioner with stones.

Lip
Didn't the Giants leave NY due to lack of revenue?

doublem23
12-14-2010, 11:58 AM
Didn't the Giants leave NY due to lack of revenue?

... 50 years ago.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 12:02 PM
1) Raiders moving to LA.

2) Jets expanding to NY.

3) Mets expanding to NY.

4) Islanders expanding to NY.

raiders LEFT la

jets were AFL and played at shea. and it was an era where the nfl wasnt all powerful(pre-super bowl era).

mets replaced TWO nl teams. but they were not only terrible for a long time, but they also drew terrible most of thier early history.

i have nothing on the islanders.

Daver
12-14-2010, 12:03 PM
Didn't the Giants leave NY due to lack of revenue?

They went with the Dodgers to make travel more feasible for the rest of the league, instead of flying to the west coast for one series the other teams could be scheduled for two.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 12:04 PM
Didn't the Giants leave NY due to lack of revenue?no. they moved becuase california was a HUGE untapped market.

Lyle Mouton
12-14-2010, 12:04 PM
The only idea worse than a salary cap in baseball would be a salary floor. Forcing teams to fill their roster and overpay for guys is idiotic.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 12:05 PM
The only idea worse than a salary cap in baseball would be a salary floor. Forcing teams to fill their roster and overpay for guys is idiotic.and would drive up fan costs even higher.

PaleHoser
12-14-2010, 12:09 PM
How would fan loyalty suddenly become divided in New York and Boston. I a team showed up in one of those cities, will the fans of the current teams suddenly burn their Red Sox/Mets/Yankees tee shirts and jerseys to back a team they had no previous positive emotional connection to? I doubt it.

I don't doubt for a minute that the New York area could support a third team (I'm not as certain about Boston being a sub-1,000,000 city). But all a third team in New York would do is pick up baseball fans who can't afford Mets or Yankee tickets or live too far to make the trek to the ballpark frequently.

How many Cubs fans go north to see them play in Milwaukee?

The fan base would not change overnight if a third team were added to the New York area. But it would, IMO, impact attendance and advertising revenues for the Yankees and Mets.

It's supply and demand. Creating a competitive market will drive prices and revenues down in those markets because consumers have a choice.

The one problem I see with this is that the only two clubs I can think of off-hand that don't have a new stadium or a stadium deal in place are the A's and the Rays. Both are AL teams, so putting two AL teams in Boston (or Connecticut/Rhode Island) doesn't make much sense. Is there an NL team that's a candidate?

Lyle Mouton
12-14-2010, 12:11 PM
I like this suggestion. Makes total sense. Braves back to Boston, Rays to NJ, Fla. to Atlanta, or some other kind of re-arrangement.
Holy hell that is the worst idea I've ever read. Move the Braves away from Atlanta?

asindc
12-14-2010, 12:17 PM
Holy hell that is the worst idea I've ever read. Move the Braves away from Atlanta?

Fine. Keep them there and rename them if you want, but move another team to Boston and call them the Braves.

asindc
12-14-2010, 12:28 PM
raiders LEFT la

jets were AFL and played at shea. and it was an era where the nfl wasnt all powerful(pre-super bowl era).

mets replaced TWO nl teams. but they were not only terrible for a long time, but they also drew terrible most of thier early history.

i have nothing on the islanders.

All of these points are beside the point.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 12:34 PM
All of these points are beside the point.totally relevant to the discussion

asindc
12-14-2010, 12:34 PM
totally relevant to the discussion

How so?

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 12:43 PM
How so?the riaders were unable to succeed in la. and obviously neither were the rams.

the jets came about in a much different time in american football history. it was a lot easier to get in the market as an afl team, AND they werent really competition to the giants until super bowl 3

the mets were created as a response to the departure of TWO teams, and came about in the twilight of the yankees' big era. but they also struggled mightlily throughout thier history to be on par or better than the yankees. it's only been recent that they can be horrible and bring in a ton of money. and even then are still very much in the shadow of the yankees.


that all said, the yankees OR the mets would say "hell no" to a third team, especially if the team coming in becomes a division rival.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2010, 01:47 PM
EWOK:

That's where a commissioner with stones could invoke the "best interest of baseball" clause...but again right now MLB doesn't have one.

Lip

illinibk
12-14-2010, 01:58 PM
EWOK:

That's where a commissioner with stones could invoke the "best interest of baseball" clause...but again right now MLB doesn't have one.

Lip
Didn't he have to use that clause to get past Angelos's resistance to the Expos moving to DC?

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 01:59 PM
EWOK:

That's where a commissioner with stones could invoke the "best interest of baseball" clause...but again right now MLB doesn't have one.

Lipso territorial rights mean nothing to you?

do you think the cubs would allow an nl team to move into chicago, the suburbs, or even northwest indiana? same as the sox if an al team moved in nearby?

the selig bashing is funny to a certain point. then it becomes plain sad. the franchise values have gone up on most teams, the playoff strusture has produced more unique WS teams inthe last decade, and mlb.com(and the 30 club pages) has become the single best(and most lucrative) sports league site in the US. mlb.com asorbing all 30 member club's internet operations and pushing forward with technology(in particular internet video) was SELIG's idea.
mlb advanced media is so valuable, that mlb's banking advisors are pushing for an IPO.

the yankees may be the 200 million dollar goriulla in the room, but the game is stronger now than it was in 1992, when selig "sullied" the game by becoming comissioner.

The territorial rights are a big deal. Ask Peter Angelos. Guys like Jerry and Selig were able to not only move the nationls to washington, but get a publicly fianaced stadium deal AND get an owner to pay 2.5 times what the 29 member clubs pitched in for the former expos. The 29 clubs got a substantial payment for thier investment in the nationals.

Selig is the CEO of the parent organization that the 30 member clubs are part of. His job is to look out for the best interests of that organization and it's member clubs.

The system is not perfect, but the game is much, much , better than in 1992.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 02:00 PM
Didn't he have to use that clause to get past Angelos's resistance to the Expos moving to DC?they made a deal with angelos. he owns a RSN that the nats broadcast on.

TDog
12-14-2010, 02:06 PM
EWOK:

That's where a commissioner with stones could invoke the "best interest of baseball" clause...but again right now MLB doesn't have one.

Lip

The current commissioner has actually done quite a bit to demonstrate he has "stones." People complain as much about the things he has done as the things he hasn't done.

Some people complain about things he could only do by violating the union agreement. Commissioner Landis wouldn't be the tyrannical God he was back in the day under present circumstances, and, really, baseball is better off for it.

asindc
12-14-2010, 02:15 PM
the riaders were unable to succeed in la. and obviously neither were the rams.

What makes you think that?

the jets came about in a much different time in american football history. it was a lot easier to get in the market as an afl team, AND they werent really competition to the giants until super bowl 3

the mets were created as a response to the departure of TWO teams, and came about in the twilight of the yankees' big era. but they also struggled mightlily throughout thier history to be on par or better than the yankees. it's only been recent that they can be horrible and bring in a ton of money. and even then are still very much in the shadow of the yankees.

The point isn't when they became competition (by whatever criteria you choose) but the fact that they did become competition. The point also isn't that they are not on equal footing, but that the fanbase is split among two or three teams to the point that the market can sustain those teams and, more precisely to the point, the market's available potential baseball revenue is split among two or more teams. That one team is more successful than the other is beside the point.


that all said, the yankees OR the mets would say "hell no" to a third team, especially if the team coming in becomes a division rival.

I don't doubt that, which is why MLB needs an independent Commissioner.

Lyle Mouton
12-14-2010, 02:23 PM
Fine. Keep them there and rename them if you want, but move another team to Boston and call them the Braves.
So you honestly want the Braves, perhaps the most successful NL franchise of the last twenty-five years, to change their name and identity for the sake of...what exactly?

If baseball wants to change dramatically, eliminate divisions and go to an EPL model. You can retain the AL and NL and go to two fifteen team leagues; or eliminate those as well and go to one thirty team league.

russ99
12-14-2010, 02:36 PM
the Raiders were unable to succeed in la. and obviously neither were the Rams.


That was solely due to the stadium. The Raiders played in the LA Coliseum and the Rams played there from the 40s until 1980, then went to Orange County.

The Coliseum has close to 100,000 seats, has no skyboxes or modern amenities and wasn't in the best neighborhood at the time. That's why the Raiders moved back to Oakland, not because of any problem with the L.A. market.

As of this date, the Chargers are the most likely team that could be moving to L.A. and they certainly won't be playing in the Coliseum.

illinibk
12-14-2010, 02:40 PM
they made a deal with angelos. he owns a RSN that the nats broadcast on.
Gotcha. Makes sense now that I think about it.

I do think a third team CAN be successful in NY, over time. I think if MLB were to look at putting a third team in the NY area, Brooklyn would have to be the first choice. That burrough has been looking for a team for almost 50 years, and I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot more initial adopters of a third team if it were in Brooklyn as opposed to northern New Jersey. Of course, I can't imagine the Mets or Yankees going for this, without sizable compensation (though I doubt those two teams would get the broadcast rights for the third team, similar to what Angelos got from the Nats). A second team in Boston on the other hand would probably have a very hard time gaining a foothold there. From the Bostonians I've talked to/worked with, if you're in Boston, you're either a Red Sox fan or not a baseball fan. I can't imagine too many Red Sox fans jumping ship for a different team.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 02:55 PM
What makes you think that?



The point isn't when they became competition (by whatever criteria you choose) but the fact that they did become competition. The point also isn't that they are not on equal footing, but that the fanbase is split among two or three teams to the point that the market can sustain those teams and, more precisely to the point, the market's available potential baseball revenue is split among two or more teams. That one team is more successful than the other is beside the point.




I don't doubt that, which is why MLB needs an independent Commissioner.raiders moved BACK to oakland. that's why

rams are in st. louis

also, the territorial rights are a VERY BIG DEAL. selig would not force competeing franchies in ANY market. nor would any other comissioner. the comissioner has ALWAYS been an employee of the league.

asindc
12-14-2010, 03:04 PM
raiders moved BACK to oakland. that's why

rams are in st. louis

also, the territorial rights are a VERY BIG DEAL. selig would not force competeing franchies in ANY market. nor would any other comissioner. the comissioner has ALWAYS been an employee of the league.

See post below. The fact that a team moved to another location is not evidence by itself that the market left behind could not sustain the team. I take it that you have heard of the Seattle Supersonics.

That was solely due to the stadium. The Raiders played in the LA Coliseum and the Rams played there from the 40s until 1980, then went to Orange County.

The Coliseum has close to 100,000 seats, has no skyboxes or modern amenities and wasn't in the best neighborhood at the time. That's why the Raiders moved back to Oakland, not because of any problem with the L.A. market.

As of this date, the Chargers are the most likely team that could be moving to L.A. and they certainly won't be playing in the Coliseum.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 03:15 PM
If baseball wants to change dramatically, eliminate divisions and go to an EPL model. You can retain the AL and NL and go to two fifteen team leagues; or eliminate those as well and go to one thirty team league.

Ah yes, the EPL, the only sports league in the world less competitive than Major League Baseball.

TDog
12-14-2010, 04:09 PM
Didn't the Giants leave NY due to lack of revenue?

Actually, O'Malley wanted to a new stadium, as I understand it.

DSpivack
12-14-2010, 05:04 PM
Ah yes, the EPL, the only sports league in the world less competitive than Major League Baseball.

EPL has more contenders this season [like the NFL, there are no great teams, just a handful of good ones]. With Liverpool down in the table, there really isn't a Big Four, anymore; Man City and Tottenham have proved just as competitive, while Bolton is there, too.

Now, La Liga is truly a two--team league.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2010, 05:16 PM
O'Malley was the Dodgers owner. Horace Stoneman owned the Giants.

Ewok:

Certainly there would be objections and its up to the commissioner to overcome those objections by building a coalition. You don't think for a moment that teams wouldn't be lining up to cut into the Yankees - Red Sox advantages?

You can't have it both ways Bud, you can't bitch and moan about the Yankees - Red Sox (which he did as recently as last month in an interview) but then sit back and do nothing to stop it.

There are options out there, I mentioned two of them that could work. (i.e. more teams in the area devalueing the worth of the franchises in questions and getting rid of deadbeat owners in favor of billionairs like say Mark Cuban)

Ewok, you'd be hard pressed to convince fans in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Florida, Kansas City, Cleveland to name a few towns that baseball is better now than in 1992.

Lip

gogosox675
12-14-2010, 05:30 PM
O'Malley was the Dodgers owner. Horace Stoneman owned the Giants.

Ewok:

Certainly there would be objections and its up to the commissioner to overcome those objections by building a coalition. You don't think for a moment that teams wouldn't be lining up to cut into the Yankees - Red Sox advantages?

You can't have it both ways Bud, you can't bitch and moan about the Yankees - Red Sox (which he did as recently as last month in an interview) but then sit back and do nothing to stop it.

There are options out there, I mentioned two of them that could work. (i.e. more teams in the area devalueing the worth of the franchises in questions and getting rid of deadbeat owners in favor of billionairs like say Mark Cuban)

Ewok, you'd be hard pressed to convince fans in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Florida, Kansas City, Cleveland to name a few towns that baseball is better now than in 1992.

Lip

Baseball is better in Florida now because they didn't have a team in 1992. :redneck

You're right, though. Some fan bases that were once some of the best in baseball are now struggling to fill their stadiums because fans know from the get-go that their team has no chance to win.

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 05:41 PM
You're right, though. Some fan bases that were once some of the best in baseball are now struggling to fill their stadiums because fans know from the get-go that their team has no chance to win.
There is better television coverage of baseball today than 10 years ago. Not to mention the cost of going to a game.

Oblong
12-14-2010, 07:54 PM
and would drive up fan costs even higher.

The cost to go to a game would be the same if all the players made $75,000 a year. The cost is driven by the amount people are willing to pay for the entertainment, either directly via ticket sales, concessions, parking, or indirectly via advertising.

TDog
12-14-2010, 10:10 PM
O'Malley was the Dodgers owner. Horace Stoneman owned the Giants.

Ewok:

Certainly there would be objections and its up to the commissioner to overcome those objections by building a coalition. You don't think for a moment that teams wouldn't be lining up to cut into the Yankees - Red Sox advantages?

You can't have it both ways Bud, you can't bitch and moan about the Yankees - Red Sox (which he did as recently as last month in an interview) but then sit back and do nothing to stop it.

There are options out there, I mentioned two of them that could work. (i.e. more teams in the area devalueing the worth of the franchises in questions and getting rid of deadbeat owners in favor of billionairs like say Mark Cuban)

Ewok, you'd be hard pressed to convince fans in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Florida, Kansas City, Cleveland to name a few towns that baseball is better now than in 1992.

Lip

I misread the comment and thought the discussion was about the Dodgers moving to LA.

PalehosePlanet
12-14-2010, 10:59 PM
That was solely due to the stadium. The Raiders played in the LA Coliseum and the Rams played there from the 40s until 1980, then went to Orange County.

The Coliseum has close to 100,000 seats, has no skyboxes or modern amenities and wasn't in the best neighborhood at the time. That's why the Raiders moved back to Oakland, not because of any problem with the L.A. market.

As of this date, the Chargers are the most likely team that could be moving to L.A. and they certainly won't be playing in the Coliseum.

This is absolutely dead on accurate. L.A. County refused to budge in their stance on either renovating the Coliseum, nor was the city or county offering a new stadium alternative. They thought they were calling Davis's bluff.

Al Davis might be a senile old man now, sitting in a puddle of his own piss, but back then he was a shrewd businessman. He would have never bolted the 2nd largest market for a small one unless he were left no choice.

The Rams were also stuck in a ****ty stadium, and dealing with an equally unrelenting Orange County. St. Louis stepped in and gave The Rams and Georgia Frontierie everything they asked for, and lured them away.

I still can't believe that it's almost 2011 and there is still no NFL in the L.A. area. Absolutely unbelievable.

My pick is The Jaguars to be in L.A. by 2013.

cws05champ
12-15-2010, 09:29 AM
Something needs to be done. I think it's clear that a simple "salary cap" isn't going to work. But there needs to be some approach to reign in NYY and Boston because they pretty much have permanent locks on not only the playoffs, but it's almost a lock that one of them will be in the ALCS every year (it's happened 10 of the last 13 years).

Perhaps a salary floor can be part of that solution. It's just a multi-faceted issue. It isn't that the Yanks and Red Sox choose to spend money while everyone else is just sitting on that much money. Those two teams simply have revenue that the other teams can't match.

Also, it isn't as simple as getting the Pirates to stop making a profit. Like Doublem said, even if they poured that extra $20 million into payroll, they'd still be left in the dust by the big market teams.

But just because there isn't a simple solution to this big problem doesn't mean that nothing should be done.

I don't know.....maybe they have to lower that luxury tax threshold to make sure it actually has an impact on NYY and Bos.
This.

1) You can not just have a salary cap. If there was we would still have a similar issue under today's rules unless there were other things changed along with that. You would need a true International draft, a slotting system for that draft among other things. If these things did not happen along with a cap then the Yankees/ Red Sox would just dump ungodly amounts into signing every promising Int'l player and pay every top end talent (that may get drafted lower in the draft due to signability) tons of money that other teams couldn't.

2) Instead of a hard cap, you need a harsher luxury tax and a lower tax threshold. In the first 7 years of the revenue sharing the Yanks have paid out an average of $25M/year. If you made the threshold between $135M and $150M and had team surrender dollar for dollar over the threshold. It would make it really painful for the Yankees to have a payroll at $200M or above. And this would only affect 3-5 teams in the league.

3) Along with this increased Revenue sharing $$ being doled out to the lower income teams there would need to be a salary floor. It would have to be a minimum of what the team receives from revenue sharing and MLB corp payments(for internet and Sat radio deals etc). I think owners are entitled to make a profit, but not at the expense of fielding a non-competitive team when they receive tons of money from other teams. IMO the floor should be minimum: The Rev sharing + MLB revenue + 50% of teams local TV/radio contract. This does not include any gate receipts and the rest of the TV contract.

May not be perfect, but it's a start...

ewokpelts
12-15-2010, 10:09 AM
O'Malley was the Dodgers owner. Horace Stoneman owned the Giants.

Ewok:

Certainly there would be objections and its up to the commissioner to overcome those objections by building a coalition. You don't think for a moment that teams wouldn't be lining up to cut into the Yankees - Red Sox advantages?

You can't have it both ways Bud, you can't bitch and moan about the Yankees - Red Sox (which he did as recently as last month in an interview) but then sit back and do nothing to stop it.

There are options out there, I mentioned two of them that could work. (i.e. more teams in the area devalueing the worth of the franchises in questions and getting rid of deadbeat owners in favor of billionairs like say Mark Cuban)

Ewok, you'd be hard pressed to convince fans in San Diego, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Florida, Kansas City, Cleveland to name a few towns that baseball is better now than in 1992.

Lipsan diego - new stadium and hosts the WBC a lot. also was a contender in 2010, and a recent division champ the last few years.

pittsburgh - you got me here.fans are mad, but owners are profiting. also new stadium and recent ASG.

milwaukee - they have drawn 2.5 million fans since 2005, and had 3 million from 2007-2009. new stadium, and recent ASG. brewers have done very well since being sold by selig.

baltimore is no one's fault but Angelos. He's owns 80% of MASN(thanks to your bud selig) yet signs overpriced vets(tejada, palmiero) and keeps overrated prospects(brian roberts) despite massive interest from other clubs, thus hurting thier farm system. orioles are a mess, but it's not selig's fault.

cincy - 2010 NL central division champ. new stadium, and new ownership. how are they not better than 1992's reds?

florida - two world championships thanks to bud's wild card system, and a new stadium coming. yes, there have been problems, but selig cant be faulted for joe robbe stadium's location or the fact that south florida gets a LOT of rain with little or no warning. the new stadium(with retractable roof and better location) will increase fortunes, as will the eventual ASG florida regains(they were supposed to have 2000, but ATL was awarded it as a backup when the stadium proposal died)

KC - stadium rennovations have made a nice park even nicer, and helped the royals get an ASG(Selig vowed an ASG to help get rennovation financing). selig cant fix bad ownership, just try to convince them to sell. the KC ownership's cheap, but they are now focusing heavy on thier farm system to pull of a Tampa bay.

cleveland - bad ownership, plain and simple. the indians benefited the most from selig's early reign. new stadium, ASG, TWO WS berths. 6 AL Central crowns in 7 years, and they were in the alcs as late as 2007. the dolans are cheap, timid, and stupid. and they are probably pocketing as much revenue sharing money as possible to fund losses in cabelvision and the knicks.

of course, you didnt mention tampa. a WS and a ALDS appearance in the last 3 years, lots of young talent(despite losing crawford), and a superstar in bloom(longoria). of course, they have a ****ty stadium(built for CWS), bad location, and are in a part of the country with more transplant fans than even AZ. but ownership's committed to tampa, and have atgtempted to fix the stadium issue with rennovations and possible new site. these issues arent selig's fault. the florida suncoast dome was built by st. pete to lure CWS to the area. The AL owners(among them selig) dont have power to block a move. Once that stadium was built, it was going to be the site for a tampa team no matter what. the now florida marlins were considered by the NL to be in tampa, and the giants looked at moving there as well.

so, what was that about selig?

ewokpelts
12-15-2010, 10:12 AM
The cost to go to a game would be the same if all the players made $75,000 a year. The cost is driven by the amount people are willing to pay for the entertainment, either directly via ticket sales, concessions, parking, or indirectly via advertising.if your payroll is UNDER the floor, how do you get the money to get there?

the marlins have a 55 million dollar payroll, while having poor attendance. if the floor became 65 million, where will the $10 million come from?

one source. the fans.

also, the NFL has a salary floor AND cap. and have the highest ticket prices in us sports. and that's with the tv money financing player payroll.

cws05champ
12-15-2010, 10:31 AM
if your payroll is UNDER the floor, how do you get the money to get there?

the marlins have a 55 million dollar payroll, while having poor attendance. if the floor became 65 million, where will the $10 million come from?

one source. the fans.

also, the NFL has a salary floor AND cap. and have the highest ticket prices in us sports. and that's with the tv money financing player payroll.
Apples and oranges...the NFL only has 10 home games (regular season + pre season) vs 81 regular season games for baseball. Sure the avg ticket price is less for baseball because they make up for it in # of games they can gate.

Hitmen77
12-15-2010, 10:55 AM
san diego - new stadium and hosts the WBC a lot. also was a contender in 2010, and a recent division champ the last few years.

pittsburgh - you got me here.fans are mad, but owners are profiting. also new stadium and recent ASG.

milwaukee - they have drawn 2.5 million fans since 2005, and had 3 million from 2007-2009. new stadium, and recent ASG. brewers have done very well since being sold by selig.

baltimore is no one's fault but Angelos. He's owns 80% of MASN(thanks to your bud selig) yet signs overpriced vets(tejada, palmiero) and keeps overrated prospects(brian roberts) despite massive interest from other clubs, thus hurting thier farm system. orioles are a mess, but it's not selig's fault.

cincy - 2010 NL central division champ. new stadium, and new ownership. how are they not better than 1992's reds?

florida - two world championships thanks to bud's wild card system, and a new stadium coming. yes, there have been problems, but selig cant be faulted for joe robbe stadium's location or the fact that south florida gets a LOT of rain with little or no warning. the new stadium(with retractable roof and better location) will increase fortunes, as will the eventual ASG florida regains(they were supposed to have 2000, but ATL was awarded it as a backup when the stadium proposal died)

KC - stadium rennovations have made a nice park even nicer, and helped the royals get an ASG(Selig vowed an ASG to help get rennovation financing). selig cant fix bad ownership, just try to convince them to sell. the KC ownership's cheap, but they are now focusing heavy on thier farm system to pull of a Tampa bay.

cleveland - bad ownership, plain and simple. the indians benefited the most from selig's early reign. new stadium, ASG, TWO WS berths. 6 AL Central crowns in 7 years, and they were in the alcs as late as 2007. the dolans are cheap, timid, and stupid. and they are probably pocketing as much revenue sharing money as possible to fund losses in cabelvision and the knicks.

of course, you didnt mention tampa. a WS and a ALDS appearance in the last 3 years, lots of young talent(despite losing crawford), and a superstar in bloom(longoria). of course, they have a ****ty stadium(built for CWS), bad location, and are in a part of the country with more transplant fans than even AZ. but ownership's committed to tampa, and have atgtempted to fix the stadium issue with rennovations and possible new site. these issues arent selig's fault. the florida suncoast dome was built by st. pete to lure CWS to the area. The AL owners(among them selig) dont have power to block a move. Once that stadium was built, it was going to be the site for a tampa team no matter what. the now florida marlins were considered by the NL to be in tampa, and the giants looked at moving there as well.

so, what was that about selig?

Funny how coincidentally, almost all the "bad" and "cheap" owners happen to be the small market teams.:thinking: NY, Boston, Chicago, Philly all are simply well-run teams, but Cle, Pitts, and KC are where they are by being cheap and stupid. Interesting how it just happens to work out that way.

Milwaukee might be the best example of a small market team doing things right (developing decent talent, drawing big crowds) and still not being able to compete. They can thank their one playoff appearance in the last quarter century to the fact that they're in the NL. And I'm not saying that in a "NL = AAAA minors" comment. I just mean that they're in a division where the only really big spender (Cubs) have been generally incompetent and the NL's wild card isn't pretty much locked up every year by a big market team. If the Brewers were still in the AL, they'd be permanently buried in the standings despite their efforts. Even so, despite their recent success they're one of the teams that has to say "bye bye" to any star the moment they hit free agency. Despite high attendance, I'd hazard to guess that things like TV revenue, luxury suite revenue, ticket prices are rather low due to them being in small market Milwaukee.

If you're judging MLB success solely on league profits and how many publicly-financed stadiums they have gotten built, then they're doing great. But that doesn't mean things are going great in terms of quality of competition and nationwide excitement in the sport.

Tampa Bay is the poster-franchise for all the NYY/Bos high payroll apologists. "See, they had success against the big guys!" Yeah, great game plan. All small market teams have to do is suck for 10 years and then hope all their chips (draft picks) fall perfectly into place. Ironically, Tampa Bay is one of the few markets that really shouldn't even have a team. They have a lousy stadium and lousy attendance (even when successful). But, what should MLB do - say that Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee, Oakland, etc. really can't support teams either? Since they're not going to contract 6 to 8 teams, where would all those teams move to where fan support and local revenue is enough for them to compete?

twentywontowin
12-15-2010, 11:02 AM
and have the highest ticket prices in us sports.

Ever see hockey ticket prices?

Lip Man 1
12-15-2010, 11:03 AM
Hit:

Well said.

Lip

asindc
12-15-2010, 11:13 AM
Funny how coincidentally, almost all the "bad" and "cheap" owners happen to be the small market teams.:thinking: NY, Boston, Chicago, Philly all are simply well-run teams, but Cle, Pitts, and KC are where they are by being cheap and stupid. Funny how it just happens to work out that way.

Milwaukee might be the best example of a small market team doing things right (developing decent talent, drawing big crowds) and still not being able to compete. They can thank their one playoff appearance in the last quarter century to the fact that they're in the NL. And I'm not saying that in a "NL = AAAA minors" comment. I just mean that they're in a division where the only really big spender (Cubs) have been generally incompetent and the NL's wild card isn't pretty much locked up every year by a big market team. If the Brewers were still in the AL, they'd be buried in the standings despite their efforts. Even so, they're one of the teams that has to say "bye bye" to any star the moment they hit free agency. Despite high attendance, I'd hazard to guess that things like TV revenue, luxury suite revenue, ticket prices are rather low due to them being in small market Milwaukee.

If you're judging MLB success solely on league profits and how many publicly-financed stadiums they have gotten built, then they're doing great. But that doesn't mean things are going great in terms of quality of competition and nationwide excitement in the sport.

Tampa Bay is the poster-franchise for all the NYY/Bos high payroll apologists. See, they had success against the big guys! Yeah, great game plan. All small market teams have to do is suck for 10 years and then hope all their chips (draft picks) fall perfectly into place. Ironically, Tampa Bay is one of the few markets that really shouldn't have a team. They have a lousy stadium and lousy attendance (even when successful). But, what should MLB do - say that Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee, etc. really can't support teams either? Since they're not going to contract 6 to 8 teams, where would all those teams move to where fan support and local revenue is enough for them to compete?

Absolutely. Small market teams can make the playoffs because NYY, Boston, LAAAAA, and the Cubs can't take up all eight playoff spots in any given year. That is not the issue. The issue is NYY and Boston being able to spend their way out of their mistakes in ways no other teams can. These are examples of how smart the NYY and Boston have been:

Boston
-Signed Dice-K after paying $60 million just to have a conversation with him.
-Signed Renteria.
-Signed Julio Lugo
-Signed Marco Scutaro when they were already paying Lugo $9 million a year to not play for them
-Signed J.D. Drew
-Signed Mike Cameron

NYY
-Signed Jason Giambi
-Randy Winn
-Signed Javier Vazquez a 2nd time
-Signed A.J. Burnett
-Traded Austin Jackson

And that's just in the past five years. I challenge anyone to name any of the other 28 teams that could overcome those moves with the money involved in each and still makes the playoffs multiple times within the past five years.

ewokpelts
12-15-2010, 12:20 PM
Funny how coincidentally, almost all the "bad" and "cheap" owners happen to be the small market teams.:thinking: NY, Boston, Chicago, Philly all are simply well-run teams, but Cle, Pitts, and KC are where they are by being cheap and stupid. Interesting how it just happens to work out that way.

Milwaukee might be the best example of a small market team doing things right (developing decent talent, drawing big crowds) and still not being able to compete. They can thank their one playoff appearance in the last quarter century to the fact that they're in the NL. And I'm not saying that in a "NL = AAAA minors" comment. I just mean that they're in a division where the only really big spender (Cubs) have been generally incompetent and the NL's wild card isn't pretty much locked up every year by a big market team. If the Brewers were still in the AL, they'd be permanently buried in the standings despite their efforts. Even so, despite their recent success they're one of the teams that has to say "bye bye" to any star the moment they hit free agency. Despite high attendance, I'd hazard to guess that things like TV revenue, luxury suite revenue, ticket prices are rather low due to them being in small market Milwaukee.

If you're judging MLB success solely on league profits and how many publicly-financed stadiums they have gotten built, then they're doing great. But that doesn't mean things are going great in terms of quality of competition and nationwide excitement in the sport.

Tampa Bay is the poster-franchise for all the NYY/Bos high payroll apologists. "See, they had success against the big guys!" Yeah, great game plan. All small market teams have to do is suck for 10 years and then hope all their chips (draft picks) fall perfectly into place. Ironically, Tampa Bay is one of the few markets that really shouldn't even have a team. They have a lousy stadium and lousy attendance (even when successful). But, what should MLB do - say that Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee, Oakland, etc. really can't support teams either? Since they're not going to contract 6 to 8 teams, where would all those teams move to where fan support and local revenue is enough for them to compete?


Chi-N and NY-N are horribly run franchises with moronic owners.

Philly has been horrible for most of it's history, but a new stadium and bumper crop of talent that panned out helped them become the powerhouse in the nl east. The phillies have NEVER had a run this dominant(back to back ws berths, one ws win, 4 straight nl east crowns, 3 nlcs appearances) and thier phans are responding to thier success with record attendance. but thwn the phils suck, attendance will go with it.

pittsburgh got caught with it's pants down by the press earlier this year. i have actual facts to argue they're being cheap. cleveland's OWNER flat out said we plan to suck for a long time and we'r enot going after free agents. KC is in a constant flux of rebuilding.One hope they bulk up the payroll when the ASG rolls into town in 2012, but not every team does that.

i dont think boston is well run, but they throw enough money into the payroll to make it look like they are. and btw, their 2007 WS win was more about the young talent on the team than the 2004 holdovers.

ewokpelts
12-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Hit:

Well said.

Lip
i countered your assesment of selig and his handling of the league blow by blow. these clubs are doign better now than they have had been when selig took over. if anything he looks out for the small market teams.

it's not a perfect system. look at the nhl and nba for proof that mlb is MILES ahead of them. and even the nfl is looking bad in small markets(minnesota, carolina, st louis), lockout notwithstanding.

ewokpelts
12-15-2010, 12:28 PM
The NFL disparity is worse, when you consider that teams have GURANTEED money from the tv deal that solely pays player salaries. they have nowhere to go but up in profit, yet oakland, carolina, and tampa ar ehaving trouble selling tickets.

and the salary floor in the nfl does nothing for parity. look at the lions. how's thier 85 million floor being spent?

downstairs
12-15-2010, 01:54 PM
How would a floor even work? Lets say a small team dumps salary when the season ends. So now they're $20 million under the floor. So now they have to sign $20 million plus of players? You're going to see some crazy negotiations there, unfair for the club.

Also what if a roster is all filled up and you're still $5 million under? Now you're forced to what... drop low-paid players you actually want and sign $5 million+ of players you don't necessarily want and panic to spend $5 million like Brewster's Millions?

I agree with the concept that some teams are ripping their fans off... I just don't see how a floor actually would work.

cws05champ
12-15-2010, 02:20 PM
How would a floor even work? Lets say a small team dumps salary when the season ends. So now they're $20 million under the floor. So now they have to sign $20 million plus of players? You're going to see some crazy negotiations there, unfair for the club.

Also what if a roster is all filled up and you're still $5 million under? Now you're forced to what... drop low-paid players you actually want and sign $5 million+ of players you don't necessarily want and panic to spend $5 million like Brewster's Millions?

I agree with the concept that some teams are ripping their fans off... I just don't see how a floor actually would work.
Whatever revenue sharing the team received goes back to MLB in that case....easy solution.

illinibk
12-15-2010, 04:35 PM
Whatever revenue sharing the team received goes back to MLB in that case....easy solution.
What about the second part of his scenario, where a team would have to sign a worthless player just get that last $5MM to meet the floor. How does that help competitive balance?

soltrain21
12-15-2010, 05:20 PM
Whatever revenue sharing the team received goes back to MLB in that case....easy solution.

No, not even close. Teams will still get outbid by the Yankees or Red Sox and then will have to overpay some mediocre player because they need to spend the money.

Nellie_Fox
12-16-2010, 12:52 AM
the marlins have a 55 million dollar payroll, while having poor attendance. if the floor became 65 million, where will the $10 million come from?

one source. the fans.If they thought they could get another $10 million in revenue by raising ticket prices (or other costs,) they'd do it now. What is more likely is that they would lose more sales than they would offset by the higher price, resulting in a net loss of revenue.

Take a course in macroeconomics, and then apply the principle of elasticity of demand. If demand is infinitely elastic (in other words, the consumers can't live without it and will buy it no matter what it costs,) then every dollar that your raise prices will result in an additional dollar in revenue. If demand is completely inelastic (meaning the current price is what consumers will pay, and not a penny more,) then raising your prices AT ALL will result in no one buying, and your revenue dropping to zero. For most items, the real-world elasticity of deman is somewhere in between, and the rational economic actor will seek the price point where revenue is maximized.

ewokpelts
12-16-2010, 07:46 AM
A salary floor does nothing to improve competitioin. Ask the NFL.

asindc
12-16-2010, 07:49 AM
A salary floor does nothing to improve competitioin. Ask the NFL.

That's not the issue.

ewokpelts
12-16-2010, 08:06 AM
That's not the issue.this thread has talked about both a cap AND floor. so my point is valid.

asindc
12-16-2010, 08:32 AM
this thread has talked about both a cap AND floor. so my point is valid.

The issue isn't about ensuring competitiveness. It's about ensuring the equivalent opportunity to be competitive. That's why nobody complains about the Knicks or the Rangers or the Giants or the Jets or the Islanders or the Nets conerning the market on FAs. When a team is lousy in basketball, football, and hockey, the organization gets all the blame. No discussion of market imbalance is even brought up.

Perennial playoff teams in the NBA include small-market San Antonio and Phoenix because they are well-run organizations. The Knicks play in the largest market in the country, but they have been lousy, until this season so far, for almost a decade. In baseball, LeBron is not going to the Marlins unless he accepts much less money than the Yanks offered him. In basketball, it comes down to where he wants to play. Equivalent opportunity is why the Steelers and Ravens can consistently outperform the Jets, and the lack of such in baseball is why the Pirates can't possibly compete for the same players as the Yanks and Mets, no matter how well they manage their resources.

No one expects or even wants to establish a system that puts everyone on an equal footing competitively, even if that was possible (I don't think it is). What a lot of people want and expect is that a system allow every team in the league an equivalent opportunity to compete. That is the issue.

ewokpelts
12-16-2010, 08:55 AM
The issue isn't about ensuring competitiveness. It's about ensuring the equivalent opportunity to be competitive. That's why nobody complains about the Knicks or the Rangers or the Giants or the Jets or the Islanders or the Nets conerning the market on FAs. When a team is lousy in basketball, football, and hockey, the organization gets all the blame. No discussion of market imbalance is even brought up.

Perennial playoff teams in the NBA include small-market San Antonio and Phoenix because they are well-run organizations. The Knicks play in the largest market in the country, but they have been lousy, until this season so far, for almost a decade. In baseball, LeBron is not going to the Marlins unless he accepts much less money than the Yanks offered him. In basketball, it comes down to where he wants to play. Equivalent opportunity is why the Steelers and Ravens can consistently outperform the Jets, and the lack of such in baseball is why the Pirates can't possibly compete for the same players as the Yanks and Mets, no matter how well they manage their resources.

No one expects or even wants to establish a system that puts everyone on an equal footing competitively, even if that was possible (I don't think it is). What a lot of people want and expect is that a system allow every team in the league an equivalent opportunity to compete. That is the issue.it walks like a duck......

asindc
12-16-2010, 09:03 AM
it walks like a duck......

What does that mean?

Hitmen77
12-16-2010, 04:10 PM
The issue isn't about ensuring competitiveness. It's about ensuring the equivalent opportunity to be competitive. That's why nobody complains about the Knicks or the Rangers or the Giants or the Jets or the Islanders or the Nets conerning the market on FAs. When a team is lousy in basketball, football, and hockey, the organization gets all the blame. No discussion of market imbalance is even brought up.

Perennial playoff teams in the NBA include small-market San Antonio and Phoenix because they are well-run organizations. The Knicks play in the largest market in the country, but they have been lousy, until this season so far, for almost a decade. In baseball, LeBron is not going to the Marlins unless he accepts much less money than the Yanks offered him. In basketball, it comes down to where he wants to play. Equivalent opportunity is why the Steelers and Ravens can consistently outperform the Jets, and the lack of such in baseball is why the Pirates can't possibly compete for the same players as the Yanks and Mets, no matter how well they manage their resources.

No one expects or even wants to establish a system that puts everyone on an equal footing competitively, even if that was possible (I don't think it is). What a lot of people want and expect is that a system allow every team in the league an equivalent opportunity to compete. That is the issue.

One of the bad things about MLB's current economics is that it has pretty much eliminated any of the bottom 1/3 of the teams from having their own superstar for very long. In the past, you had Clemente with the Pirates, Bench with the Reds, Brett with the Royals, etc. That would never happen today. Those teams would essentially be AAAA teams for new star players until they strike it rich in one of the big markets.

Joe Mauer is a rare exception as he is staying long-term with the middle-market Twins. But otherwise, almost all these top players just end up in places like NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, Philly, etc. How do the Yankees and Red Sox do it? Oh what mystique it is for the Yankees to keep turning out so many legends of the game like A-Rod, CC and Teixeira!. (now, I'll sit back and wait for someone to say that Jeter proves this entire premise to be wrong :nod:).

To me, that just diminishes the sport. And I'm talking as a fan of one of the teams that is lucky enough to have a chance to keep it's own "face of the franchises". It must be totally demoralizing to people in Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Kansas City, etc. to know that any big names are just counting down the clock to leaving town for a big market. It's tough to build fan support nationwide in that situation.

GoSox2K3
12-16-2010, 04:47 PM
No, not even close. Teams will still get outbid by the Yankees or Red Sox and then will have to overpay some mediocre player because they need to spend the money.

It's not like everyone other than the players who are on the Yankees and Red Sox are "mediocre". They might be ridiculous spenders, but it's not like they outbid everybody for everything. Other teams can find ways to spend extra money other than just throwing it at garbage.

That just sounds like an excuse to keep the status quo. Unless MLB wants a permanent NYY and Bos practical lock on playoff spots and unless they believe it's good for the league's future to continue with 10 or so teams constantly be in "we hope we can draft enough good prospects for a brief playoff run before they all leave via free agency" mode, then they need to come up with a solution to the business-as-usual.

I can see some people arguing that maybe one or two markets (like Tampa) can't support a team, but when about 1/3 of the league are struggling to keep up with even the medium markets, there's definitely a problem.