PDA

View Full Version : Hicks: Strike might make owners push for cap


Jerry_Manuel
08-17-2002, 06:48 PM
if players strike, owners might retreat from compromise and push for baseball to have a salary cap. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0817/1419334.html)

"I think a majority of owners, including me, would probably like to have even stronger cost-containment than we're talking about right now,'' Hicks was quoted as saying in Saturday's editions of The Dallas Morning News. "If they do choose to go on strike, I'm confident ownership will not allow a repeat of 1994. We need to fix baseball and not just have another Band-Aid solution.''

Lip Man 1
08-17-2002, 09:37 PM
That's incredibly funny and ironic coming from Tom Hicks. (The man who gave 252 million and was bidding against himself for A-Rod.) He also drove up the price for players in the NHL since he ownes the Dallas Stars

At least he won a title with them so obviously he did something right.

Sounds to me he's just copping a plea to stay in good graces with Proud To Be Your Bud.

As I said on another post, let them strike for two years. I've got my VHS tapes to keep me warm, and the Sox ALWAYS win on those!

Lip

RedPinStripes
08-17-2002, 10:12 PM
Exactly . What the hell kind of cap does he expect when he's paying 1 guy 25 mill a year? he helped screw up baseball. He wanted to play the big money game like king george, and he lost. Now he wants a cap?

:tool
Yes. Tom Hicks is also a tool.

duke of dorwood
08-17-2002, 11:33 PM
This is more "Boys With Toys". He saves about 3 1/2 million if they strike. So they get a cap-his is 1/3 full already with 1 guy

voodoochile
08-18-2002, 11:02 AM
Hicks has repeatedly said that the contract offered to ARod was a mistake. Too bad he was new to the sport when he made the offer.

If they do hard cap the slaries, they need to install a hard floor, continue with the plans for revenue sharing and add some exceptions like in the NBA. Still, a hard cap would be set so high that it would be a moot issue for most teams, even with revenue sharing ($90 million+).

Besides, this is mostly rhetoric to scare the players. They cannot install a hard cap without the players consent, a prolonged work stoppage or the court's approval. Right now, I don't think they have the ammo for a court victory and we all know they don't have the stones to do whatever is necessary to outlast the players...

CiscoCarlos
08-18-2002, 11:55 AM
The cap sounds good to me, but then I'm not a Yankee fan. The smug Yankee announcers are always going on about how a cap doesn't keep the Lakers from winning year- in and year out.

But I'm a Milwaukee Buck fan and I don't blame the system for the Lakers winning and the Bucks losing. Arguably, the Lakers win due to management's decision to hire the right coach and somehow getting the most out of their quality players.

On the other hand, a Milwaukee Brewer fan can blame the uneven system for the Yankees winning. The Yankees win partially because they have the financial resources to spend triple the money of most other teams and make a profit something that is undoable in Milwaukee, Kansas City, Detroit, Cleveland and elsewhere.

Zednem700
08-18-2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by CiscoCarlos
The cap sounds good to me, but then I'm not a Yankee fan. The smug Yankee announcers are always going on about how a cap doesn't keep the Lakers from winning year- in and year out.

But I'm a Milwaukee Buck fan and I don't blame the system for the Lakers winning and the Bucks losing. Arguably, the Lakers win due to management's decision to hire the right coach and somehow getting the most out of their quality players.

On the other hand, a Milwaukee Brewer fan can blame the uneven system for the Yankees winning. The Yankees win partially because they have the financial resources to spend triple the money of most other teams and make a profit something that is undoable in Milwaukee, Kansas City, Detroit, Cleveland and elsewhere.

A cap will do nothing to improve competetive balance, which doesn't really need to be improved anyways. The Yankees have not been dominating baseball these last few years. I expect good teams to win lots of games. Over the past few years the Yankees have not won that many more games than other good American league teams. I saw a study done that looked at periods of dominance. It looked at winning percentages of great teams as compared to the other above average teams in their league. THe A's of the early nineties were FAR more dominant than the Yankees of today have been. The only reason we don't think they are, is because they got unlucky in the playoffs. THey got swept by an unquestionably inferior Cincinnati team one year, and got beat by ubelievable heroics another. Because of that they only won 1 world series despite being the best team in the game for at least three years.

The Yankees have been playing well enough to get to the playoffs. Once there they have played well, and yes gotten lucky a bunch of times. Giambi not sliding on that play last year had nothing to do with payroll.

The NBA has a cap and teams from the 4 largest metropolitan regions in the country have won 11 of the last 12 championships. In baseball its 4 of the last 12. Now please, could someone tell me how MLB has balance problem but the NBA doesn't?

Finally, even with a cap, teams in bigger markets will have an advantage over teams in smaller ones, these advantages might actually grow with a cap. Team salary is only one way players make money, endorsements are also a huge incentive. Players in big cities will always have more endorsement opportunities than players in smaller cities. THey will get shown on national tv more often, because their teams will guarantee higher ratings due to their large population base. If you're a ballplayer, and Kansas City is offering ten million a year, and you can expect endorsements of about 1 million dollars whereas the Yankeees are offering you 9 million a year but the endorsement market will probably gve you another 5 milion anually, which one would you take?

CiscoCarlos
08-18-2002, 01:32 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zednem700
[B]

The NBA has a cap and teams from the 4 largest metropolitan regions in the country have won 11 of the last 12 championships. In baseball its 4 of the last 12. Now please, could someone tell me how MLB has balance problem but the NBA doesn't?

You may be right and certainly raise a lot of good points. But while it may be 4 of the last 12, the Yankees and Braves (with their TV revenue to back them) are handily topping their division almost every year now. As Hawk Harrelson notes, Atlanta may not be among the four largest metropolitan regions, but it has revenue opportunities that teams such as the Royals and Brewers cannot compete with.

And that NBA count may (or may not) have as much to do with Phil Jackson's coaching capabilities combined with Jordan and O'Neill than with the large metro regions. If Portland had picked Jordan this simply wouldn't have happened.

SI1020
08-18-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700


A cap will do nothing to improve competetive balance, which doesn't really need to be improved anyways. The Yankees have not been dominating baseball these last few years. I expect good teams to win lots of games. Over the past few years the Yankees have not won that many more games than other good American league teams. I saw a study done that looked at periods of dominance. It looked at winning percentages of great teams as compared to the other above average teams in their league. THe A's of the early nineties were FAR more dominant than the Yankees of today have been. The only reason we don't think they are, is because they got unlucky in the playoffs. THey got swept by an unquestionably inferior Cincinnati team one year, and got beat by ubelievable heroics another. Because of that they only won 1 world series despite being the best team in the game for at least three years.

The Yankees have been playing well enough to get to the playoffs. Once there they have played well, and yes gotten lucky a bunch of times. Giambi not sliding on that play last year had nothing to do with payroll.

The NBA has a cap and teams from the 4 largest metropolitan regions in the country have won 11 of the last 12 championships. In baseball its 4 of the last 12. Now please, could someone tell me how MLB has balance problem but the NBA doesn't?

Finally, even with a cap, teams in bigger markets will have an advantage over teams in smaller ones, these advantages might actually grow with a cap. Team salary is only one way players make money, endorsements are also a huge incentive. Players in big cities will always have more endorsement opportunities than players in smaller cities. THey will get shown on national tv more often, because their teams will guarantee higher ratings due to their large population base. If you're a ballplayer, and Kansas City is offering ten million a year, and you can expect endorsements of about 1 million dollars whereas the Yankeees are offering you 9 million a year but the endorsement market will probably gve you another 5 milion anually, which one would you take? I think you are talking about the 88-90 A's.

MarkEdward
08-18-2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by CiscoCarlos

As Hawk Harrelson notes, Atlanta may not be among the four largest metropolitan regions, but it has revenue opportunities that teams such as the Royals and Brewers cannot compete with.

Atlanta also has a larger market than the Twins, Indians, Astros, Giants, Diamondbacks, A's, and Cardinals; that doesn't stop them from competing. There is a reason the Royals and Brewers don't compete: inept management.