PDA

View Full Version : Steroid players begin to be named


rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 08:16 PM
Interesting question: As players get named in the BALCO suit, what (if any) recourse does MLB have. If they don't have a positive test, but they DO have players admitting purchase of steroids in court (to avoid perjury charges), can they suspend?

What an interesting sight it would be to have players admit buying steroids in court and have the union fight that they can't be suspended.

For what it's worth, Sheffield's is the first name to come out as officially connected (his name is on FedEx's to/from BALCO).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

Daver
02-17-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Interesting question: As players get named in the BALCO suit, what (if any) recourse does MLB have. If they don't have a positive test, but they DO have players admitting purchase of steroids in court (to avoid perjury charges), can they suspend?

What an interesting sight it would be to have players admit buying steroids in court and have the union fight that they can't be suspended.

For what it's worth, Sheffield's is the first name to come out as officially connected (his name is on FedEx's to/from BALCO).

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

Under the agreement signed in 2002 they could not be suspended for first time infractions anyway.

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 08:20 PM
So how would an admission in court for a player who already tested positive once work? Is that a 2d positive or is the language clear that it needs to be a positive urine test conducted by MLB? (Which I'm guessing is the case)

Personally, I think there's no way the union allows any suspensions even if guys admit things in court. Which will be a fairly big PR blow as we approach renegotiations of the CBA.

Rex Hudler
02-17-2004, 08:23 PM
All I have to say is this could get really ugly.

RKMeibalane
02-17-2004, 08:24 PM
I'm just glad all of those cheating bastards are going to get caught finally.

:shammy

"Why are you looking at me?"

Daver
02-17-2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
So how would an admission in court for a player who already tested positive once work? Is that a 2d positive or is the language clear that it needs to be a positive urine test conducted by MLB? (Which I'm guessing is the case)

Personally, I think there's no way the union allows any suspensions even if guys admit things in court. Which will be a fairly big PR blow as we approach renegotiations of the CBA.

I would not be surprised if steroid testing is one of the things the MLBPA demand be excluded from the next CBA,along with the luxury tax.

ondafarm
02-17-2004, 08:29 PM
I think suspensions for steroids would be great for the White Sox. I doubt any of the big four are chemically enhanced. Frank certainly isn't, Magglio very doubtful, C.Lee unlikely and I don't think Konerko ever needed to.

mantis1212
02-17-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I would not be surprised if steroid testing is one of the things the MLBPA demand be excluded from the next CBA,along with the luxury tax.

Excluded? How would they have any leverage to do that after all this comes out? Hell, let'em strike then, before the MLB just becomes the JOY: Juiced-Out Yankeeball...

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I would not be surprised if steroid testing is one of the things the MLBPA demand be excluded from the next CBA,along with the luxury tax.

You cannot be serious. I would believe the luxury tax, but steroid testing? I'm going to assume you're joking, but if not - what grounds could they possibly have for that?

duke of dorwood
02-17-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I would not be surprised if steroid testing is one of the things the MLBPA demand be excluded from the next CBA,along with the luxury tax.

As we know, they WILL ask for the moon-and usually get it

Jerko
02-17-2004, 08:54 PM
I think the biggest thing these players will have to worry about is embarrasment from being caught and maybe losing out on their commercial endorsements. Other than that you're gonna see crap like "Oh he can't be suspended, he's only a 3 time offender" or "that steriod is not on the banned list" or whatever. I know they are against the laws of the United States, but we all know MLB union rules supercede this country's legal system. Unless you gamble of course. Drug use, steriods, and physically cheating during the course of the game are forgivable though.

Daver
02-17-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
You cannot be serious. I would believe the luxury tax, but steroid testing? I'm going to assume you're joking, but if not - what grounds could they possibly have for that?

The MLBPA,in light of what has happened since signing the last CBA,are going to step to the bargaining table for the next one wanting all the concessions they made in good faith in the last negotiations back,with interest.

Bud Selig and his lawyers used the media and the current(at the time) national atmosphere to pressure the MLBPA into a deal they found distasteful,and the FA market after signing it has proven what the MLBPA has suspected all along,given any excuse the owners would use it to kill the FA market.

The moral of the story,they got fed a line and allowed the media to create an atmosphere that made the MLBPA look like the bad guys,and Bud got away with it.Does anyone really think that will happen again?

mike squires
02-17-2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
I think suspensions for steroids would be great for the White Sox. I doubt any of the big four are chemically enhanced. Frank certainly isn't, Magglio very doubtful, C.Lee unlikely and I don't think Konerko ever needed to.

Maybe Konerko should start. :D:

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The MLBPA,in light of what has happened since signing the last CBA,are going to step to the bargaining table for the next one wanting all the concessions they made in good faith in the last negotiations back,with interest.

Bud Selig and his lawyers used the media and the current(at the time) national atmosphere to pressure the MLBPA into a deal they found distasteful,and the FA market after signing it has proven what the MLBPA has suspected all along,given any excuse the owners would use it to kill the FA market.

The moral of the story,they got fed a line and allowed the media to create an atmosphere that made the MLBPA look like the bad guys,and Bud got away with it.Does anyone really think that will happen again?

Here we go again with "good faith". Just out of curiosity - how are the union not the bad guys if/when they oppose steroid testing? If it comes out that a number of major players are juiced, how is that not going to result in an even worse national atmosphere for the MLBPA?

And for the record - the lack of a luxury tax would likely have little to no effect on free agency since the tax was designed to slow the Yanks spending and it hasn't. Does anyone really think that NOT having a tax is going to either slow the Yanks spending or incent other teams to spend?

mantis1212
02-17-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The MLBPA,in light of what has happened since signing the last CBA,are going to step to the bargaining table for the next one wanting all the concessions they made in good faith in the last negotiations back,with interest.

Bud Selig and his lawyers used the media and the current(at the time) national atmosphere to pressure the MLBPA into a deal they found distasteful,and the FA market after signing it has proven what the MLBPA has suspected all along,given any excuse the owners would use it to kill the FA market.

The moral of the story,they got fed a line and allowed the media to create an atmosphere that made the MLBPA look like the bad guys,and Bud got away with it.Does anyone really think that will happen again?

Yes, IMO. The national atmosphere and media will be even less supportive of the MLBPA after this steriod case fully unfolds. I believe a lot of big names will come out, and the demand for more testing will just get greater and greater. If the testing program becomes any more lenient, MLB will become a national joke and I think the MLBPA knows that.

Daver
02-17-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


And for the record - the lack of a luxury tax would likely have little to no effect on free agency since the tax was designed to slow the Yanks spending and it hasn't. Does anyone really think that NOT having a tax is going to either slow the Yanks spending or incent other teams to spend?

That is the point,the tax does nothing,and was flawed to begin with,except that it gave the rest of the owners an excuse not to spend in the FA market.The players agreed to a form of salary restraint,and the owners,with the exception of a few,took it as an excuse to cut payroll across the board.

Carl Pohlad,David Glass,and a few other owners,are laughing all the way to the bank.

Daver
02-17-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Yes, IMO. The national atmosphere and media will be even less supportive of the MLBPA after this steriod case fully unfolds. I believe a lot of big names will come out, and the demand for more testing will just get greater and greater. If the testing program becomes any more lenient, MLB will become a national joke and I think the MLBPA knows that.

The MLBPA has two years to work out their angle on this,and have lost exactly one labor war in thirty plus years,and they lost that one because they gave in to media pressure,lightning doesn't strike twice often.

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Daver
That is the point,the tax does nothing,and was flawed to begin with,except that it gave the rest of the owners an excuse not to spend in the FA market.The players agreed to a form of salary restraint,and the owners,with the exception of a few,took it as an excuse to cut payroll across the board.

Carl Pohlad,David Glass,and a few other owners,are laughing all the way to the bank.

My point is that the tax was not the reason payrolls were cut. Lack of a tax will only lead to the same or greater payroll cuts.

Daver
02-17-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
My point is that the tax was not the reason payrolls were cut. Lack of a tax will only lead to the same or greater payroll cuts.

Really?


Tom Hicks,owner of the Texas Rangers disagrees with you,as does John Hart,their general manager.Perhaps you should review what they said in the press conference they called when they justified paying 67 million dollars to get rid of the best player in baseball.

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Really?


Tom Hicks,owner of the Texas Rangers disagrees with you,as does John Hart,their general manager.Perhaps you should review what they said in the press conference they called when they justified paying 67 million dollars to get rid of the best player in baseball.

Really? I see a lot of comments about financial flexibility, with or without a tax, paying 67m instead of 187m provides significant flexibility. Not many ARod contracts out there, so hard to extrapolate that out to the broader player base anyway. There were salary dumps before the tax, and there are salary dumps now.

In any case - if you think that Hicks/Hart don't make this deal in the absence of a luxury tax, I disagree 100%. Comments I've seen from Texas focus on flexibility this gives them - which would be the case with or without a tax given the size of that contract.

And back to the original point of the thread - how can you argue that the union has the interests of the game in mind if it opposes steroid testing? Or do you think that use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is ok?

Daver
02-17-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar

And back to the original point of the thread - how can you argue that the union has the interests of the game in mind if it opposes steroid testing? Or do you think that use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is ok?

When proof is shown that there is a significant amount of players using steroids I will think about replying to this,until then you are drawing straws.How many players have tested positive that we know of?

SergeantMahoney
02-17-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
I think suspensions for steroids would be great for the White Sox. I doubt any of the big four are chemically enhanced. Frank certainly isn't, Magglio very doubtful, C.Lee unlikely and I don't think Konerko ever needed to.

It's probably a good thing that Canseco isn't still around.

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Daver
When proof is shown that there is a significant amount of players using steroids I will think about replying to this,until then you are drawing straws.How many players have tested positive that we know of?

Well - apparently, despite having significant notice and time to "flush", at least 5%(Official report - 5-7%). Anecdotally, from someone with virtually nothing to gain from admitting it (Caminiti) - a lot more. Now a noted trainer has admitted under oath that he sold steroids to a "number" of players and the source of the steroids has said the same. The number can only be larger than already known as none of those using THG or other substances not tested for are included in that 5% and none of those who were smart enough to flush their systems are either.

Interesting that you won't believe based on that that there's any "significant" usage, but you will believe moves made for financial considerations are because owners are using the tax as an excuse to cut salaries (despite it not being mentioned or needed based on their rationale).

Daver
02-17-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar


Interesting that you won't believe based on that that there's any "significant" usage, but you will believe moves made for financial considerations are because owners are using the tax as an excuse to cut salaries (despite it not being mentioned or needed based on their rationale).

Based on whose rationale?

rahulsekhar
02-17-2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Based on whose rationale?

Based on the quotes from Hicks & Hart (from the official PC release after the trade). You interpret these as tax-related, I dont' believe they need to be tax-related to provide the flexibility they are looking. That's accomplished simply by saving 120mil over the life of the ARod contract.

Without any tax implications at all: They can take the salary they would have paid Alex and get a couple of players. They believe that that will make them more competitive (and frankly, I agree, obviously depending on who they go get).

---------

From john hart:
"This trade is about flexibility," he added. "We've traded the best player in the game and we're getting tremendous financial flexibility"

From Tom Hicks:
"I personally did not think it was going to materialize because the money was not right, but the Yankees started getting the money right late Wednesday night and Thursday morning," Hicks said. "At that point, I began to take it very seriously and it was a very difficult decision for me to make for all the obvious reasons.
"I called [assistant general manager Grady Fuson] and John [Hart] and asked them if we could win a championship faster by doing the deal or not doing the deal. Both of their opinions were that we could win a championship faster by doing the deal."

MRKARNO
02-17-2004, 10:56 PM
The fact is that baseball needs a salary cap, even if it's as high as 100 mil in current value to prevent the yankees from spending as they have been. I would think that 90 mil would be reasonable too, but the yanks are just getting out of hand

Rex Hudler
02-17-2004, 11:01 PM
I believe the fact that more than 5% tested positive last year is proof enough. Add in the fact that steroids are not that difficult to mask when you know the test is coming and players were potentially taking steroids they were not yet testing for and I don't see any way that testing will ever be eliminated. In fact, I see it getting much tougher.

Steroid use is pretty common and is no secret within the walls of clubhouses. I'm not saying that every player takes them, but to say they are not an issue is like saying Sammy Sosa is the only player who uses a corked bat. Just not accurate.

mantis1212
02-18-2004, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Daver
When proof is shown that there is a significant amount of players using steroids I will think about replying to this,until then you are drawing straws.How many players have tested positive that we know of?

Huh? Over 5% of players tested positive, AFTER they were told WHEN the test would be taken. I grant you that most of MLB players aren't Rhodes Scholars, but come on!!!

Kittle
02-18-2004, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Daver
That is the point,the tax does nothing,and was flawed to begin with,except that it gave the rest of the owners an excuse not to spend in the FA market.The players agreed to a form of salary restraint,and the owners,with the exception of a few,took it as an excuse to cut payroll across the board.

The luxury tax was a half-assed compromise to the ever-growing problem of payroll disparity. What should've been implemented was a salary cap, but there's no way in hell that the money-hungry MLBPA would've allowed that .

I'd like to see these guys play a couple years in the NFL, where salaries are significantly lower (despite careers being much shorter on average) and contracts typically aren't guaranteed. Perhaps then they'd realize what's it's like to actually earn a paycheck.

But I digress...

DSpivack
02-18-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by SergeantMahoney
It's probably a good thing that Canseco isn't still around.

To go further back, what about John Kruk?

gosox41
02-18-2004, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
All I have to say is this could get really ugly.

I hope so. I'm confident that Frank doesn't juice. And I'm certain Sammy does. I'd love to see it leaked out that Sammy cheated. But it probably won't matter since Cub fans have too much else to celebrate right now and will be too drunk to notice anyway.

Bob

gosox41
02-18-2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Huh? Over 5% of players tested positive, AFTER they were told WHEN the test would be taken. I grant you that most of MLB players aren't Rhodes Scholars, but come on!!!

I don't know too much about steroids, but aren't there ways to hide it in your system or take a different version that isn't being tested for?

The fact that 5% still failed the test when they knew about it 8 months ahead of time says a lot.


Bob

ode to veeck
02-18-2004, 07:27 AM
Wasn't Maggs one of only two or three players in MLB openly committed to being steroid free ... or something similar a year or two back

SSN721
02-18-2004, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I hope so. I'm confident that Frank doesn't juice. And I'm certain Sammy does. I'd love to see it leaked out that Sammy cheated. But it probably won't matter since Cub fans have too much else to celebrate right now and will be too drunk to notice anyway.

Bob

Yeah, I am sure if Sammy is caught, Mariotti and the media will find a way to spin it so he looks like a good guy. Maybe he can work in the Whites Sox somehow like he got started when he was on the Sox cuz management encouraged it or some crap like that. I know that the MLBPA will definately want big concessions to work in testing to their next deal with MLB, and they will probably get it sadly, becuase I dont think anyone is ever going to stand up to that bloated union, and MLB feels that they have to concede almost anything to them. I find it quite sickening myself.

ode to veeck
02-18-2004, 07:35 AM
If Sham-Me gets caught. look for MORONotti to find Sox trainers from 90-91 responsible for gettin him hooked ...

Kittle
02-18-2004, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
Yeah, I am sure if Sammy is caught, Mariotti and the media will find a way to spin it so he looks like a good guy. Maybe he can work in the Whites Sox somehow like he got started when he was on the Sox cuz management encouraged it or some crap like that. I know that the MLBPA will definately want big concessions to work in testing to their next deal with MLB, and they will probably get it sadly, becuase I dont think anyone is ever going to stand up to that bloated union, and MLB feels that they have to concede almost anything to them. I find it quite sickening myself.

Wasn't Moronotti particularly critical of Sam-me after the bat-corking incident last year? Or am I getting him confused with that other ass clown, Bayless?

wassagstdu
02-18-2004, 07:46 AM
Look for players who had a surprisingly bad first half last year as they cleaned up to avoid the random testing. A few names come to mind: A couple of K's on the Sox and one Lovable Loser...

Randar68
02-18-2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Yes, IMO. The national atmosphere and media will be even less supportive of the MLBPA after this steriod case fully unfolds. I believe a lot of big names will come out, and the demand for more testing will just get greater and greater. If the testing program becomes any more lenient, MLB will become a national joke and I think the MLBPA knows that.

I will only add one comment to this thread. The International sports governing bodies have been VERY harsh on MLB and other US pro sports for not taking doping more seriously. In light of the positive tests for several minor league players attempting to participate in international competition, I don't see any way the MLBPA is not forced, through pressure by the USOC, MLB, and domestic and international doping watchdogs to do something more in line with the NFL.

On the flip-side, the NBA wants random drug testing to be a part of the next CBA for them because of rampant Marijuana use...

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 10:11 AM
MLB might cede the drug testing issue, rule one, Chicks dig the long ball so more fans more money.

I love it how people think Salary cap would be great for baseball. The only thing a cap does is provide profit for the owners. It won't add to any competitive parity as teams who want to spend money will and those who don't won't. The luxury tax has been a compete failure since forces talent to flock to few markets willing to pay them. The distribution of talent has never been more skewed then it is now and luxury tax is a major reason for that.

poorme
02-18-2004, 10:19 AM
How does the NFL do it? Seems to work fine there. Lots of parity if that's what you want.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by poorme
How does the NFL do it? Seems to work fine there. Lots of parity if that's what you want.

Injuries are the only thing which creates an image of parity in the NFL. The cap forces teams to carry a weak bench so if a few starters go down most teams can't recover til next year.

ewokpelts
02-18-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
I think suspensions for steroids would be great for the White Sox. I doubt any of the big four are chemically enhanced. Frank certainly isn't, Magglio very doubtful, C.Lee unlikely and I don't think Konerko ever needed to.

maggs joined a pledge to stay roid free a couple of years ago....that dosent mean he's lying of course...but on record...he's sed he'll stay away from it.
Gene

rahulsekhar
02-18-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
MLB might cede the drug testing issue, rule one, Chicks dig the long ball so more fans more money.

I love it how people think Salary cap would be great for baseball. The only thing a cap does is provide profit for the owners. It won't add to any competitive parity as teams who want to spend money will and those who don't won't. The luxury tax has been a compete failure since forces talent to flock to few markets willing to pay them. The distribution of talent has never been more skewed then it is now and luxury tax is a major reason for that.

The issue is that with a cap, teams that want to spend money will not be able to spend as much as they'd like. Example: The Yanks can't go out and sign whatever big name FA pitcher there is after this season. That player is then forced to look elsewhere and choose the best deal from the teams with the available cap room.

Salaries drag, and talent is more evenly dispersed.

Think about it - with there was a cap, the Yanks would not have been able to sign Sheffield (or trade for Brown/ARod). He'd have to look elsewhere and to get a big contract, likely go to a team that doesnt' already have a number of big salaries. Re-run that scenario 5-10 times a year and you have a much more dispersed talent base and increased competitive balance.

It does help owners profit, but it also has the competitive effects.

rahulsekhar
02-18-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
maggs joined a pledge to stay roid free a couple of years ago....that dosent mean he's lying of course...but on record...he's sed he'll stay away from it.
Gene

The fact that the entire Sox team was ready to walk out on the steroid tests to trigger the "next level" of testing indicates to me that we don't have a major problem, so bring it on.

Of course being a superstar without a 'roid issue will only drive up Magg's salary demands and value.....seems like we just can't win!

Rex Hudler
02-18-2004, 02:02 PM
I love it how people think Salary cap would be great for baseball. The only thing a cap does is provide profit for the owners. It won't add to any competitive parity as teams who want to spend money will and those who don't won't.I don't claim to know the nuances of the salary cap, so I won't get into all of that, but I would figure that if there is a cap, there would also be a minimum figure as well.



As far as providing profit for the owners, who the hell cares? Do you buy everything you buy from cars to toothpaste from companies that don't make money? No

Companies are generally regarded as good companies when they turn a profit. That is their purpose. I know baseball is a bit different, but still healthier teams would make it more likely stronger attempts to put a competitive product on the field, would occur.

Owners should make money. They should do everything in their power to hire the right people to provide a quality product served in a friendly atmosphere while providing a quality work enviroment for its employees and being good, ethical partners in the community.

Do that and wins and losses will take care of themselves. Unfortunately, not all 30 teams can win the WS each year.

MarkEdward
02-18-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Huh? Over 5% of players tested positive, AFTER they were told WHEN the test would be taken. I grant you that most of MLB players aren't Rhodes Scholars, but come on!!!

For what it's worth, greater than 5% *coded* positive. That may seem like picking nits, but those who refused to take the test were marked as testing positive for steroids.

So really, we can't even be true if that 5% figure is the true representation of MLB's steroid user population.

rahulsekhar
02-18-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
For what it's worth, greater than 5% *coded* positive. That may seem like picking nits, but those who refused to take the test were marked as testing positive for steroids.

So really, we can't even be true if that 5% figure is the true representation of MLB's steroid user population.

Well, unless someone's going to say that clean players individually decided to increase the positive count or took their own stands against the testing (despite their own union pushing them not to do so - example being the ChiSox), the # or users is only higher, not lower.

daveeym
02-18-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
MLB might cede the drug testing issue, rule one, Chicks dig the long ball so more fans more money.

I love it how people think Salary cap would be great for baseball. The only thing a cap does is provide profit for the owners. It won't add to any competitive parity as teams who want to spend money will and those who don't won't. The luxury tax has been a compete failure since forces talent to flock to few markets willing to pay them. The distribution of talent has never been more skewed then it is now and luxury tax is a major reason for that.

At least I don't need to look at Dean's ugly mug on your posts anymore.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I don't claim to know the nuances of the salary cap, so I won't get into all of that, but I would figure that if there is a cap, there would also be a minimum figure as well.

As far as providing profit for the owners, who the hell cares? Do you buy everything you buy from cars to toothpaste from companies that don't make money? No

Companies are generally regarded as good companies when they turn a profit. That is their purpose. I know baseball is a bit different, but still healthier teams would make it more likely stronger attempts to put a competitive product on the field, would occur.

Owners should make money. They should do everything in their power to hire the right people to provide a quality product served in a friendly atmosphere while providing a quality work enviroment for its employees and being good, ethical partners in the community.

Do that and wins and losses will take care of themselves. Unfortunately, not all 30 teams can win the WS each year.

Totally missing the point here, owner crying poor and saying a cap is needed to make baseball competitive is just a joke. All the owners want to do it develop a profit margin. Caps don't create a competitive balance, just they keep better teams around longer.

The only reason NFL has any sense of parity is injuries and schedule manipulation. What the cap does is force teams to carry cheaper less skilled backups. So if a main player goes down, the team is hurt and in a season of 16 games two losses due to injury can mean the difference between playoffs and sitting at home.

When the reserve clause was in use, the Yankees bought up every good looking prospect and left them in the minors. (The reason for the draft). If Yankees wanted to trade for a player, they just bought him form the other team. The thing is no matter what system you put in, with out meaningful revenue sharing, the Yankees will always find a way to make it work for them.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
At least I don't need to look at Dean's ugly mug on your posts anymore.

Wow, I guess that what to expect form a bushee.

poorme
02-18-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The thing is no matter what system you put in, with out meaningful revenue sharing, the Yankees will always find a way to make it work for them.

Of course. with a salary cap/floor, there would have to be revenue sharing.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Of course. with a salary cap/floor, there would have to be revenue sharing.

Which won't happen.

If you want to solve baseball problems, you eliminate arbitration and players become free agents after their third year. Increase the supply to stable demand will cause prices to fall.

poorme
02-18-2004, 03:31 PM
well, the supply would increase, but so would the demand.

I don't mind your plan, but I don't see how it hampers the Yankees in any way.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
The only reason NFL has any sense of parity is injuries and schedule manipulation. What the cap does is force teams to carry cheaper less skilled backups. So if a main player goes down, the team is hurt and in a season of 16 games two losses due to injury can mean the difference between playoffs and sitting at home.

I think that is a LUDICROUS statement about the NFL salary cap:

Key differences in baseball/football
1) Football contract are not guaranteed as in baseball. A player can be waived/released and the team is not longer fiscally responsible for the contract and those contract dollars become less hurtful to the long-term cap # of said team.
2) Football has complete revenue sharing for television and similar avenues of revenue. Gate, luxury suites, parking, etc are moreso property of the teams, IIRC...
3) The weak/strong schedule makes a difference from year to year, but teams go from bad->good and back in the course of a couple years, so can it really not be modeled as a random schedule?
4) The turnover of players in the NFL makes MLB look stable. FA/waiver/contract dumping, etc etc etc are all factors in that, but teams add and lose multiple key personnel on a YEARLY basis due to cap restriction etc.

What all this means is: In the NFL, coaching and personnel decisions are the primary ingredient to long-term success. Badly run franchises like Cincinnati of the past 10 years flounder, despite spending similar $$$ to SF, NY, NE, STL, etc etc.

All in all, parody is undeniably good for football, and to say it isn't for baseball is foolish (although you didn't say that, Dadawg). The Yankees don't win because of proper management, they win because of $$$$. They can pay over their mistakes by throwing more money at them, they can outspend anyone mid-season, etc etc.

There are only a couple teams in MLB that will be able to compete with the Yankees 3 years from now. In a 5 or 7 game series, sure, they can be beat, but they are in the playoffs every year. Will Tampa Bay EVER have a shot at it without spending 50+ million more than they are now with Boston and NY in their division? No way.

Fans enjoy and support their teams, generally speaking. But rabid-fan-bases, outside of the Wrigley-effect, aren't there unless you sprinkle winning into the equation. Maybe not every year, but without ANY hope, people will not spend their money, time, and effort to support and enjoy watching their team 25 games back in July or without any semblance of hope...

Will a salary cap and floor solve that problem? I think it solves a majority of those problems. In addition, guaranteed contracts and some of the other MLPBA-related portions of this will really force teams to pay for their mistakes and think long and hard before handing out 8 million dollar contracts to Paul Konerko or outbidding yourself by 5 million a season for A-Rod.

Will the MLBPA let it come to pass? Not without a fight.

Will MLB be able to do that legally without giving up their Anti-trust exemption? Probably not.

However, I think people who say a cap/floor in the MLB will not work are simply missing the boat.

Hokiesox
02-18-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Which won't happen.

If you want to solve baseball problems, you eliminate arbitration and players become free agents after their third year. Increase the supply to stable demand will cause prices to fall.

...except that arbitration is a right granted to labor unions by the NLRB.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
...except that arbitration is a right granted to labor unions by the NLRB.

We are talking about a different arbitration here. The right granted by NLRB is about disagreement about the CBA. I was talking about 3-6 year players salary structure.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I think that is a LUDICROUS statement about the NFL salary cap:

Key differences in baseball/football
1) Football contract are not guaranteed as in baseball. A player can be waived/released and the team is not longer fiscally responsible for the contract and those contract dollars become less hurtful to the long-term cap # of said team.
2) Football has complete revenue sharing for television and similar avenues of revenue. Gate, luxury suites, parking, etc are moreso property of the teams, IIRC...
3) The weak/strong schedule makes a difference from year to year, but teams go from bad->good and back in the course of a couple years, so can it really not be modeled as a random schedule?
4) The turnover of players in the NFL makes MLB look stable. FA/waiver/contract dumping, etc etc etc are all factors in that, but teams add and lose multiple key personnel on a YEARLY basis due to cap restriction etc.

What all this means is: In the NFL, coaching and personnel decisions are the primary ingredient to long-term success. Badly run franchises like Cincinnati of the past 10 years flounder, despite spending similar $$$ to SF, NY, NE, STL, etc etc.

All in all, parody is undeniably good for football, and to say it isn't for baseball is foolish (although you didn't say that, Dadawg). The Yankees don't win because of proper management, they win because of $$$$. They can pay over their mistakes by throwing more money at them, they can outspend anyone mid-season, etc etc.

There are only a couple teams in MLB that will be able to compete with the Yankees 3 years from now. In a 5 or 7 game series, sure, they can be beat, but they are in the playoffs every year. Will Tampa Bay EVER have a shot at it without spending 50+ million more than they are now with Boston and NY in their division? No way.

Fans enjoy and support their teams, generally speaking. But rabid-fan-bases, outside of the Wrigley-effect, aren't there unless you sprinkle winning into the equation. Maybe not every year, but without ANY hope, people will not spend their money, time, and effort to support and enjoy watching their team 25 games back in July or without any semblance of hope...

Will a salary cap and floor solve that problem? I think it solves a majority of those problems. In addition, guaranteed contracts and some of the other MLPBA-related portions of this will really force teams to pay for their mistakes and think long and hard before handing out 8 million dollar contracts to Paul Konerko or outbidding yourself by 5 million a season for A-Rod.

Will the MLBPA let it come to pass? Not without a fight.

Will MLB be able to do that legally without giving up their Anti-trust exemption? Probably not.

However, I think people who say a cap/floor in the MLB will not work are simply missing the boat.

Players who are released and moved are role players or over the hill never the main guy. Injuries are a very common occurrence in football because the nature of the game. Look at the Ravens, J Lewis goes down after their Superbowl win and team doesn't do well. He hits his stride this year, and the team makes the playoffs. The Rams, go from Super Bowl team, to sitting at home, to coming one boneheaded decision form making the NFC Conf game. Marshall Faulk was the key for this cycle.

I agree revenue sharing would be a great thing for baseball, but that must come first and be effective before any cap/floor system would work. The problem is MLBPA and MLB don't trust each other to work on this system.

rahulsekhar
02-18-2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Totally missing the point here, owner crying poor and saying a cap is needed to make baseball competitive is just a joke. All the owners want to do it develop a profit margin. Caps don't create a competitive balance, just they keep better teams around longer.



You've said this a number of times without any explanation. If a salary cap prevents a team like the Yanks from signing a top-flight player (because they presumably want to make more $$$ than the Yanks have under the cap), then how does that NOT make it competitive? That player has to go somewhere else (i.e. talent is spread out more).

In fact, a salary cap should help prevent good teams from staying good - as their player come up for FA, they can leave for better offers (which happens in the NFL all the time). Teams also have to deal with the ramifications of signing bad contracts and locking up cap room for underperforming players - something that currently does not impact the top teams today since they can afford to keep increasing payroll.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Players who are released and moved are role players or over the hill never the main guy. Injuries are a very common occurrence in football because the nature of the game. Look at the Ravens, J Lewis goes down after their Superbowl win and team doesn't do well. He hits his stride this year, and the team makes the playoffs. The Rams, go from Super Bowl team, to sitting at home, to coming one boneheaded decision form making the NFC Conf game. Marshall Faulk was the key for this cycle.


Who was the All-Pro NE safety released before the start of last season?

Warrick Holdman, Phillip Daniels, etc etc...

This list is long and litterred with All-Pros. It allows teams to get out from under the burden of a contract bigger than what they are getting return for...

These are veterans, and while many are over-the-hill, there are also a good number of key contributors cut every year to save money on roster bonuses, escallating contracts, etc.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
You've said this a number of times without any explanation. If a salary cap prevents a team like the Yanks from signing a top-flight player (because they presumably want to make more $$$ than the Yanks have under the cap), then how does that NOT make it competitive? That player has to go somewhere else (i.e. talent is spread out more).

In fact, a salary cap should help prevent good teams from staying good - as their player come up for FA, they can leave for better offers (which happens in the NFL all the time). Teams also have to deal with the ramifications of signing bad contracts and locking up cap room for underperforming players - something that currently does not impact the top teams today since they can afford to keep increasing payroll.

Ding ding. In simple terms, it would result in a more even distribution of the veteran stars, as well as a reduction in the number of long-term contracts given and almost certainly a reduction(or at least stabilization) in salaries

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Who was the All-Pro NE safety released before the start of last season?

Warrick Holdman, Phillip Daniels, etc etc...

This list is long and litterred with All-Pros. It allows teams to get out from under the burden of a contract bigger than what they are getting return for...

These are veterans, and while many are over-the-hill, there are also a good number of key contributors cut every year to save money on roster bonuses, escallating contracts, etc.

Did it matter that an All Pro safety was cut? The thing is in any sport you need you studs to win. If your Stud gets hurt, you are done. The game of football creates more injuries then baseball, thus more studs get hurt and knock a team out of contention. The cycle of injuries is mistaken by people as parity the system creates.

rahulsekhar
02-18-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Did it matter that an All Pro safety was cut? The thing is in any sport you need you studs to win. If your Stud gets hurt, you are done. The game of football creates more injuries then baseball, thus more studs get hurt and knock a team out of contention. The cycle of injuries is mistaken by people as parity the system creates.

Who exactly were these "studs" on the pats last year? Outside of Brady (and I think that's debatable), and maybe Ty Law - there aren't any. In fact, while I dont' have the #s, I believe they had very few, if any All-pros. Instead, they were a team built with solid role players and exceptional coaching.

What was it that took the Dallas Cowboys from a terrible team to the playoffs? Coaching. Why was it that teams with a ton of studs - St. Louis, Indianapolis, Philly were at home while teams without as many but with strong coaching and personnel management (i.e. finding guys that fit together and fit the system) were in the Super Bowl?

The salary cap system in the NFL is creating competitive balance. There's no doubt that injuries to key players has an impact, but the fact that teams routinely cur controbutors because they need to get under the cap helps other teams find those contributors and keeps the talent levels much more even. That in turn makes smart personnel and coaching moves of greater importance for a winning franchise.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Did it matter that an All Pro safety was cut? The thing is in any sport you need you studs to win. If your Stud gets hurt, you are done. The game of football creates more injuries then baseball, thus more studs get hurt and knock a team out of contention. The cycle of injuries is mistaken by people as parity the system creates.

The injuries have always been there, the parity, while to an extent has been around, never to the extant has parity been seen in the NFL as it has under the current system.

It is not black and white, as you suggest.

MarkEdward
02-18-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Well, unless someone's going to say that clean players individually decided to increase the positive count or took their own stands against the testing (despite their own union pushing them not to do so - example being the ChiSox), the # or users is only higher, not lower.

Well, that is what I'm trying to say. Many players skipped the test for a couple of reasons:
1) they didn't want their right to privacy being infringed upon, or
2) like your Sox example, some players did decline to take the test, artificially raising the number of alleged steroid users. They did this to supposedly "weed out" the real users.

I'm not arguing that some MLB players may have taken some sort of steroid. I'm quibbling with the exact number.

MarkEdward
02-18-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
You've said this a number of times without any explanation. If a salary cap prevents a team like the Yanks from signing a top-flight player (because they presumably want to make more $$$ than the Yanks have under the cap), then how does that NOT make it competitive? That player has to go somewhere else (i.e. talent is spread out more).

You're taking a big leap in logic here. You're assuming, if a salary cap is put in place, that every team will suddenly begin to spend money. Just because a cap is established doesn't mean that owners will begin to open their wallets. Who's to say Kevin McClatchey or Carl Pohlad will start spending just because a Gary Sheffield is on the market?

If you want your team to compete, get idiots like Dave Littlefield and John Hart out of your front office.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, that is what I'm trying to say. Many players skipped the test for a couple of reasons:
1) they didn't want their right to privacy being infringed upon, or
2) like your Sox example, some players did decline to take the test, artificially raising the number of alleged steroid users. They did this to supposedly "weed out" the real users.

I'm not arguing that some MLB players may have taken some sort of steroid. I'm quibbling with the exact number.


Absolute BS. Who skipped the test? MLBPA was very stern with this one. Everyone was to take this test as to not artificially inflate the "positive" results. By not taking the test, regardless of personal beliefs, any player was undermining their own union, which is why you saw the MLBPA step in when they heard the Sox players were going to refuse to be tested...

Unless you have real evidence of this, it's essentially illogical diarrhea of the keyboard.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're taking a big leap in logic here. You're assuming, if a salary cap is put in place, that every team will suddenly begin to spend money. Just because a cap is established doesn't mean that owners will begin to open their wallets. Who's to say Kevin McClatchey or Carl Pohlad will start spending just because a Gary Sheffield is on the market?

If you want your team to compete, get idiots like Dave Littlefield and John Hart out of your front office.

That's why you need a Floor. Have you been reading this thread? Every mention of a cap has included discussion and assertion that an accompanying "floor" is also required.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
The injuries have always been there, the parity, while to an extent has been around, never to the extant has parity been seen in the NFL as it has under the current system.

It is not black and white, as you suggest.

I also said the biggest effect of cap is team depth. The Ravens without the cap could have put in Holmes when Lewis went down.

Look at the NBA who has a cap, while not hard cap at top does have a hard at bottom. Will Purdue got a five million dollar to play one year because the Bulls needed to get to the floor. There is no parity in the NBA the same six team will compete for this years title and next years title and last year's title. If you look different amount of teams who make the playoffs, baseball as a sport has the most parity over the past decade.

Randar68
02-18-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I also said the biggest effect of cap is team depth. The Ravens without the cap could have put in Holmes when Lewis went down.

Look at the NBA who has a cap, while not hard cap at top does have a hard at bottom. Will Purdue got a five million dollar to play one year because the Bulls needed to get to the floor. There is no parity in the NBA the same six team will compete for this years title and next years title and last year's title. If you look different amount of teams who make the playoffs, baseball as a sport has the most parity over the past decade.

Increased depth???

Yeah, that would be fantastic. Then we wouldn't be talking about Aaron Rowand, Scott Schoenweiss, Willie Harris, etc. Is that a bad thing? Doesn't that result in a better product on the field???

Disperse the stars and add more depth, is that a bad thing in anyone's book?

Daver
02-18-2004, 05:59 PM
The salary cap works great in the NFL,just ask Bill Bidwell,Michael McCaskey,and Randy Lerner.No matter what their team does on the field,their profit margin never changes.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Increased depth???

Yeah, that would be fantastic. Then we wouldn't be talking about Aaron Rowand, Scott Schoenweiss, Willie Harris, etc. Is that a bad thing? Doesn't that result in a better product on the field???

Disperse the stars and add more depth, is that a bad thing in anyone's book?

Most backups aren't stars, what depth did was protect the team from major swings if one guy went down.

poorme
02-18-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The salary cap works great in the NFL,just ask Bill Bidwell,Michael McCaskey,and Randy Lerner.No matter what their team does on the field,their profit margin never changes.

Ok, so 75% of the league is competitive compared to 10% in MLB.

Rex Hudler
02-18-2004, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, that is what I'm trying to say. Many players skipped the test for a couple of reasons:
1) they didn't want their right to privacy being infringed upon, or
2) like your Sox example, some players did decline to take the test, artificially raising the number of alleged steroid users. They did this to supposedly "weed out" the real users.

I'm not arguing that some MLB players may have taken some sort of steroid. I'm quibbling with the exact number.

Who skipped the test? I didn't see one report of a player skipping the test. The Sox players who initially stated they wouldn't take the test, relented and agreed to. I would like to know how anyone could know if any skipped it.

The bottom line if 5 players tested positive rather than 5% that is too many.

MarkEdward
02-18-2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Randar68



Absolute BS. Who skipped the test? MLBPA was very stern with this one. Everyone was to take this test as to not artificially inflate the "positive" results. By not taking the test, regardless of personal beliefs, any player was undermining their own union, which is why you saw the MLBPA step in when they heard the Sox players were going to refuse to be tested...

Unless you have real evidence of this, it's essentially illogical diarrhea of the keyboard.

All I could say to defend this statement was that I heard rumors (like the White Sox example). Yes, it was a bit premature of me to suggest something like I typed above. I really shouldn't base my arguments on rumors.

Anyway, I think we (the fans, media) are making bit too much of this alleged 'problem.' I'm pretty young, so maybe someone older can shed some light on this: Are folks angry at the players that took 'greenies' back in Jim Bouton's era? Should these players have been prosecuted and punished severely?


Originally posted by Randar68

That's why you need a Floor. Have you been reading this thread? Every mention of a cap has included discussion and assertion that an accompanying "floor" is also required.

Actually, I'm against a floor too. Some teams (Indians, Padres, Expos) are actually trying to re-build. With a salary floor in place, these teams would be signing replacement-level players for much larger deals than they need to be signed for. Like in Dawg's example, I'd imagine a team like Cleveland signing someone like Chris Stynes for two million a year just to reach the floor.

gogosoxgogo
02-18-2004, 09:39 PM
Let's just get to the bottom line here - the players have way too much power. That damn union of theirs is way too strong and is ruining the game. Players went from having no power at all with the reserve clause to having way too much power these days. It's absolutely ridiculous. The Player's Union does not have the best interests of the game at stake.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Let's just get to the bottom line here - the players have way too much power. That damn union of theirs is way too strong and is ruining the game. Players went from having no power at all with the reserve clause to having way too much power these days. It's absolutely ridiculous. The Player's Union does not have the best interests of the game at stake.

Why? The game today is better and healthier then it ever was under the reserve clause.

soxwon
02-18-2004, 09:43 PM
THE SOX WILL BE THE CLEANEST TEAM IN BASEBALL,
WAIT TILL THEY GET HOLD OF SOSA- ITS ALL OVER.
NO STEROIDS ON THE SOX.

gogosoxgogo
02-18-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Why? The game today is better and healthier then it ever was under the reserve clause.

I'm not saying the Reserve clause was a good thing. It was a horrible thing. I'm simply pointing out that players went from one extreme to another.

soxwon
02-18-2004, 09:44 PM
i took the caps lock off- i know you hate that.

Lip Man 1
02-18-2004, 09:59 PM
Welkl considering the owners had their way for say 75 years (until free agency came into being), I'd say the MLBPA has about 50 more years to wield the stick.

Lip

Daver
02-18-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I'm not saying the Reserve clause was a good thing. It was a horrible thing. I'm simply pointing out that players went from one extreme to another.

Not really.

The owners insisted on arbitration as opposed to absolute FA.At the time they considered it the next best thing to the reserve clause,until the NLRB stepped in.

When all is said and done everything was fine until the owners got nailed for being guilty of collusion,and forced to pay a pittance of what they should have paid.In retaliation the owners chose to oust the commisioner and replace him with a fellow owner,and the MLBPA has not trusted the owners since.

RichFitztightly
02-18-2004, 10:08 PM
Is it possible to get a union representative to represent the fans?

Randar68
02-18-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Why? The game today is better and healthier then it ever was under the reserve clause.

You think so?

I think it may be more interesting if all you watch is Sportscenter. Watch the whole game, and I'll take the better fundamentals, good pitching, and 2 hour games of the 60's, thank you.

Rex Hudler
02-18-2004, 10:51 PM
Anyway, I think we (the fans, media) are making bit too much of this alleged 'problem.' I'm pretty young, so maybe someone older can shed some light on this:

Considering baseball is, in essence, the last sport to take this issue seriously, should be indication enough. If steroids were not big problem, the NFL, the NBA, the Olympics, etc, wouldn't have taken measures to stop it.

The fact is that baseball players use it. Minor League players use them to help them get to the big leagues. Major League players of many talent levels take them. Organizations see the signs and ignore them. Trainers and coaches have a pretty good idea who is taking them and don't do a lot to discourage it, if the player is producing. I will bet money that unless the tester stands there and watches the player urinate, players will find a way to get someone else to pee for them. Or they will take masking agents which can be bought at GNC.

Whether it is 2% or 5% or 25%, it doesn't matter. The game and the union need to step up, recognize the problem and deal with it in a real way. The current plan is merely a step in the right direction. But they can't put a weak band aid on it and hope the PR from that will make people go away. The tests have to be random, 12 months a year and not limited in frequency. I'm off my soapbox now.

rahulsekhar
02-19-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're taking a big leap in logic here. You're assuming, if a salary cap is put in place, that every team will suddenly begin to spend money. Just because a cap is established doesn't mean that owners will begin to open their wallets. Who's to say Kevin McClatchey or Carl Pohlad will start spending just because a Gary Sheffield is on the market?

If you want your team to compete, get idiots like Dave Littlefield and John Hart out of your front office.

Not really. If the Yanks can't sign Sheffield, then his choices are
1)Sign with the Yanks for significantly less money (i.e. fit under their cap)
2) Sign somewhere else for less money than he'd like but more than the Yanks can offer
3) Retire/sit out

Will McClatchey/Pohlad sign him? Maybe not, but at a reduced price some team will(since the Yanks/BoSox can't drive it up).

Really, unless he's willing to sit out or sign for the league minimum with the Yanks, he'll play somewhere else, even if it's for $2mil/yr. At that price, someone will pay and talent will be more distributed.

rahulsekhar
02-19-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The salary cap works great in the NFL,just ask Bill Bidwell,Michael McCaskey,and Randy Lerner.No matter what their team does on the field,their profit margin never changes.

So the argument against a salary cap is that it helps the owners profit? I'll take owner profits in exchange for significantly increased parity and competitive balance, thank you very much.

If the goal of the system is to make sure the players profit and the owners minimize theirs, then I'd certainly recommend something besides a cap OR revenue sharing. But frankly, I don't really care who profits as long as the sport as a whole is better off through increased parity and balance. And I believe that if that is accomplished, both sides will end up profiting.

And for the record - while the 3 teams you cite above may be mismanaged, at least 2 of them have made significant attempts to remaing competitive. That's indicated by things like free agent signings & bigname coach signings. Mismanagement cannot be cured by any system. What the NFL system does is enable any team to turn their fortunes around and be real championship contenders if the can fix the mismanagement. Baseball currently does not allow that same option.

Kittle
02-19-2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The salary cap works great in the NFL,just ask Bill Bidwell,Michael McCaskey,and Randy Lerner.No matter what their team does on the field,their profit margin never changes.

The salary cap does wonders when it comes to ensuring competitive balance in sports. MLB has NO competitive balance, which is why its popularity is significantly lower than the NFL's.

The owners/GMs that you mentioned above are not successful in the NFL because they're incompetent and/or not willing to spend. Until they sell or surround themselves with better personnel, they'll continue to lose with or without a cap.

MLB desperately needs a salary cap. I'd rather see the owners grow some nuts and lock the players out for a year and a half than continue to watch the current system destroy the sport. It'd be worth it, IMO.

steff
02-19-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I hope so. I'm confident that Frank doesn't juice. And I'm certain Sammy does. I'd love to see it leaked out that Sammy cheated. But it probably won't matter since Cub fans have too much else to celebrate right now and will be too drunk to notice anyway.

Bob


Didn't matter when the cork flew out of his bat.. won't matter now.

Dadawg_77
02-19-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
The salary cap does wonders when it comes to ensuring competitive balance in sports. MLB has NO competitive balance, which is why its popularity is significantly lower than the NFL's.


What proof do you have that a cap does wonders in creating competition? It doesn't.

Fridaythe13thJason
02-19-2004, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
What proof do you have that a cap does wonders in creating competition? It doesn't.

The NFL and NBA.

Kittle
02-19-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
What proof do you have that a cap does wonders in creating competition? It doesn't.

Oh, really?

The Yankees have made the playoffs every year since '95 (and were in first place prior to the work stoppage in '94), have SIX World Series appearances over the past eight years, and FOUR World Championships. That level of success is absolutely unprecedented in the free agent-era NFL.

So, yes, salary caps do make a BIG difference.

MarkEdward
02-19-2004, 12:46 PM
Lots to respond to here before I head off to my classes...

Originally posted by Rex Hudler

Considering baseball is, in essence, the last sport to take this issue seriously, should be indication enough. If steroids were not big problem, the NFL, the NBA, the Olympics, etc, wouldn't have taken measures to stop it.
The fact is that baseball players use it. Minor League players use them to help them get to the big leagues. Major League players of many talent levels take them. Organizations see the signs and ignore them. Trainers and coaches have a pretty good idea who is taking them and don't do a lot to discourage it, if the player is producing. I will bet money that unless the tester stands there and watches the player urinate, players will find a way to get someone else to pee for them. Or they will take masking agents which can be bought at GNC.
Whether it is 2% or 5% or 25%, it doesn't matter. The game and the union need to step up, recognize the problem and deal with it in a real way. The current plan is merely a step in the right direction. But they can't put a weak band aid on it and hope the PR from that will make people go away. The tests have to be random, 12 months a year and not limited in frequency. I'm off my soapbox now.

Rex,
Fair enough. I suppose you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I'll attempt to offer a bit of my point of view here. I guess I just don't see steroids as the awful demon you and many others make them out to be. Yes, they are harmful to an athlete's body... when they're overused. The same can be said in regards to cigarettes, alcohol, and even aspirin. Taken in moderation under strict supervision (by a licensed physician), 'roids are no more harmful than many of the legal supplements on the market today. Do I think players should use steroids? No. Will I feel scorn and hatred for one of my favorite players if he was caught using? Not really.


Originally posted by rahulsekhar

Will McClatchey/Pohlad sign him? Maybe not, but at a reduced price some team will(since the Yanks/BoSox can't drive it up).


Well, then another high spending team like the Dodgers or Orioles or Mets will pick him up. A salary cap won't change the spending structure of many owners.

Originally posted by Kittle

The salary cap does wonders when it comes to ensuring competitive balance in sports. MLB has NO competitive balance, which is why its popularity is significantly lower than the NFL's.

I think I need a little clarification here: what's your definition of competitive balance? Because I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it in baseball at this time. Heck, in 2003, the Florida Marlins (that of the 40 million dollar payroll) beat the behemoth Yankees (that of the 100+ million dollar payroll). Just this past season, the White Sox, Twins, Royals, Blue Jays, Athletics, Expos, and Marlins were able to compete on low payrolls. This year, I count only ten teams that have relatively no chance of making the playoffs, and I'm being generous.

The owners/GMs that you mentioned above are not successful in the NFL because they're incompetent and/or not willing to spend. Until they sell or surround themselves with better personnel, they'll continue to lose with or without a cap.

The exact same thing can be said in regards to baseball! Many owners/GMs are not successful in MLB because they're incompetent and/or not willing to spend. Until they sell or surround themselves with better personnel, they'll continue to lose with or without a cap.

MLB desperately needs a salary cap. I'd rather see the owners grow some nuts and lock the players out for a year and a half than continue to watch the current system destroy the sport. It'd be worth it, IMO.

Yes, the fact that the 2003 World Champion Marlins and Oakland Athletics (four straight 90+ win seasons) continue to dominate our sport must mean that baseball is in a serious crisis situation.

Originally posted by UICJason
[B]
The NFL and NBA.

Ah yes, the National Basketball Association, that bastion of parity. Where there's no way a team composed of Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Kobe Bryant, and Shaquille O'Neil can ever be assembled... oh, wait. And don't forget, since 1980, only eight different teams have won the NBA title. In this same time frame, fifteen different teams have won the World Series. I know, multiple endpoints, but I believe it illustrates my point well.

I apologize for my tone in some of these posts. I just get angry when people bash baseball's current situation.

Kittle
02-19-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I think I need a little clarification here: what's your definition of competitive balance? Because I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it in baseball at this time. Heck, in 2003, the Florida Marlins (that of the 40 million dollar payroll) beat the behemoth Yankees (that of the 100+ million dollar payroll). Just this past season, the White Sox, Twins, Royals, Blue Jays, Athletics, Expos, and Marlins were able to compete on low payrolls. This year, I count only ten teams that have relatively no chance of making the playoffs, and I'm being generous.

I apologize for my tone in some of these posts. I just get angry when people bash baseball's current situation.

(1) The fact that the Yankees have gone to the Series in six out of the past eight seasons and have won four of those AND the fact that they've out-spent their competition for most of that stretch should make it DEAD OBVIOUS that there's little competitive balance. True, the Marlins and Angels had miracle seasons, but they haven't been CONSISTENLY competitive in the same way that the big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Braves, Indians, etc.) have. On average, few "low payroll" (< 55 million) teams even make it to the playoffs.

(2) When a full 1/3 of league has "no chance of making it to the playoffs," there's a problem. How is MLB "competitive" when the Yankees can nearly outspend the entire AL Central?

I really hope you're just playing devil's advocate here because I don't see a shred of logic in your statement.

mantis1212
02-19-2004, 01:01 PM
[i]Will I feel scorn and hatred for one of my favorite players if he was caught using? Not really. [/B]

How about if your favorite player is clean but consistently loses the home run title to juiced-up players? I believe this is similar to Frank Thomas's situation, and has risked his HOF bid...

Dadawg_77
02-19-2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by UICJason
The NFL and NBA.

There is no parity in the NBA the champs will be one of these six teams, Nets, Lakers, Kings, Wolves, Spurs, Pacers. The only team who has a chance next year is the Rockets, and they need some major improvement. Other then that I would bet money no other team besides those will win the title for the next four years.

NFL I have discussed my feelings on parity in the league earlier in this thread.

rahulsekhar
02-19-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
There is no parity in the NBA the champs will be one of these six teams, Nets, Lakers, Kings, Wolves, Spurs, Pacers. The only team who has a chance next year is the Rockets, and they need some major improvement. Other then that I would bet money no other team besides those will win the title for the next four years.

NFL I have discussed my feelings on parity in the league earlier in this thread.

First - remember that the NBA doesn't have a true cap. They have a soft cap that lets them resign their own players above it. The NBA is also different from baseball and football in that a single franchise player can keep a team as a top contender.

And for what it's worth - all of the teams that you list above got their core players via trade or draft (and none of the trades were financially motivated), the only one who was an FA was Shaq, and the Lakers had to clear cap room to get him (i.e. they couldn't just add him to an already good team).

You still haven't explained your assertion that a cap doesn't promote competitive balance. How can it not unless players either sit out or take dramatically lower salaries to join a high-spending team? They have to go somewhere else, which creates a greater spread of talent.

And to MarkEdwards point on the NBA - the example you cite is not a good one because in the Payton/Malone scenario, the players took pretty low salaries to join the Lakers. That's not what anyone's trying to prevent(and anyway, it's not at all common). Sheffield didn't take less money to go play for the Yanks to win, he went there because they were able to offer him the most $$$ (although in the end he got both the $$$ and the winning).

rahulsekhar
02-19-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


I think I need a little clarification here: what's your definition of competitive balance? Because I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a hell of a lot of it in baseball at this time. Heck, in 2003, the Florida Marlins (that of the 40 million dollar payroll) beat the behemoth Yankees (that of the 100+ million dollar payroll). Just this past season, the White Sox, Twins, Royals, Blue Jays, Athletics, Expos, and Marlins were able to compete on low payrolls. This year, I count only ten teams that have relatively no chance of making the playoffs, and I'm being generous.



There's a stat out there that says something to the effect that in the past 5-8 years, 80+% of the teams that have made the playoffs have been in the top payroll bracket. Combine that with the fact that the Yanks have been in the WS in 6 of 8 seasons and won 4 of 8 and I'd say that's unbalanced. Sure you can still have other teams win, but it takes a pretty unbelievable run of luck and chemistry to do so. And those teams generally are not competitive for long whereas the Yanks always are (see Angels after WS and what's happened to the Marlins this offseason).

MarkEdward
02-19-2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Kittle

(1) The fact that the Yankees have gone to the Series in six out of the past eight seasons and have won four of those AND the fact that they've out-spent their competition for most of that stretch should make it DEAD OBVIOUS that there's little competitive balance.

Dead obvious? I think you and I have different definitions of competitive balance. You're using hindsight to make your point. I believe a league is competitively balanced when two-thirds of the teams have a legitimate shot to make the playoffs. For 2004, one can make the argument that 20+ teams have legitimate shots at those eight playoff spots.

True, the Marlins and Angels had miracle seasons,

The 2002 Angels were a very good baseball team, and I'd hardly consider them a fluke. The Angels had the best Pythag. record in baseball, were fourth in the AL in runs scored, and first in runs allowed. The Angels didn't succeed in 2003 because they made no movements to improve their club.

I do agree that the Marlins were a bit lucky in regards to winning their title, but can we wait at least one year before calling them flukes?

but they haven't been CONSISTENLY competitive in the same way that the big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Braves, Indians, etc.) have. On average, few "low payroll" (< 55 million) teams even make it to the playoffs.

Both the Mets and Indians lost 90+ games last year, so I'd hardly call them consistently competitive. I'd attribute the Braves' successes to 1) crappy NL East opponents, 2) John Schuerholz, and 3) Cox and Mazzone.

Anyway, check out the standings: some big-spending teams consistently win (Yankees, Red Sox, Giants); some big-spending teams consistently lose (Dodgers, Rangers, Orioles). Conversely, some low payroll teams consistently win (Athletics, Twins, White Sox); some low payroll teams consistently lose (Pirates, Brewers, Tigers).

For what it's worth, during the 2003 playoffs, four 'top payroll' (upper third) teams made the playoffs, two mid-payroll teams made the playoffs, and two low payroll teams made the playoffs. And oddly enough, one of the low payroll teams actually won the World Series.

(2) When a full 1/3 of league has "no chance of making it to the playoffs," there's a problem. How is MLB "competitive" when the Yankees can nearly outspend the entire AL Central?


Well, again, you and I have *completely* different definitions of competitive balance. When 20 clubs have a shot at the playoffs, I'd definitely call the league competitive.

For what it's worth, here are the teams that I believe have "no chance" going into 2004: Reds, Rockies, Brewers, Expos, Mets, Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Tigers, Rangers, and Devil Rays. I can see legitimate arguments for taking the Mets, Indians, and Rockies off the list.

Originally posted by rahulsekhar
[B]
There's a stat out there that says something to the effect that in the past 5-8 years, 80+% of the teams that have made the playoffs have been in the top payroll bracket. Combine that with the fact that the Yanks have been in the WS in 6 of 8 seasons and won 4 of 8 and I'd say that's unbalanced.

Considering the fact that the Lakers have won three of the last four NBA titles and the Patriots have won two of the last three NFL Championships, I'd say those salary capped leagues seem to be a little unbalanced (see, you can do a lot with multiple endpoints!).

Sure you can still have other teams win, but it takes a pretty unbelievable run of luck and chemistry to do so.

All it takes is smart management. Ask the Athletics and Twins.

And those teams generally are not competitive for long whereas the Yanks always are (see Angels after WS and what's happened to the Marlins this offseason).

The Angels didn't even try to improve after the 2002 season. That was a dumb move on the part of GM Bill Stoneman. The Plexiglas Principle bit him in the proverbial butt.

Lip Man 1
02-19-2004, 08:48 PM
Ask and ye shall receive:

"of the 56 playoff teams since 1995, only eight had losing records in their first month. The chances of rebounding to a winning season are only slightly better, of the 96 teams that have finished above .500 since 95, only 20 had a losing first month. No first month loser has won the World Series." --Sports Illustrated 2002

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 (a .978 winning percentage) in favor of the high payroll teams."--Bud Selig 2001.

Even WITH the Marlins fluke last year the won lost record as determined by payroll is still overwhelmingly one sided in favor of high payroll teams. Talent usually beats luck.

Lip

TornLabrum
02-19-2004, 09:49 PM
Okay, now that this thread is about to win a tomato, let me pose what I think is an interesting question. Will somebody please tell me when there was ever a competitive balance in baseball?

Daver
02-19-2004, 09:57 PM
:tomatoaward

Rex Hudler
02-19-2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, now that this thread is about to win a tomato, let me pose what I think is an interesting question. Will somebody please tell me when there was ever a competitive balance in baseball?

You mean the Washington Senators and the St. Louis Browns weren't always in contention?

Kittle
02-20-2004, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Dead obvious? I think you and I have different definitions of competitive balance. You're using hindsight to make your point. I believe a league is competitively balanced when two-thirds of the teams have a legitimate shot to make the playoffs. For 2004, one can make the argument that 20+ teams have legitimate shots at those eight playoff spots.



The 2002 Angels were a very good baseball team, and I'd hardly consider them a fluke. The Angels had the best Pythag. record in baseball, were fourth in the AL in runs scored, and first in runs allowed. The Angels didn't succeed in 2003 because they made no movements to improve their club.

I do agree that the Marlins were a bit lucky in regards to winning their title, but can we wait at least one year before calling them flukes?

OK, here's my definition of a LACK of competitive balance: A $30 million payroll team competing against teams with $80-$200+ million payrolls.

You're correct. The 2003 Angels didn't make the playoffs because they couldn't AFFORD to make "movements to improve their club." On the other hand, the Yankees make the playoffs every freaking year because their owner is financially capable of BUYING ANYBODY HE WANTS! God forbid your team's owner doesn't have enough money to outspend the next highest payroll team by 60%...

Out of the teams that you said have NO chance of making the playoffs (Reds, Rockies, Brewers, Expos, Mets, Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Tigers, Rangers, and Devil Rays), the Brewers, Reds, Rockies, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Devil Rays, and possibly the Orioles are in the lower half of MLB's payroll list. So, 8/11 teams have NO CHANCE of making the playoffs simply because they can't afford to. THAT'S what you call competitive balance?

It's true that some owners (Reinsdorf, Angelos) shoot themselves in the foot, but there are many more teams (Pirates, Devil Rays, Reds, Tigers, Brewers) that won't win simply because of their lack of revenue. I think it's quite sad that a great player like Carlos Beltran probably won't re-sign with KC because he knows that they don't have the money to become a serious contender.

And I'll bet you that the 2004 Marlins won't make the playoffs for the same reason. Hell, they've already lost their future HOF Playoff MVP catcher.

If you're going to say that I'm arguing with hindsight, I'm going to argue that you're living too much in the recent past (past two seasons). Outside of the recent successes of Florida and Anaheim, small market teams rarely have a chance. The MLB playoffs have been dominated by the big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Indians) for the past 10 years. That's a FACT.

If you can't see that the payroll disparity negates competitive balance in MLB, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with somebody who has such an incredibly distorted perception of reality.

MarkEdward
02-20-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
OK, here's my definition of a LACK of competitive balance: A $30 million payroll team competing against teams with $80-$200+ million payrolls.

Well, here is where we seem to differ: low payroll teams *are* able to compete with high payroll teams. I'll use 2003 for some examples. The Oakland Athletics, with a payroll of $50,260,834, won the AL West, beating the Seattle Mariners ($86,959,167), Anaheim Angels ($79,031,667) and Texas Rangers ($103,491,667). The Florida Marlins were able to win the NL Wild Card, beating a myriad of high spending teams (among them, the Mets, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks, all in baseball's upper third of payroll). In the playoffs, Florida was able to beat San Francisco ($82,852,167 payroll), Chicago ($79,868,333), and New York ($152,749,814). So, while it doesn't *always* happen, low payroll teams do have the opportunity and can succeed against high payroll clubs.

You're correct. The 2003 Angels didn't make the playoffs because they couldn't AFFORD to make "movements to improve their club."

Actually, the Angels were able to make improvements to their club using financial means. From 2002 to 2003, their payroll went from $61,721,667 to $79,031,667. So, by winning the Series, they were able to afford alleged improvements. Now, just because they spent, doesn't mean they actually improved, as shown by their 2003 record.

Second, *any* club can afford to make improvements. These teams are owned by multi-millionaires. Heck, many are even billionaires. David Glass owns Wal Mart. You don't think he can afford to spend money? Carl Pohlad is one of the ten richest men in America. You don't think he can afford to bump up his payroll, even privately invest in a new park? These men can afford anything they damn well please. Instead, these men *choose* not to spend.

On the other hand, the Yankees make the playoffs every freaking year because their owner is financially capable of BUYING ANYBODY HE WANTS!

Well, money couldn't buy the Boss the last few World Series titles. It couldn't prevent him from losing to small market Arizona in 2001, or losing to the mid-payroll Angels in 2002, or the low payroll Marlins in 2003...

Out of the teams that you said have NO chance of making the playoffs (Reds, Rockies, Brewers, Expos, Mets, Pirates, Orioles, Indians, Tigers, Rangers, and Devil Rays), the Brewers, Reds, Rockies, Pirates, Indians, Tigers, Devil Rays, and possibly the Orioles are in the lower half of MLB's payroll list.

Going by 2003 figures, the Mets and Rangers were in MLB's top third (in terms of payroll), the Orioles, Reds, Rockies, and Pirates in the middle third, and the Tigers, Indians, Royals, and Devil Rays in the bottom third. I'd call that a pretty good distribution.

So, 8/11 teams have NO CHANCE of making the playoffs simply because they can't afford to. THAT'S what you call competitive balance?

Maybe you misunderstand me a bit here. Of course high payroll teams will (usually) be more competitive. Good players cost more money than bad players. Therefore, good teams will have good players, so their payrolls will be higher. I certainly won't disagree with that. However, I believe there is decent competitive balance when low payroll teams are able to *compete* with the big spenders. And, going by my previous examples (A's, Marlins, and so on), they have been able to compete.

It's true that some owners (Reinsdorf, Angelos) shoot themselves in the foot, but there are many more teams (Pirates, Devil Rays, Reds, Tigers, Brewers) that won't win simply because of their lack of revenue.

Well, if it's revenue opportunities that you're worried about, a salary cap isn't needed. Just increase revenue sharing. Put another team in New York to lessen the Yankees' domination over that market.

I think it's quite sad that a great player like Carlos Beltran probably won't re-sign with KC because he knows that they don't have the money to become a serious contender.

Can we wait before he actually leaves before shedding tears? Anyway, what if another small market team picks him up? Small market teams are certainly able to go after high-priced talent. The Padres were able to get Brian Giles. The Tigers just acquired Ivan Rodriguez. the Pirates signed Jason Kendall to a big contract, the Cardinals just signed Albert Pujols to a big extension.

And I'll bet you that the 2004 Marlins won't make the playoffs for the same reason. Hell, they've already lost their future HOF Playoff MVP catcher.

Yeah, he left those poor, poor Marlins for the large market, high payroll Detroit Tigers. This is not a good example of the alleged poor teams being unable to sign players.

Aside from this, can we please let the 2004 season play out? The Marlins have a fine pitching staff, the core of the 2003 team is back, and I believe they have a good shot at winning the East.

If you're going to say that I'm arguing with hindsight, I'm going to argue that you're living too much in the recent past (past two seasons). Outside of the recent successes of Florida and Anaheim, small market teams rarely have a chance. The MLB playoffs have been dominated by the big spenders (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Indians) for the past 10 years. That's a FACT.

You seem to be confusing the words "market" and "payroll." The Yankees are both large market and high payroll. The Braves are high payroll, but only medium market. The Arizona Diamondbacks were high payroll, but small market. This is a good study on the various market sizes of MLB teams:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/nickandaj/marketsize.html

To sum it up, payroll is a fluctuating variable. Market size is relatively constant. If the Royals bumped the payroll up to $200,000,000, they'd still be a small market club, being in Kansas City.

I'm not going to waste any more of my time arguing with somebody who has such an incredibly distorted perception of reality.

Well, with this post, I do hope that I've made myself clearer.

P.S. I got the payroll numbers from here: http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

ode to veeck
02-20-2004, 04:12 PM
Well, money couldn't buy the Boss the last few World Series titles . It couldn't prevent him from losing to small market Arizona in 2001, or losing to the mid-payroll Angels in 2002, or the low payroll Marlins in 2003...


Ummm, hasn't King George's high priced squad also won several WS in recent years? In spite of losing to the lowly Dbacks, Halos, & Marlins, they've gotten more rings in the last few years than the Sox have in their history

rahulsekhar
02-20-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

Second, *any* club can afford to make improvements. These teams are owned by multi-millionaires. Heck, many are even billionaires. David Glass owns Wal Mart. You don't think he can afford to spend money? Carl Pohlad is one of the ten richest men in America. You don't think he can afford to bump up his payroll, even privately invest in a new park? These men can afford anything they damn well please. Instead, these men *choose* not to spend.



You know - I see this attitude a lot and it kind of bugs me. If you require your owner to consistently lose money to compete, then your franchise is doomed and should move. That doesn't say that you can't run in the red a bit to build up interest, but there is no way that the Royals or Twins can afford to consistently have 100M+ payrolls. Not if they stay in their current towns.

Baseball teams should be self-supporting, like any other business. Owners should not look to make huge profits from them, but likewise they shouldn't be expected to continually dump a ton money in just to remain competitive. Just because owners have more money than you or I doesn't mean they should be forced to lose it just to own a baseball team. If that was the case, I guarantee you'd have very few willing to do that, and a lot more franchises moving.

Daver
02-20-2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
You know - I see this attitude a lot and it kind of bugs me. If you require your owner to consistently lose money to compete, then your franchise is doomed and should move.

You have seen proof that franchises are losing money?

Hangar18
02-21-2004, 02:54 AM
to Get Back on Subject here (and to Call out the LAZY CHICAGO MEDIA AGAIN.....old story here) WHY ISNT THE MEDIA WONDERING ALOUD (as I......the average and INTELLIGENT sports fan) WHY DUSTY BAKER ISNT BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF STEROIDS?? after all.....he was the Mgr
of the Giants....and all of these SHADY types were Admittedly
hanging around every single day in the clubhouse. Seems to me if he was the SOX MGR, This story wouldve taken on a life of its own by this time ..................

But ..................This is the Lazy, Mike Kiley/Mike Murphy Media were talking about here.

Kittle
02-21-2004, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Maybe you misunderstand me a bit here. Of course high payroll teams will (usually) be more competitive. Good players cost more money than bad players. Therefore, good teams will have good players, so their payrolls will be higher. I certainly won't disagree with that.

And THAT'S the problem. The teams with more money have an inherint advantage over the have-nots. THERE'S your lack of competitive balance. I don't know what else I can say to make you see that.

Of course lower payroll teams, on occasion, have had success in the current system. But that success has been the EXCEPTION, not the rule. The the MLB playoffs have been DOMINATED by the higher payroll teams since the mid '90s and there's NO disputing that.

If you can't see the problem, you're either in bed with the players union or a Yankees fan.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-21-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
And THAT'S the problem. The teams with more money have an inherint advantage over the have-nots. THERE'S your lack of competitive balance. I don't know what else I can say to make you see that.

Of course lower payroll teams, on occasion, have had success in the current system. But that success has been the EXCEPTION, not the rule. The the MLB playoffs have been DOMINATED by the higher payroll teams since the mid '90s and there's NO disputing that.

If you can't see the problem, you're either in bed with the players union or a Yankees fan.

What are you proposing as a solution? A minimum payroll? A maximum payroll? A luxury tax? (I love the name of that one.) Those aren't solutions to fixing the problem of competitive balance. You know this, don't you?

If you can't see the problem, you're either in bed with the owners or a Brewers fan.

Kittle
02-21-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What are you proposing as a solution? A minimum payroll? A maximum payroll? A luxury tax? (I love the name of that one.) Those aren't solutions to fixing the problem of competitive balance. You know this, don't you?

Oh, they aren't? Tell that to the NFL. The following is a list of teams that have gone on to the Superbowl just one year after failing to post a winning record:

Panthers (2003)
Pats (2001)
Giants (2000), Ravens (2000)
Rams (1999)
Falcons (1998)
Pats (1996)
Chargers (1994)

And I'm not even including teams that have gone from a flat-out bad to the playoffs within a year. When has turnover like this occurred in MLB over the past ten years?

Salary caps DO work. If it were up to me, I'd impose a maximum payroll of $85 million and a minimum payroll of $30 million. Owners that are incapable of meeting the minimum $30 million payroll would be forced to sell. My solution may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current system.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-21-2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
Oh, they aren't? Tell that to the NFL. The following is a list of teams that have gone on to the Superbowl just one year after failing to post a winning record:

Panthers (2003)
Pats (2001)
Giants (2000), Ravens (2000)
Rams (1999)
Falcons (1998)
Pats (1996)
Chargers (1994)

And I'm not even including teams that have gone from a flat-out bad to the playoffs within a year. When has turnover like this occurred in MLB over the past ten years?

Salary caps DO work. If it were up to me, I'd impose a maximum payroll of $85 million and a minimum payroll of $30 million. Owners that were incapable of meeting the minimum $30 million payroll would be forced to sell. My solution may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the current system.

Look, I'll be happy to debate you but not if you're going to try using the NFL as your example. It's bull****. The NFL is run by the biggest bunch of socialists to ever vote GOP and they still have teams like the Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals being run by the same clods who haven't won a championship since the league's founding in 1926.

Talk to my hand with that bull**** argument.

Try again.

Kittle
02-21-2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Look, I'll be happy to debate you but not if you're going to try using the NFL as your example. It's bull****. The NFL is run by the biggest bunch of socialists to ever vote GOP and they still have teams like the Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals being run by the same clods who haven't won a championship since the league's founding in 1926.

Talk to my hand with that bull**** argument.

Try again.

My, my... aren't we a bit pissy this morning?

If you believe that the NFL is "bull****," I'd like to remind you that the NFL's popularity eclipsed that of MLB about 20 years ago. Why is this? Because no NFL team (except maybe the Cardinals) is doomed to failure every September. Hell, even the freaking Bengals almost made it to the playoffs last year! Why do you think that people in Montreal, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh don't give a crap about baseball anymore? Because the system's been scrweing them for years! Is this what you want from MLB?

The "socialist" NFL owners didn't act like ******* when it came to salary caps and steroid testing and THAT has made all the difference. THAT'S why MANY more people watch the Superbowl than the World Series. MLB is a complete joke.

One team being able to out-spend its wealthiest competitor by 60% is not "competitive balance." It's a plutocracy.

Get a clue.

Kittle
02-21-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The NFL is run by the biggest bunch of socialists to ever vote GOP and they still have teams like the Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals being run by the same clods who haven't won a championship since the league's founding in 1926.

Perhaps you've forgotten that the Red Sox, White Sox, and Cubs have ALL been without championships since 1919. Looks like the MLB owners are "clods" as well.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-21-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
My, my... aren't we a bit pissy this morning?

If you believe that the NFL is "bull****," I'd like to remind you that the NFL's popularity eclipsed that of MLB about 20 years ago. Why is this? Because no NFL team (except maybe the Cardinals) is doomed to failure every September. Hell, even the freaking Bengals almost made it to the playoffs last year! Why do you think that people in Montreal, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh don't give a crap about baseball anymore? Because the system's been scrweing them for years! Is this what you want from MLB?

The "socialist" NFL owners didn't act like ******* when it came to salary caps and steroid testing and THAT has made all the difference. THAT'S why MANY more people watch the Superbowl than the World Series. MLB is a complete joke.

One team being able to out-spend its wealthiest competitor by 60% is not "competitive balance." It's a plutocracy.

Get a clue.

What on earth does *any* of this have to do with baseball? Here's the short answer: ZERO.

I tell you what, Kitty. I'll buy your notion of what constitutes "competitive balance" when the following occurs:

1.) MLB plays *exactly* a 16 game schedule, and
2.) Each MLB team plays opponents based on how poorly they did the prior year, and
3.) In the space of those 16 games over 100 percent of the starting ballplayers land on the disabled list while lesser players fill their positions, and
4.) Every MLB playoff game is a one-and-off contest, and
5.) Jerry Reinsdorf's Sox gets beaten to the championship finish line by Bill Bidwell's Cardinals.

What you want isn't competitive balance. You want owners free to make money for as long as they choose to own their teams no matter how poorly they're managed or how much their fans suffer waiting (what few number remain). That's bull****.

You really need to get a clue.

Kittle
02-21-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What you want isn't competitive balance. You want owners free to make money for as long as they choose to own their teams no matter how poorly they're managed or how much their fans suffer waiting (what few number remain). That's bull****.


No, I want championships to be won by better players, better coaches, and better scouting. NOT by the size of an owner's bank account. Being able to out-spend one's competition to get the better players, better coaching, and better scouts is INHERENTLY UNFAIR. What I want is for each team to begin each season with SIMILAR financial resources. The game should be won on the field, not at the bank. I don't see what's wrong with that.

I'm NOT trying to defend the owners. They certainly are money-hungry. HOWEVER, the recent actions of the players union suggest that they're even worse at this point. Over the past year, the players union has (1) attempted to block steroid testing and (2) denied A-Rod the opportunity to re-structure HIS OWN FREAKING CONTRACT. Obviously, THEY'RE more interested in money and power than the good of the game at this point.

I also don't agree with your assertion that salary caps inherently result in owners sitting back, doing nothing, and screwing the fans. I hope Bill Bidwill isn't your only example. I'd argue that the Arizona Cardinals aren't necessarily in worse shape than the Brewers. The Cards have actually won a playoff game in recent memory (Jan of '98). When was the last time the Brewers even made it to the playoffs? So, that's what... ONE team out of 32 in the NFL that doesn't spend or care about the fans? Since there are ALWAYS going to be cheap, idiotic owners with or without a cap, 3% isn't a bad statistic, IMO. And there aren't cheap owners who don't care about the fans in MLB? Please...

Kittle
02-21-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I tell you what, Kitty. I'll buy your notion of what constitutes "competitive balance" when the following occurs:

1.) MLB plays *exactly* a 16 game schedule, and
2.) Each MLB team plays opponents based on how poorly they did the prior year, and
3.) In the space of those 16 games over 100 percent of the starting ballplayers land on the disabled list while lesser players fill their positions, and
4.) Every MLB playoff game is a one-and-off contest, and
5.) Jerry Reinsdorf's Sox gets beaten to the championship finish line by Bill Bidwell's Cardinals.

Wow, that was very entertaining, but you've still missed the point. Yes, MLB and the NFL are two completely different scenarios.

But you still haven't given me a valid reason why a salary cap wouldn't work in MLB. I'm waiting...

ode to veeck
02-21-2004, 11:26 AM
Each MLB team plays opponents based on how poorly they did the prior year, and

well ... at least everyone in the Sox division gets to do this, cause they get to play most of their games against each other every year!

ode to veeck
02-21-2004, 11:29 AM
ONE team out of 32 in the NFL that doesn't spend or care about the fans?

aside:
by the way and they're paying for it too, the fans in Az are leaving them in droves, their attendance is inflated by giveaway seats--AZ was a great, but blown opportunity for the Cards

... back to the debate on salary caps

MarkEdward
02-21-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar

You know - I see this attitude a lot and it kind of bugs me. If you require your owner to consistently lose money to compete, then your franchise is doomed and should move. That doesn't say that you can't run in the red a bit to build up interest, but there is no way that the Royals or Twins can afford to consistently have 100M+ payrolls. Not if they stay in their current towns.


If you think that MLB teams are actually losing money, then I got a bridge to sell you...

Seriously, don't buy into the Selig and Blue Ribbon Panel bull. Stop listening to owners' cries of poverty, because it's all not true. Look into independent sources to find out about MLB's real financials. Read any book by Andrew Zimbalist. Read this great series of articles from Doug Pappas:
http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/labor.htm
MLB teams are definitely not losing money.

Originally posted by Kittle

Wow, that was very entertaining, but you've still missed the point. Yes, MLB and the NFL are two completely different scenarios.

Yes, that's exactly the point. Major League Baseball and the NFL *do* have two completely different scenarios. The NFL season, in fact, is based on random variation! First of all, each NFL team plays only 16 games. What if MLB teams only played until April 20th? Well, here's who would make the 2003 playoffs based on that schedule: Expos, Cubs, Giants, Rockies; Yankees, Royals, Mariners, Red Sox. That's a bit different from the actual MLB playoff teams. In NFL, if a team gets on a hot streak, they're almost guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Not so in baseball. 162 games is a long, arduous schedule. Using this schedule, the proverbial cream usually rises to the top. A team can't go on a hot streak and expect to make the playoffs.

Aside from this, the NFL manipulates their schedule so bad teams have an easier season. Obviously, MLB does not do this. Don't you think the Rangers' record would be a lot better if they played the Tigers, Devil Rays, and Pirates 19 times a year instead of the Athletics, Angels, and Mariners 19 times a year?

The next point I'd like to bring up is the playoff format. First, the NFL lets in more teams (12) than MLB (8). If MLB let in 12 teams, the Mariners and Blue Jays would've been added to the AL playoffs, and the Astros and Phillies to the NL playoffs. Second, like PHG mentioned, the NFL has a "one-and-done" system. If MLB did this, the Twins and A's would've met in the 2003 ALCS and the Giants and Cubs in the NLCS. A little bit different from what really happened, eh? The NFL playoff format allows for more random happenings. A one game series is much more random than a seven game series.

Finally, the NFL draft helps teams re-build quickly. Not so in baseball, where prospects can take up to more than three years to develop. Bad NFL teams can fill holes with their draft. MLB teams must go through different means.

But you still haven't given me a valid reason why a salary cap wouldn't work in MLB. I'm waiting...

Well, PHG can give his own valid answer, but here's a big one for me. Major League Baseball is a multi-million dollar industry, heck, maybe even billion. The players are a big reason for this financial success. They do deserve a good portion of the revenue pie. After all, they are the ones that compete in the games. Like Daver has repeatedly said, all a cap does is guarantee the owners larger profits. You might say it prevents large market teams from dominating. I would say look at the Lakers and Patriots. They've been dominating their respective sports.

Finally, Kittle, I'd like to bring up an earlier point you made. You stated that you just want baseball teams on a level playing field. Well, I don't believe you're ever going to see that, even if a cap is put in place. Large markets like L.A. and New York will always have significant market advantages over places like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. New York is arguably the advertising capital of the world. Players who play for the Yankees and Mets can get extremely lucrative ad deals. This won't change with a cap. Also, places like New York and L.A. are great cities with happening night spots. Again, no cap will take these night clubs and restaurants away. Athletes are in the prime of their lives. They're going to look for things like these when picking a place to play. New York, L.A., and Chicago are awesome places to live. You can have large amounts of fun in these cities. Not so in Detroit and Cleveland (trust me, I know from personal experience). So, even with a cap, players will still flock to large markets.

Sorry if this sounded like a rant...

Kittle
02-21-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

Well, PHG can give his own valid answer, but here's a big one for me. Major League Baseball is a multi-million dollar industry, heck, maybe even billion. The players are a big reason for this financial success. They do deserve a good portion of the revenue pie. After all, they are the ones that compete in the games. Like Daver has repeatedly said, all a cap does is guarantee the owners larger profits. You might say it prevents large market teams from dominating. I would say look at the Lakers and Patriots. They've been dominating their respective sports.

Finally, Kittle, I'd like to bring up an earlier point you made. You stated that you just want baseball teams on a level playing field. Well, I don't believe you're ever going to see that, even if a cap is put in place. Large markets like L.A. and New York will always have significant market advantages over places like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. New York is arguably the advertising capital of the world. Players who play for the Yankees and Mets can get extremely lucrative ad deals. This won't change with a cap. Also, places like New York and L.A. are great cities with happening night spots. Again, no cap will take these night clubs and restaurants away. Athletes are in the prime of their lives. They're going to look for things like these when picking a place to play. New York, L.A., and Chicago are awesome places to live. You can have large amounts of fun in these cities. Not so in Detroit and Cleveland (trust me, I know from personal experience). So, even with a cap, players will still flock to large markets.

Sorry if this sounded like a rant...

I agree that the players deserve their piece of the pie, but I don't see them as any less shady than the owners at this point. They've already gone on record as saying that they don't want to be tested for steroids. It doesn't get much worse than that, IMO.

Frankly, I don't think that the players really deserve more than what they have right now. What's the average league salary now? About 2 million? The contracts are all guaranteed and they've been alowed to use steroids for years now without interference from the league. What else do they want? Free hookers after every game? A license to kill?

As for your "inherent large market dominance" argument, I have four words for you: The Green Bay Packers. They're the smallest market of all and they THRIVE in the NFL. Free agents WANT to go there, despite the lack of a "nightlife" and other fun things to do. How many commercials has Brett Favre been in over the years? Peyton Manning has had a TON of endorsements over the years and Indy, while a nice city, ain't exactly NYC. McGwire played in a small market (St. Louis) for a few years and look at all the press and endorsements HE got. That argument just doesn't hold water, IMO.

If a salary cap only benefits the owners, why not also impose broadcast revenue sharing? That would certainly take money out of the pockets of teams that have their own sports networks (Yankees, Braves... isn't NESN run by the Red Sox as well?). What good has increased player salaries done over the years, besides screwing the fans with higher ticket prices?

I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but I don't see how anybody can seriously argue that allowing Steinbrenner to spend over $200 million is good for the sport. Even capping payrolls at 100 million would be a significant improvement.

poorme
02-21-2004, 12:39 PM
seems to me that the pirates did a pretty good job competing in the 70s

1979 NL East 98-64 WS 1
1978 NL East 88-73 2
1977 NL East 96-66 2
1976 NL East 92-70 2
1975 NL East 92-69 DIV 1
1974 NL East 88-74 DIV 1
1973 NL East 80-82 3
1972 NL East 96-59 DIV 1
1971 NL East 97-65 WS 1
1970 NL East 89-73 DIV 1

how about the royals ?

1986 AL West 76-86 3
1985 AL West 91-71 WS 1
1984 AL West 84-78 DIV 1
1983 AL West 79-83 2
1982 AL West 90-72 2
1981 AL West 50-53 DIV
1980 AL West 97-65 AL 1
1979 AL West 85-77 2
1978 AL West 92-70 DIV 1
1977 AL West 102-60 DIV 1
1976 AL West 90-72 DIV 1
1975 AL West 91-71 2

How about the reds ?

1979 NL West 90-71 DIV 1
1978 NL West 92-69 2
1977 NL West 88-74 2
1976 NL West 102-60 WS 1
1975 NL West 108-54 WS 1
1974 NL West 98-64 2
1973 NL West 99-63 DIV 1
1972 NL West 95-59 NL 1
1971 NL West 79-83 5
1970 NL West 102-60 NL


Anyone who says small markets couldn't compete in the past are full of BS or ignorant.

ode to veeck
02-21-2004, 01:41 PM
Poorme,

The examples you quote are from vastly different eras when the biz of MLB was much different than today. The reserve clause wasn't tossed out by arbiter Peter Sietz until '75. The Royals span is a little closer, but the financial situations of the 80s in MLB were much different than they are now.

I don't know that a salary cap would be the answer, but its clear King George's advantage has grown, with 6 of 8 WS appearances the last 8 years and enough WS rings to start using thumbs and toes since he took over the Yankees

PaleHoseGeorge
02-21-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yes, that's exactly the point [responding to Kittle's one cogent argument that "Yes, MLB and the NFL are two completely different scenarios"]. Major League Baseball and the NFL *do* have two completely different scenarios. The NFL season, in fact, is based on random variation! First of all, each NFL team plays only 16 games. What if MLB teams only played until April 20th? Well, here's who would make the 2003 playoffs based on that schedule: Expos, Cubs, Giants, Rockies; Yankees, Royals, Mariners, Red Sox. That's a bit different from the actual MLB playoff teams. In NFL, if a team gets on a hot streak, they're almost guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Not so in baseball. 162 games is a long, arduous schedule. Using this schedule, the proverbial cream usually rises to the top. A team can't go on a hot streak and expect to make the playoffs.

Aside from this, the NFL manipulates their schedule so bad teams have an easier season. Obviously, MLB does not do this. Don't you think the Rangers' record would be a lot better if they played the Tigers, Devil Rays, and Pirates 19 times a year instead of the Athletics, Angels, and Mariners 19 times a year?

The next point I'd like to bring up is the playoff format. First, the NFL lets in more teams (12) than MLB (8). If MLB let in 12 teams, the Mariners and Blue Jays would've been added to the AL playoffs, and the Astros and Phillies to the NL playoffs. Second, like PHG mentioned, the NFL has a "one-and-done" system. If MLB did this, the Twins and A's would've met in the 2003 ALCS and the Giants and Cubs in the NLCS. A little bit different from what really happened, eh? The NFL playoff format allows for more random happenings. A one game series is much more random than a seven game series.

Finally, the NFL draft helps teams re-build quickly. Not so in baseball, where prospects can take up to more than three years to develop. Bad NFL teams can fill holes with their draft. MLB teams must go through different means.



Well, PHG can give his own valid answer, but here's a big one for me. Major League Baseball is a multi-million dollar industry, heck, maybe even billion. The players are a big reason for this financial success. They do deserve a good portion of the revenue pie. After all, they are the ones that compete in the games. Like Daver has repeatedly said, all a cap does is guarantee the owners larger profits. You might say it prevents large market teams from dominating. I would say look at the Lakers and Patriots. They've been dominating their respective sports.

Finally, Kittle, I'd like to bring up an earlier point you made. You stated that you just want baseball teams on a level playing field. Well, I don't believe you're ever going to see that, even if a cap is put in place. Large markets like L.A. and New York will always have significant market advantages over places like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. New York is arguably the advertising capital of the world. Players who play for the Yankees and Mets can get extremely lucrative ad deals. This won't change with a cap. Also, places like New York and L.A. are great cities with happening night spots. Again, no cap will take these night clubs and restaurants away. Athletes are in the prime of their lives. They're going to look for things like these when picking a place to play. New York, L.A., and Chicago are awesome places to live. You can have large amounts of fun in these cities. Not so in Detroit and Cleveland (trust me, I know from personal experience). So, even with a cap, players will still flock to large markets.

Sorry if this sounded like a rant...

Well stated. Obviously you've bothered to read more on the subject than simply the mindless nonsense that fills the sports page every Sunday.

There is sound economic theory why the best ballplayers naturally gravitate to the best teams. I can only say I would rather wear a bag on my head than try to spoon-feed an explanation to Kittle why all of his pontificating about the NFL's competitive balance is merely the outcome of the randomness the NFL poo-bahs built into their season and playoffs.

This isn't ninth grade homeroom. I won't waste time explaining why the champion team in baseball is 1000-times more likely to truly be the best team in the league than the NFL's champion. If Kittle wants 16-game schedules and one-and-off playoff games, more power to him. The season runs September through January. Enjoy the delusion of "competitive balance" with all my blessings.

Oh, and if Green Bay gets a team in the socialist NFL, Los Angeles doesn't. I *guarantee* Chicago would only have one baseball team if Kittle's NFL-style socialism plan took effect in MLB. They won't be playing on the South Side either.

Stick that one in your pipe and smoke it.

Wsoxmike59
02-21-2004, 04:51 PM
Sosa Denies Any Involvement On Steroids Issue (http://veepers02.budlight.com/service/RetrieveCard?id=961411AE-60F6-11D8-BF6D-B3EE4054966E)

Here's Sammy's statement of denial on the issue of whether or not he's used performance enhancers.

poorme
02-21-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Poorme,

The examples you quote are from vastly different eras when the biz of MLB was much different than today.

I know they are much different. That's the point. That's why there needs to be some sort of revenue sharing/salary cap/something now.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-21-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Poorme,

The examples you quote are from vastly different eras when the biz of MLB was much different than today. The reserve clause wasn't tossed out by arbiter Peter Sietz until '75. The Royals span is a little closer, but the financial situations of the 80s in MLB were much different than they are now.

I don't know that a salary cap would be the answer, but its clear King George's advantage has grown, with 6 of 8 WS appearances the last 8 years and enough WS rings to start using thumbs and toes since he took over the Yankees

Is this the "vastly different era" that has everyone upset about the current state of affairs, big markets hogging all the talent?

1947 NYY
1948 Cleveland
1949 NYY
1950 NYY
1951 NYY
1952 NYY
1953 NYY
1954 NYG
1955 Brooklyn
1956 NYY
1957 NYY
1958 Milwaukee
1959 LA
1960 Pittsburgh
1961 NYY
1962 NYY
1963 LA

Guess again. The facts are we've seen more teams win more championships in the era of King George than the pre- free agent era. The Yankees didn't chalk up 26 world championships just since 1973.

MarkEdward
02-21-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
I agree that the players deserve their piece of the pie, but I don't see them as any less shady than the owners at this point. They've already gone on record as saying that they don't want to be tested for steroids. It doesn't get much worse than that, IMO.

Yes, because athletes in general should not have a right to privacy. All facets of their lives should be open to the public.

Frankly, I don't think that the players really deserve more than what they have right now. What's the average league salary now? About 2 million? The contracts are all guaranteed and they've been alowed to use steroids for years now without interference from the league. What else do they want? Free hookers after every game? A license to kill?

Um, I don't know if you've followed the recent labor negotiations, so I'll try to sum it up quickly. While the owners continuously ask for more and more from the players (luxury tax, steroid testing, international draft, etc.), the players have asked for nothing in return in the past few negotiations. They're happy with the status quo.

As for your "inherent large market dominance" argument, I have four words for you: The Green Bay Packers. They're the smallest market of all and they THRIVE in the NFL. Free agents WANT to go there, despite the lack of a "nightlife" and other fun things to do. How many commercials has Brett Favre been in over the years?

I don't follow football much, but from what I can tell, the Packers don't seem to go after many free agents. I took a look at Green Bay's 2003 stats. Brett Favre was their leading passer, and he was acquired in a draft day trade, no? Their leading rusher was Ahman Green. He was a free agent pick-up, but I don't think he was wanted by many teams. Their leading receiver was Donald Driver, and he was drafted by the Packers. They drafted their two best offensive lineman (Rivera and Flanagan) The only "big name" free agent I see them getting was Joe Johnson. So I think the Packers seem to favor the draft over free agency. I think they're similar to the Braves.

Peyton Manning has had a TON of endorsements over the years and Indy, while a nice city, ain't exactly NYC. McGwire played in a small market (St. Louis) for a few years and look at all the press and endorsements HE got. That argument just doesn't hold water, IMO.

Well, many (not me) would argue that St. Louis is the baseball capital of America. Also, while with the Cardinals, Big Mac broke Maris' record for home runs in a season. I'd say that had more to do with the endorsement deals than him playing in St. Louis.

But you are right. There are some aberrations to my large market theory, just like there are aberrations to your "low payroll teams can't win" theory. Sure, if you're a good enough player, you can get ad deals almost anywhere you play. However, I'd still argue that you increase your chances of getting a larger deal if you play in a large market. I'll use baseball as an example. Many not-so-great players have been considered great just because they played in New York: Phil Rizzuto, Don Mattingly, Paul O'Neil, Lefty Gomez, and Any Pettite are some of these types. Suffice to say, the pinstripes do a lot of good for your reputation.

If a salary cap only benefits the owners, why not also impose broadcast revenue sharing? That would certainly take money out of the pockets of teams that have their own sports networks (Yankees, Braves... isn't NESN run by the Red Sox as well?). What good has increased player salaries done over the years, besides screwing the fans with higher ticket prices?

Well, I have no big problems with more revenue sharing, so I guess we can agree on that.

Second, player salaries have nothing to do with the prices of tickets. Ticket prices are simply based on supply and demand. Here's a short FAQ on the subject:
http://www.baseball1.com/faqs/ticket_prices.html

Finally, I'd argue that higher player salaries are good for baseball. With a chance to make big money, some athlete may choose baseball over salary capped sports like football and basketball. Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn were two of these types of players. The Mets' Lastings Milledge(sp?) is a more current example.

I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but I don't see how anybody can seriously argue that allowing Steinbrenner to spend over $200 million is good for the sport. Even capping payrolls at 100 million would be a significant improvement.

Well, let me try on put a positive spin on things for you, Kittle. George Steinbrenner is an older man. Suffice to say, in a few years, he will either a)die, b)sell the team, or c)go senile. When one of these things happen, he will most likely sell to a less aggressive owner. This owner will probably lower the payroll a bit. So, really, installing a cap would be pointless. It's like changing the intentional walk rule just for Barry Bonds. The Boss is just an aberration.

rahulsekhar
02-21-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Daver
You have seen proof that franchises are losing money?

Nope - I was referring to MarkEdwards comment that the owners were so rich that they could afford to pay whatever salaries they wanted. If you re-read my statement, I specifically say that teams should be treated as a net zero - i.e. pay out in salaries what you take in in revenues (minus expenses).

Kittle
02-22-2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well stated. Obviously you've bothered to read more on the subject than simply the mindless nonsense that fills the sports page every Sunday.

There is sound economic theory why the best ballplayers naturally gravitate to the best teams. I can only say I would rather wear a bag on my head than try to spoon-feed an explanation to Kittle why all of his pontificating about the NFL's competitive balance is merely the outcome of the randomness the NFL poo-bahs built into their season and playoffs.

This isn't ninth grade homeroom. I won't waste time explaining why the champion team in baseball is 1000-times more likely to truly be the best team in the league than the NFL's champion. If Kittle wants 16-game schedules and one-and-off playoff games, more power to him. The season runs September through January. Enjoy the delusion of "competitive balance" with all my blessings.

Oh, and if Green Bay gets a team in the socialist NFL, Los Angeles doesn't. I *guarantee* Chicago would only have one baseball team if Kittle's NFL-style socialism plan took effect in MLB. They won't be playing on the South Side either.

Stick that one in your pipe and smoke it.

LA doesn't have a football team because people out there simply don't support the sport. It has nothing to do with "socialism." I thought that would've been obvious, but you apparently don't know much about the NFL. How would Chicago only have one baseball team if a salary cap was implemented? NYC has two, one of which is has SIGNIFICANTLY more fan support than the other (they don't even have their own stadium). What's your logic, or do you not have any?

Of course, you still haven't told me why a salary cap wouldn't work in MLB. What would be wrong with having a $100 million salary cap (which could be adjusted for inflation) to keep guys like Steinbrenner from buying 6 out of 8 WS appearances in the future? All you seem to be able to say is, "You can't compare the NFL and MLB" and that that I make, "bull**** comparisons."

The fact that you can't answer the question suggests that you simply don't have a good answer. You're more interested in believing what you want to believe and labeling anything that deviates from your paradigm "socialist."

Smoke THAT, buddy.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yes, because athletes in general should not have a right to privacy. All facets of their lives should be open to the public.

Oh, right, and they should be allowed to used illegal controlled substances to enhance their performances. Not only is it ILLEGAL, but it compromises the integrity of the sport. Pete Rose gets banned from the Hall for betting on baseball, while Barry and Sammy will get in with open arms after they juiced themselves to HR records. How'd you like to explain THAT to your kids?

Um, I don't know if you've followed the recent labor negotiations, so I'll try to sum it up quickly. While the owners continuously ask for more and more from the players (luxury tax, steroid testing, international draft, etc.), the players have asked for nothing in return in the past few negotiations. They're happy with the status quo.

I have followed them, and I've seen the players union recently:

(1) Go ape**** when the league wanted to test for steroids. God forbid they're not allowed to use ILLEGAL drugs to enhance their play. Privacy, my ass. Tell that to a judge.

(2) Tell A-Rod that he can't take a paycut to be traded to the Red Sox because it would set "a bad precedent." Yeah, God forbid that a player wants to do something other than maximize his profits, because that's not good for the sport.

I don't follow football much, but from what I can tell, the Packers don't seem to go after many free agents..
Favre and Reggie White (both future HOFers) re-signed with them in the '90s at least once (Favre also signed a huge contract after the 2000 season, IIRC). GB signed Terry Glenn (a marquee free agent at the time) a year and a half ago. If you followed football, you'd know that GB is a marquee team that is almost always in the playoffs, despite being in a tiny market.

Finally, I'd argue that higher player salaries are good for baseball. With a chance to make big money, some athlete may choose baseball over salary capped sports like football and basketball. Dave Winfield and Tony Gwynn were two of these types of players. The Mets' Lastings Milledge(sp?) is a more current example.

Sure, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Drew Henson chose to sign with the Yankees rather than enter the NFL draft. But it's not all about the money. Player longevity (postition players) is much longer in MLB than the NFL.

Well, let me try on put a positive spin on things for you, Kittle. George Steinbrenner is an older man. Suffice to say, in a few years, he will either a)die, b)sell the team, or c)go senile. When one of these things happen, he will most likely sell to a less aggressive owner. This owner will probably lower the payroll a bit. So, really, installing a cap would be pointless. It's like changing the intentional walk rule just for Barry Bonds. The Boss is just an aberration.

I'm not content to sit around and wait for George to die off and to risk George, Part II buying a team in the near future. There are A LOT of competitive rich men out there. Guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder would probably exploit the hell out of MLBs free-spending system.

The point of a salary cap is not to take money away from the players. It's to keep the following from happening:

C: Posada
1B: Giambi
2B: E. Wilson
SS: Jeter
3B: A-Rod
LF: Matsui
CF: Lofton
RF: Sheffield
DH: B. Williams

P: Mussina
P: K. Brown
P: Vazquez
P: Contreras
P: Lieber
P: Rivera

That's not a baseball team. It's an All-Star team.

Again, what's wrong with setting a cap at, say, $100 million to keep guys like King George from buying another WS appearance?

Daver
02-22-2004, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Kittle


The point of a salary cap is not to take money away from the players.


The point of a salary cap is to guarantee owner profit margin.


If MLB really wanted to do something to stop Steinbrennar they would move the Expos to New Jersey.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The point of a salary cap is to guarantee owner profit margin.


If MLB really wanted to do something to stop Steinbrennar they would move the Expos to New Jersey.

They obviously don't care and that's the problem.

The point of a salary cap is to guarantee owner profit margin.

Having a soft cap (say, maybe $100 million to start with maybe a $3-$5 million annual increase) wouldn't guarantee anything for the owners (most of them can't even afford to have that kind of payroll), wouldn't significantly drive player salaries down, and would prevent people like King George from outspending entire divisions.

In the current system, teams like the Expos (who cannot financially compete) get moved somewhere else. While that may be good for the players' bank accounts, it isn't good for the fans that no longer have a baseball team in their city. Who's next? The Tigers? The Royals? The Devil Rays?

I'm all for the players making a lot of money, but the interests of the fans need to be addressed as well. Neither the owners or players unions seem to be doing that.

MarkEdward
02-22-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
Oh, right, and they should be allowed to used illegal controlled substances to enhance their performances. Not only is it ILLEGAL, but it compromises the integrity of the sport. Pete Rose gets banned from the Hall for betting on baseball, while Barry and Sammy will get in with open arms after they juiced themselves to HR records. How'd you like to explain THAT to your kids?

Hm. Well, I'll probably explain it to them in the same way I'll explain that Babe Ruth only played against white competition, Mickey Mantle and the players of his generation took "greenies" to increase their level of play, and Gaylord Perry continuously scuffed and spit on the ball to give him a little more edge on his pitches. I would then explain to them to look at statistics in context.

Finally, even if Barry Bonds is caught juicing, I'll still tell my kids that he was the greatest player I ever saw (well, so far in my life, I'm only 19). No extra supplement can give Bonds the great batter's eye he has had through the years, and no steroid controversy will take away the great numbers he put up in the 90s. From Rob Neyer's column on Wednesday:
I don't know what to do with that, though. You can't really accuse Bonds of cheating, because A) we don't know what, if anything, he's been doing, and B) the "rules" are not clear. You can't really accuse Bonds of doing things that other players aren't doing, because we know other players are doing things. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be a part of the discussion; I just don't know which part, exactly.
It's very difficult to rate an active player, and for now I'm comfortable saying only that Bonds is one of the game's 10 greatest players ever. As for where exactly he belongs in that group, we'll have to sort that out later.


I have followed them, and I've seen the players union recently:
(1) Go ape**** when the league wanted to test for steroids. God forbid they're not allowed to use ILLEGAL drugs to enhance their play. Privacy, my ass. Tell that to a judge.

Steroid testing is a collective bargaining issue. Of course the players won't agree to it unless they get something in return. That's labor negotiations for you.

(2) Tell A-Rod that he can't take a paycut to be traded to the Red Sox because it would set "a bad precedent." Yeah, God forbid that a player wants to do something other than maximize his profits, because that's not good for the sport.

Well, it would have set a bad precedent. The owners are a conniving, ruthless group of men who will use any advantage they can get over the players. If the MLBPA let the first A-Rod trade go through, most owners would obviously use it later with other contract negotiations.

Favre and Reggie White (both future HOFers) re-signed with them in the '90s at least once (Favre also signed a huge contract after the 2000 season, IIRC). GB signed Terry Glenn (a marquee free agent at the time) a year and a half ago. If you followed football, you'd know that GB is a marquee team that is almost always in the playoffs, despite being in a tiny market.

Reggie White I can understand, not so much with Terry Glenn. Prior to signing with Green Bay for the 2002 season, he had only played in four games for the Patriots in 2001. From what I remember, Glenn had a long history of being a "bad team player," so the Packer were taking a chance on him. I think it's the equivalent of the Pirates bringing in Derek Bell for the 2001 season.

As to your Favre comment, if you're going to argue that small market baseball clubs can't re-sign their own players, I'd have to disagree. Recently, the Royals were able to re-sign Mike Sweeney. The Padres were able to bring in Brian Giles, as well as keep Phil Nevin, Ryan Klesko, and Trevor Hoffman. The Cardinals just re-signed Albert Pujols (they've also been able to bring in Jim Edmonds, Scott Rolen, Edgar Renteria, and Jason Isringhausen). The Rockies have kept Todd Helton, as well as added Larry Walker, Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, and Charles Johnson. The Diamondbacks have added Curt Schilling, Richie Sexson, Randy Johnson, Luis Gonzalez, and Steve Finley. The Reds brought in Griffey and re-signed Sean Casey. The Twins just re-signed Doug Mientkiewicz and Torii Hunter. The Tigers just got Ivan Rodriguez. The Brewers and Pirates have had no homegrown talent worth keeping. The A's have lost a lot, but they continue to win.

Sure, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Drew Henson chose to sign with the Yankees rather than enter the NFL draft. But it's not all about the money. Player longevity (postition players) is much longer in MLB than the NFL.

Well, yes, there are other reasons.

The point of a salary cap is not to take money away from the players. It's to keep the following from happening:
C: Posada
1B: Giambi
2B: E. Wilson
SS: Jeter
3B: A-Rod
LF: Matsui
CF: Lofton
RF: Sheffield
DH: B. Williams
P: Mussina
P: K. Brown
P: Vazquez
P: Contreras
P: Lieber
P: Rivera
That's not a baseball team. It's an All-Star team.

What do I see with this line-up? Well, I see a catcher on the wrong side of 30 (catchers, historically, do not age well). A battered first baseman whose OPS+ has declined over the last three years. A second baseman with an OPS+ of 68. I see one of the worst defensive shortstops in baseball. An outfield composed of players 30 or older. The leftifielder, Matsui, only hit about league average (for a left fielder) last year. Kenny Lofton will be 37, and age should start catching up with him. Same with Gary Sheffield. Bernie Williams isn't getting any younger too. On the pitching side, I see a severe injury threat (Brown), a 26 year old who has already thrown 1230 innings, a pitcher who has only pitched 71 major league innings, and a pitcher who hasn't pitched since 2002 (Lieber). The Yankees do have a lot of holes.

Aside from this, they only have three players who can be considered in their prime (Jeter, Rodriguez, Vazquez). Plus, they've traded away much of their younger talent (Johnson, Soriano, Rivera). I can't see the Yankee dynasty lasting for much longer.

Again, what's wrong with setting a cap at, say, $100 million to keep guys like King George from buying another WS appearance?

For one thing, it won't help teams like the Pirates and Tiger continue to have crappy farm systems.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
LA doesn't have a football team because people out there simply don't support the sport. It has nothing to do with "socialism." I thought that would've been obvious, but you apparently don't know much about the NFL. How would Chicago only have one baseball team if a salary cap was implemented? NYC has two, one of which is has SIGNIFICANTLY more fan support than the other (they don't even have their own stadium). What's your logic, or do you not have any?

Wrong. LA doesn't have a team (and Green Bay does) because in the NFL's world of sharing everything equally (i.e. "socialism") any team can maximize its revenue simply by arranging the sweetest stadium deal possible. So the Rams move to a smaller market with a sweeter stadium deal and the Raiders move to a smaller market with a sweeter stadium deal, too. Everyone shares the TV revenue equally in the NFL so what difference does it make whether you play in the #2 media market or some cow pasture in the middle of the woods? You can bet the White Sox will do the same if similar socialist policies ever came to MLB.


Originally posted by Kittle
Of course, you still haven't told me why a salary cap wouldn't work in MLB. What would be wrong with having a $100 million salary cap (which could be adjusted for inflation) to keep guys like Steinbrenner from buying 6 out of 8 WS appearances in the future? All you seem to be able to say is, "You can't compare the NFL and MLB" and that that I make, "bull**** comparisons."

The fact that you can't answer the question suggests that you simply don't have a good answer. You're more interested in believing what you want to believe and labeling anything that deviates from your paradigm "socialist."

Actually MarkEdward did a nice summation of why you alone are deluding yourself to think the competitive balance in the NFL is the result of policies that merely put more money in the owners pocket at the expense of fans and the players alike. If you would bother to read what he wrote (or better still, read a BOOK on the subject) this wouldn't be so confusing to you.

Originally posted by Kittle
Smoke THAT, buddy.

Obviously the logic is sailing clear over your head. Go buy your subscription to Sports Illustrated and get your complimentary video, "New England Patriots, Suuuuuuuper Booooowl Champions!" That's a sport more your speed.

I'm done wearing a bag on my head to answer such silly questions.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Wrong. LA doesn't have a team (and Green Bay does) because in the NFL's world of sharing everything equally (i.e. "socialism") any team can maximize its revenue simply by arranging the sweetest stadium deal possible. So the Rams move to a smaller market with a sweeter stadium deal and the Raiders move to a smaller market with a sweeter stadium deal, too. Everyone shares the TV revenue equally in the NFL so what difference does it make whether you play in the #2 media market or some cow pasture in the middle of the woods? You can bet the White Sox will do the same if similar socialist policies ever came to MLB.

Yeah, and the Rams have such a sweet stadium. LOL!!! Have you ever been to that craphole?

The Colts' stadium sucks, it's the smallest in the league, they play in a small market, there's constantly rumors of them moving elsewhere if they don't get a better stadium, despite the fact that they've made it to the playoffs in 4 of the past 5 seasons.

So, no, you're wrong about a better stadium deal overshadowing a small market in the NFL.

In additon, the NFL is miles ahead of MLB in terms of fan support. Guess those "socialist" policies make for a better league, eh?

Obviously the logic is sailing clear over your head. Go buy your subscription to Sports Illustrated and get your complimentary video, "New England Patriots, Suuuuuuuper Booooowl Champions!" That's a sport more your speed.

I'm done wearing a bag on my head to answer such silly questions.

And you still haven't told me what's wrong with a $100 million salary cap in MLB, besides your allegation that it's "socialist."

And I thought you had some brains to go with all of that wind. Silly me.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
[B]

And you still haven't told me what's wrong with a $100 million salary cap in MLB, besides your allegation that it's "socialist."

And I thought you had some brains to go with all of that wind. Silly me.

Why $100 million, silly? Why not $50 million? Or $5 million? Hell, Babe Ruth only ever made $100,000 and the Yankees piled up world championships at a rate even King George would envy.

Talk to my hand.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Steroid testing is a collective bargaining issue. Of course the players won't agree to it unless they get something in return. That's labor negotiations for you.

Steroid use is not only illegal, but unethical as well. Steroid testing in professional sports should NOT be negotiable.

[QUOTE]Well, it would have set a bad precedent. The owners are a conniving, ruthless group of men who will use any advantage they can get over the players. If the MLBPA let the first A-Rod trade go through, most owners would obviously use it later with other contract negotiations.

These are the same players that are illegally using steroids. I agree that the owners are greedy, but it should be obvious by now that the players are equally money- and power-hungry.


[QUOTE]For one thing, it won't help teams like the Pirates and Tiger continue to have crappy farm systems.

But it will help the small market and/or low payroll teams that do (KC, CIN, etc.).

In the current system, even poorly-run teams with enough money in the bank can spend their way into the playoffs. Look at the Red Sox. Despite being in the same division as the Yankees (meaning that they'll most likely have to get in as a Wild Card), they've made the playoffs in three of the past six seasons.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Why $100 million, silly? Why not $50 million? Or $5 million? Hell, Babe Ruth only ever made $100,000 and the Yankees piled up world championships at a rate even King George would envy.

Talk to my hand.

If I didn't have a greater sense of decency, I'd tell you EXACTLY what you can do with your hand.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
If I didn't have a greater sense of decency, I'd tell you EXACTLY what you can do with your hand.

Temper, temper... To quote someone else, "You still haven't answered the question..."

:smile:

Kittle
02-22-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Temper, temper... To quote someone else, "You still haven't answered the question..."

:smile:

OK, here's your answer:

A $100 million payroll cap would be a good place to start because:

(1) It's the upper limit of where almost all of the teams are in terms of payroll right now. That would mean that player salaries would not be constricted. An additional $3-$5 million could be tacked on annually (another concession to the players).

(2) It would stop owners from having the unfair advantage of GROSSLY out-spending their competition. It would also allow ample room for teams to spend REASONABLY.

Are you happy now?

And don't give me this crap about "temper." You're the one who started with the swearing in the first place.

If you don't like what I'm saying, don't respond to my posts. I'm here to debate sports-related issues, not to listen to your condescending pseudo-intellectual bull****. Despite what you may think, you're NOT my intellectual superior.

doctor30th
02-22-2004, 03:14 PM
A $100 million payroll cap would be a good place to start because:

I would think for that to work you would actually have to do a system where you can have a certain amount of people that you can pay up to a certian level, then like a franchise player.

So you could have:
10 players that could make up to 2 mil a year
10 players that could make up to 5 mil a year
3 players that could make up to 10 mil a year
2 players that can make in addition to 10 mil but no more that 18 mil.

You would obviously have to play with it to get it under 100 mil.

Daver
02-22-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
OK, here's your answer:

A $100 million payroll cap would be a good place to start because:

(1) It's the upper limit of where almost all of the teams are in terms of payroll right now. That would mean that player salaries would not be constricted. An additional $3-$5 million could be tacked on annually (another concession to the players).

(2) It would stop owners from having the unfair advantage of GROSSLY out-spending their competition. It would also allow ample room for teams to spend REASONABLY.



There are three basic problems with your proposal.

The current commisioner would never get anyone to buy it.

The MLBPA would never agree to it.

It wouldn't solve a damn thing,because you would still have owners like Carl Pohlad,David Glass,and Jeffrey Loria,as well as MLB themselves as the owners of the Expos,just pocketing the revenue sharing checks.

The only thing it would accomplish is that the above mentioned owners would be able to guarantee their profit margin year in and year out.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The only thing it would accomplish is that the above mentioned owners would be able to guarantee their profit margin year in and year out.

How would capping team payrolls at a value that most teams can't even afford to spend help the owners who either don't or can't invest enough in their own team to compete? They're still going to lose to all the teams that would be under the cap (all except the Yankees and Red Sox right now). And the Yankees and Red Sox will kick their asses anyway, with or without the cap.

The only thing that a high salary cap of $100 million (subject to increases each year) would affect is teams that would normally spend over that. And that's what? Two teams?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Daver
There are three basic problems with your proposal...It wouldn't solve a damn thing,because you would still have owners like Carl Pohlad,David Glass,and Jeffrey Loria,as well as MLB themselves as the owners of the Expos,just pocketing the revenue sharing checks.

The only thing it would accomplish is that the above mentioned owners would be able to guarantee their profit margin year in and year out.

THANK YOU!!!

If the Bidwell family hadn't spent the last 70 years collecting welfare checks from all their NFL brethren, the fans of the Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals might have finally lived to see a championship. Not even the skin flint Comiskeys could hold onto daddy's franchise as long as the Bidwells, thanks to the socialist policies of the NFL that thankfully are missing from MLB. Even with all the randomness built into how the NFL determines a champion (which Kittle confuses with competitive balance), the Cardinals haven't won a playoff game since they played at 35th & Shields.

Sorry, but I'm interested in competitive balance, not keeping sad sack owners in the league. If they don't want to build a competitive team, they need to sell and take home that fat profit margin they made on their investment. I put the fans' interest ahead of the owners'. That's where Kittle and the rest of us are on two completely different pages.

There is nothing magical about Kittle's $100 million cap anymore than would $50 million or $5 million. A cap only paves the way for the owners to sit on their ass and collect fatter profits. Competitive balance isn't effected one iota, a fact Kittle refuses to acknowledge.

Daver
02-22-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
How would capping team payrolls at a value that most teams can't even afford to spend help the owners who either don't or can't invest enough in their own team to compete? They're still going to lose to all the teams that would be under the cap (all except the Yankees and Red Sox right now). And the Yankees and Red Sox will kick their asses anyway, with or without the cap.

The only thing that a high salary cap of $100 million (subject to increases each year) would affect is teams that would normally spend over that. And that's what? Two teams?

Simple.

You are not accomplishing anything with that cap if it only going to affect two teams as far as competetive balance goes.All it would accomplish is to lower the salary structure of the leagues superstars,while changing nothing else.

People tend to forget that the NFL salary cap was started as a means to break the NFLPA,it's original intention had nothing to do with competetive balance for the NFL,and it has not acheived competetive balance in the NFL.

MarkEdward
02-22-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
Steroid use is not only illegal, but unethical as well. Steroid testing in professional sports should NOT be negotiable.

The Reserve Clause was pretty damn unethical, yet the owners saw no problem in continuously using it for 75+ years.

I can understand why testing is a collective bargaining issue. If owners have a right to unilaterally impose testing, that sets a precedent. They'll attempt to unilaterally impose other restrictions against the players. Aside from this, there is the previously stated privacy issue.

But it will help the small market and/or low payroll teams that do (KC, CIN, etc.).

It won't help Cincinnati's crappy record of developing of pitchers. Seriously, who was the last good pitcher developed (drafted or signed by) the Reds? Mario Soto? The same could be said for Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and Detroit. In the past few years, these teams have not developed one worthwhile player (aside from Sweeney and Beltran in KC). A salary cap will not stop crappy GMs from running teams.

In the current system, even poorly-run teams with enough money in the bank can spend their way into the playoffs. Look at the Red Sox.

Like the Mets, Dodgers, and Rangers.

Despite being in the same division as the Yankees (meaning that they'll most likely have to get in as a Wild Card), they've made the playoffs in three of the past six seasons.

I don't know about you, but I think the Red Sox have been very well run throughout the years (especially with Epstein at the helm). Great trades (Pedro, Varitek, Lowe, Kim), shrewed free agent pick-ups (Millar, Mueller, Ortiz, Wakefield) and good drafts (Nomar, Nixon) all make for a well-run organization.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Simple.

You are not accomplishing anything with that cap if it only going to affect two teams as far as competetive balance goes.All it would accomplish is to lower the salary structure of the leagues superstars,while changing nothing else.

People tend to forget that the NFL salary cap was started as a means to break the NFLPA,it's original intention had nothing to do with competetive balance for the NFL,and it has not acheived competetive balance in the NFL.

If it keeps the Yankees from spending $200 million (60% more than its nearest financial competitor), it's doing something positive for baseball and it's a place to start. It's no coincidence that the Yanks have made it to six of the past eight World Series while King George was out-spending his competitors.

The NFL is MUCH closer to competitive balance than MLB. I'm not saying that the players are treated as well as they should be, but I can say that the NFL is in much better shape than MLB right now. The NFL does not alienate its fans with labor disputes and is not at the beginning of an embarassing steroids scandal.

Daver
02-22-2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
If it keeps the Yankees from spending $200 million (60% more than its nearest financial competitor), it's doing something positive for baseball and it's a place to start. It's no coincidence that the Yanks have made it to six of the past eight World Series while King George was out-spending his competitors.

The NFL is MUCH closer to competitive balance than MLB. I'm not saying that the players are treated as well as they should be, but I can say that the NFL is in much better shape than MLB right now. The NFL does not alienate its fans with labor disputes and is not at the beginning of an embarassing steroids scandal.

You obviously are missing the main point that all of us are trying to make,what you are suggesting will have 0 effect on competetive balance in MLB,all it will accomplish is the lowering of salaries for the top players in the game,which will result in a trickle down affect across the entire salary structure.

Your comparisons to the NFL make little sense,because you are comparing apples to oranges when you look at how the salary base is structured between the two sports,but I will let you do your own homework on that.


When you come up with an argument that might actually have an affect on competetive balance please let us know.

Kittle
02-22-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I can understand why testing is a collective bargaining issue. If owners have a right to unilaterally impose testing, that sets a precedent. They'll attempt to unilaterally impose other restrictions against the players. Aside from this, there is the previously stated privacy issue.

That sounds more like an excuse than reality. All the players have to do is threaten to strike if the owners impose restrictions against them. Hell, that's what almost happened two years ago when the owners wanted a salary cap. At the 11th hour, both sides came to their senses and compromised.

Steroid testing may be perceived as a collective bargaining issue, and therein lies the problem: perception. Neither side looks at how the fans "perceive" these issues. The strike was perceived as greed on both sides by the fans. The near-strike of a couple years ago was perceived by the fans as more of the same. The Yankess being able to spend $200+ million (almost the entire AL Central's payroll) is widely perceived as an unfair advantage. Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, two players who are more likely than not taking steroids to enhance their play, are widely perceived by the fans as cheaters (and Sosa proved that he was cheating with a corked bat last year). Many fans believe that players like Bonds and Sosa are making a mockery of the sport and diminishing the accomplishments of Ruth, Gherig, Maris, Mantle, Ted Williams, etc.

This is why MLB has lost so much fan support over the past 10 years. Fans are sick and tired of this ****. The owners and players seem to care more about fighting each other over money and power than doing what's right for league. And that's why MLB has gone from "Our National Passtime" to "Second Fiddle to the NFL." And if MLB doesn't get it's **** together soon, they're going to be "Second Fiddle to the NBA."

I don't have much more to say about this, so I guess I'll stop posting on this topic. Thank you for your ideas. Although I don't agree with all of them, it's been an interesting debate.

poorme
02-22-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Daver

When you come up with an argument that might actually have an affect on competetive balance please let us know.

It's very simple.

1. Revenue sharing
2. Salary Cap
3. Salary Floor

Kittle
02-22-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by poorme
It's very simple.

1. Revenue sharing
2. Salary Cap
3. Salary Floor

Thank you!!!

idseer
02-22-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

A cap only paves the way for the owners to sit on their ass and collect fatter profits. Competitive balance isn't effected one iota, a fact Kittle refuses to acknowledge.

i really dislike discussing the money side of the game, but can i ask a question?
what if ... there were a clause that stipulated that any amount of money UNDER the cap that was spent the previous season decreases by some percentage the amount of revenue an owner would get?
wouldn't there be some way of having a cap and yet prevent the owners from simply pocketing the $'s?

StillMissOzzie
02-22-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The point of a salary cap is to guarantee owner profit margin.


If MLB really wanted to do something to stop Steinbrennar they would move the Expos to New Jersey.

I've seen this argument before. Why would fans in the NY/NJ area abandon the free-spending Yankees to flock to a new team in the area with a much less likely chance of winning?

SMO

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by poorme
It's very simple.

1. Revenue sharing
2. Salary Cap
3. Salary Floor

1. Revenue sharing - ensures owners that mismanage their team get a bailout from everyone else. Lowlife owners (like Carl Pohlad) can be counted on to pocket their revenue sharing checks, too.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

2. Salary Cap - ensures owners a fatter slice of the revenue pie, a direct transfer from the player's pocket to the owner's.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

3. Salary Floor - ensures owners will focus their efforts on creative bookkeeping to "spend" on salaries (making sure to keep actual control of spending hidden from the MLBPA). Furthermore a salary floor forces precisely none of the owners to make their team's more competitive, only "spend" more.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

Not so simple is it, at least not if you think *spending* and *revenue-sharing* will solve the competitive balance issue. The core issue lies elsewhere and the owners are running like crazy from implementing it. The players are indifferent; they're happy with the status quo.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by idseer
i really dislike discussing the money side of the game, but can i ask a question?
what if ... there were a clause that stipulated that any amount of money UNDER the cap that was spent the previous season decreases by some percentage the amount of revenue an owner would get?
wouldn't there be some way of having a cap and yet prevent the owners from simply pocketing the $'s?

Good question. You're entering into the Wonderland of Creative Bookkeeping, the same kind that Paul Beeston was talking about in my signature file.

The players union hasn't ruled out what you're asking about because they know there is no games to play without the teams. Though they're happy with the status quo, Fehr has put financial partnership on the table for negotiation with the owners several times. The union and owners need each other to thrive and survive, not unlike Ford and the UAW.

The owners won't discuss it. They want revenue-sharing and salary caps. Gee, I can't imagine why.

Daver
02-22-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Good question. You're entering into the Wonderland of Creative Bookkeeping, the same kind that Paul Beeston was talking about in my signature file.

The players union hasn't ruled out what you're asking about because they know there is no games to play without the teams. Though they're happy with the status quo, Fehr has put financial partnership on the table for negotiation with the owners several times. The union and owners need each other to thrive and survive, not unlike Ford and the UAW.

The owners won't discuss it. They want revenue-sharing and salary caps. Gee, I can't imagine why.

The only time I can recall negotiations about partnering with the league was during the 94 strike,and it was quickly shot down by the "Hawks" among the owners that were intent on breaking the union,similar to the way the NFL owners broke the NFLPA.

At this point I doubt it is a real option,for the simple fact that Don Fehr and Marvin Miller do not trust Bud Selig as far as they could drop kick him,and Miller is still a consultant to Don Fehr.I would hazard a guess that it will not be possible to do this until Bud is replaced with an autonomous commisioner,and that could happen if there is a work stoppage in 2006,all of the pressure is on the league now with the concessions the players made in good faith after the last bargaining session.


But then again,what the hell do I know? &copy;

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The only time I can recall negotiations about partnering with the league was during the 94 strike,and it was quickly shot down by the "Hawks" among the owners that were intent on breaking the union....

Yes I recall a financial partnership being offered by Fehr back in 1994, too. I thought he made a similar offer in 2001, too, but I could be mistaken. The MLBPA definitely doesn't trust the owners and having been rebuked before, I hardly think Fehr feels getting shot down a second time with a similar proposal would serve any useful purpose.

Either way it is an effective way to smoke out the true motives of the owners as they cry crocodile tears about competitive balance. The players aren't asking for changes, yet when their union responds with proposals to address the specific problems the owners *claim* need addressing, it is the owners who won't consider it.

Everyone has an agenda in any negotiation. The financial partnership proposal did an effective job of smoking out the owners and their "competitive balance" load of baloney.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I've seen this argument before. Why would fans in the NY/NJ area abandon the free-spending Yankees to flock to a new team in the area with a much less likely chance of winning?

SMO

NY/NJ/CT is the largest market in the country. It is also one of the most affluent (the most affluent?) in the country, the key demographic for measuring the relative size of the relevant sports fan population.

Given the size of the Metro NY fan base and the media dollars to be earned compared to other markets across the country, it has been proffered by Andrew Zimbalist and other sports economists that Metro NY could add one or more baseball teams and still offer more marginal revenue upside to the next team looking to relocate than any other market in the U.S.

Baltimore/Washington is a strong second. SoCal is another. It actually makes more sense to move a third or fourth team into these markets than "expand" into smaller towns like San Antonio or Indianapolis -- assuming, as we must, that maximizing team revenue is the goal.

The national TV networks really don't care about covering small markets with local teams once you get past the Big Three; New York, Chicago, and LA. They aren't going to increase the value of their national TV deal just because you've got Denver covered.

poorme
02-22-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
1. Revenue sharing - ensures owners that mismanage their team get a bailout from everyone else. Lowlife owners (like Carl Pohlad) can be counted on to pocket their revenue sharing checks, too.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

2. Salary Cap - ensures owners a fatter slice of the revenue pie, a direct transfer from the player's pocket to the owner's.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

3. Salary Floor - ensures owners will focus their efforts on creative bookkeeping to "spend" on salaries (making sure to keep actual control of spending hidden from the MLBPA). Furthermore a salary floor forces precisely none of the owners to make their team's more competitive, only "spend" more.

Effect on competitive balance: ZERO.

Not so simple is it, at least not if you think *spending* and *revenue-sharing* will solve the competitive balance issue. The core issue lies elsewhere and the owners are running like crazy from implementing it. The players are indifferent; they're happy with the status quo.

That's weaque. Are you an attorney?

the MLBPA knows how much they are getting in salaries and as long as that keeps increasing, they'll be happy.

You could set the parameters anyway you want. A salary cap of $150 million and a salary floor of $100 million. You think the players would have a problem with that?


Oh, I'm not a mind reader, so please tell us where the other "core issues" lie.

Daver
02-22-2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by poorme



Oh, I'm not a mind reader, so please tell us where the other "core issues" lie.

Do your own homework.

The info is out there.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by poorme
That's weaque. Are you an attorney?

the MLBPA knows how much they are getting in salaries and as long as that keeps increasing, they'll be happy.

Please explain how the MLBPA knows what their share of the revenue pie is if the owners aren't sharing their books on actual revenue generated. Let me guess... they should just take the owners' word, right? Riiiiight...

Originally posted by poorme
You could set the parameters anyway you want. A salary cap of $150 million and a salary floor of $100 million. You think the players would have a problem with that?

Or you could set the parameters exactly as they are today. It makes no difference on competitive balance either way. This is a point we seem to be stuck on. We're still waiting for *somebody* to explain how revenue sharing or salary caps has any effect on competitive balance. Several of us have been wasting our time explaining why it doesn't...


Originally posted by poorme
Oh, I'm not a mind reader, so please tell us where the other "core issues" lie.

I'm with the players. I'm satisfied with the status quo. However you wouldn't like any of the competitive balance solutions I offered because they would seem too radical to you. A financial partnership arrangement would seem to be in the interest of both players and owners, but it won't happen. It's too radical for the owners, especially since they're doing better without the players as partners.

poorme
02-22-2004, 08:17 PM
Hey, I'm open to any and all possibilities, a partnership, especially on the marketing side would be a great idea. But like you said, highly unlikely.

You can't have a salary cap/floor based on "revenues" because the players don't know what they are. You could make some assumptions based on attendance, or tv ratings, or whatever. Let's say player salaries have gone up 10% annually over the past 5 years. They could agree that total payrolls would increase 10% annually over the next five years. This is all open to negotiation.

If teams were to spend similar amounts on salary, the disparity of talent would shrink. This is like a mathematical property. I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't see the obvious. Of course, you'll always have crappy organizations like the White Sox, but there's no way to legislate against moronity.

I can't see how you can be "satisfied" with the status quo - letting our idiot owner get by with spending half what other "big market" teams spend.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by poorme
....You can't have a salary cap/floor based on "revenues" because the players don't know what they are. You could make some assumptions based on attendance, or tv ratings, or whatever. Let's say player salaries have gone up 10% annually over the past 5 years. They could agree that total payrolls would increase 10% annually over the next five years. This is all open to negotiation.

You may not know this, but the modern MLBPA was born after Phillies pitcher Robin Roberts suspected the owners were deliberately understating the value of the all-star game revenue because they had to share that pot of money with the union. Roberts hired Marvin Miller and sure enough the union found out the owners had been sticking it to the players for years. It was the first of the owners' ongoing series of missteps dealing with a union that finally grew balls enough to take them on straight up.

You can forget about the MLBPA trusting the owners...

Originally posted by poorme
....If teams were to spend similar amounts on salary, the disparity of talent would shrink. This is like a mathematical property. I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't see the obvious. Of course, you'll always have crappy organizations like the White Sox, but there's no way to legislate against moronity .

This has been my point all along! If we could solve these "competitive balance" issues with revenue sharing or salary caps I would be the first to support them. The fact is "you'll always have crappy organizations" and revenue sharing and salary caps won't effect this. It is precisely these exceptions that prove the rule. Even the modest revenue sharing and luxury tax provisions we have today have only caused Carl Pohlad and others to pocket the money they received from their fellow owners. The Twins haven't spent any of their money on improving the team.

Originally posted by poorme
....I can't see how you can be "satisfied" with the status quo - letting our idiot owner get by with spending half what other "big market" teams spend.

I'm pragmatic enough to know a system that has a second-banana team in the #3 market sharing revenue with small market teams will have a shrewd S.O.B. like Jerry Reinsdorf looking for greener pastures where market size doesn't matter. My Sox will end up in some pisshole of a half-million souls scratching out a living farming watermelons or something. As long as the stadium deal is sweet, Jerry won't care. The rest of his money will come from King George-- guaranteed.

poorme
02-22-2004, 08:48 PM
Well, obviously we are both set in or ideas, so no sense in arguing. Just to clarify, I'm only looking to IMPROVE the situation, not make it perfect. Anyway, if we're not going to compete, let JR move, because I really won't care.

Lip Man 1
02-22-2004, 08:55 PM
PHG:

I'm not disagreeing with your points by any means but just to clarify...the Sox (right now) do not get any revenue sharing money from MLB. They are in that middle ground...don't pay, don't get (and never will as long as Uncle Jerry is around.)

Here is a classic example of how owners opearate from the Winter of 2003. Both Cincinnati newspapers interviewed Carl Linder (the man in charge of the Reds) about the upcoming season and the opening of the new Great American Ballpark.

Linder in either a rare moment of honesty or stupidity told both the Post and the Inquirer that he told Jim Bowden (then Reds GM) that the payroll would be lowered for 2003. When the reporters asked why, since the new park was opening, Linder replied that because of the new park, the Reds would be getting so much additional revenue that they wouldn't qualify for any revenue sharing money!

So instead of using that revenue money PLUS the additional money from the fans coming to a new park to improve the team, the Reds cut payroll and then had a fire sale in July to purge themselves of MORE payroll!

I wouldn't trust ANY owner as far as I could throw any of them.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Well, obviously we are both set in or ideas, so no sense in arguing. Just to clarify, I'm only looking to IMPROVE the situation, not make it perfect. Anyway, if we're not going to compete, let JR move, because I really won't care.

We can agree the owners and players should seek solutions to make the sport of baseball more competitive. I've offered radical ideas for doing this in the past, but I'll gladly settle for a tidy little conspiracy between the owners and players to split the profits in some sort of partnership of equals because clearly they both need each other to thrive and survive.

Marketing the game internationally would be an easy step along this path (sharing the risks and the splitting the profits on a pie that doesn't even exist today) but the owners won't even hear of it. Thus I'm suspicious of their motives for shrieking about competitive balance. It is only a trojan horse for making more money for themselves, competitive balance be damned.

The players can't make the league more competitive by themselves. They need the owners to go along, too. Unfortunately that just ain't gonna happen, but another strike/lockout most certainly will. What a screwed up mess the owners have made of baseball...

PaleHoseGeorge
02-22-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
PHG:

I'm not disagreeing with your points by any means but just to clarify...the Sox (right now) do not get any revenue sharing money from MLB. They are in that middle ground...don't pay, don't get (and never will as long as Uncle Jerry is around.)....

Exactly. However if the owners had their way and the players were forced to accept greater luxury taxes, more revenue-sharing, and thus lower salaries, too, the situation the Sox have today would be changed dramatically.

Reinsdorf would have a choice to make. Either he leverages the size of his #3 market, tries to increase the revenue side of the jaw to make more money, and attempts to overcome the luxury tax, or...

Reinsdorf could decide it is easier to lay back, let the team's fortunes fade and start collecting the free revenue checks he gets from everyone else guaranteed.

Either way his advantage of being in the #3 market is marginalized. Being a team stuck in Kansas City, Milwaukee, or even Green Bay isn't a bad thing when all the revenue is being shared equally. Reinsdorf is shrewd enough to know he can do better someplace besides Chicago because market size won't matter anymore. Bye-bye White Sox.

That's the end-game for the Chicago White Sox franchise. When market size doesn't matter anymore to a baseball team's overall revenues, the Cubs will be left with this town all to themselves.

I wish I could say I'm surprised Sox Fans would want more revenue sharing, but frankly I'm not. The sports blab radio hosts and newspaper columnists fill endless hours of air time and column inches spouting the nonsense the owners keep telling them. There isn't one of them trying to educate their listeners/readers about what the consequences would be, not just for failing to solve competitive balance but the destruction of the Sox franchise, too.

I don't waste too much time on the radio or the newspaper anymore...

MarkEdward
02-22-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
That sounds more like an excuse than reality. All the players have to do is threaten to strike if the owners impose restrictions against them. Hell, that's what almost happened two years ago when the owners wanted a salary cap. At the 11th hour, both sides came to their senses and compromised.

The players were going to strike because no collective bargaining agreement had been reached. You can't play without a CBA.

Many fans believe that players like Bonds and Sosa are making a mockery of the sport and diminishing the accomplishments of Ruth, Gherig, Maris, Mantle, Ted Williams, etc.

Once again, let's not sugarcoat MLB's past. For about 50 years of its existence, only white people were able to play pro ball. I'd call that a much bigger mockery than a player corking his bat.

Kittle
02-23-2004, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Once again, let's not sugarcoat MLB's past. For about 50 years of its existence, only white people were able to play pro ball. I'd call that a much bigger mockery than a player corking his bat.

I'd argue that turning a blind eye while players cheat by injecting themselves with 'roids isn't far off.

So, cheating is OK because of our nation's ugly history of racism? Hell, by that train of logic, ALL professional sports should allow steroid use. And while we're at it, let's make every white man in this country pay slave reparations.

I can't believe the ridiculous amount of blind support for the players union on this board. Even steroid use is OK because, hey, once the union allows the league to bust players for doing something ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL that also happends to be destroying the integrity of the sport, it'll set a bad precedent for future labor negotiations. This isn't about labor negotiations! It's about right and wrong. If the league doesn't do anything about it, it looks like the government eventually will. Ashcroft's already going after BALCO. It's just a matter of time before he goes after individual players.

Here's a news flash: BOTH the owners AND players are money- and power-hungry. NEITHER SIDE gives a crap about the interests of the fans or the good of the game. And that's why MLB has been going down the tubes for the past 10 years.

MarkEdward
02-23-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
I'd argue that turning a blind eye while players cheat by injecting themselves with 'roids isn't far off.

You equate steroid use with institutional racism? I hate to argue about morals and values, but sheesh...

So, cheating is OK because of our nation's ugly history of racism?

No, I'm arguing that Major League Baseball has been scarred by past indiscretions, some even worse than steroid use. In my opinion, the current steroid controversy is no more bigger than the "greenies" scandal of the 60s or the drug trials of the 80s.

Why do I believe this? Well, mainly, we have no idea of how steroids really affect a ballplayer. Steroids are supposed to make you stronger, right? Well, it takes much more than brute strength to become a successful baseball player.

I can't believe the ridiculous amount of blind support for the players union on this board.

I don't blindly support the MLBPA. I agree with most of their arguments because those arguments seem most logical to me.

Even steroid use is OK because, hey, once the union allows the league to bust players for doing something ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL that also happends to be destroying the integrity of the sport, it'll set a bad precedent for future labor negotiations.

I don't really think steroid use is OK, but it's not like I lose sleep over the debate.

This isn't about labor negotiations! It's about right and wrong.

Well, again, it is about labor negotiations, as it should be. Since testing affects both the players and owners, it follows that the issue should be discussed during collective bargaining meetings. The players, since they're the ones being tested, should have a say in the matter.

If the league doesn't do anything about it, it looks like the government eventually will. Ashcroft's already going after BALCO. It's just a matter of time before he goes after individual players.

Well, I don't know about you, but it's good to know that our government is becoming involved in sports! I mean, it's not like we have any other problems in America, right? I mean, millions of homeless people don't roam the streets, kids don't go hungry, and it's not like our unemployment rate conitnues to rise. Yay for George Bush! Yay for John Ashcroft! Who cares about the impoverished; at least I know those nasty old ballplayers aren't juicing!

Kittle
02-23-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, mainly, we have no idea of how steroids really affect a ballplayer. Steroids are supposed to make you stronger, right? Well, it takes much more than brute strength to become a successful baseball player.


We have no idea how steroids affect athletes? That's a flat-out lie. We have TONS of scientific research on how steroids affect the human body.

Only an idiot or a liar would argue that steroids don't improve an athlete's performance. I'm assuming that you're in the latter category.

Kittle
02-23-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, I don't know about you, but it's good to know that our government is becoming involved in sports! I mean, it's not like we have any other problems in America, right? I mean, millions of homeless people don't roam the streets, kids don't go hungry, and it's not like our unemployment rate conitnues to rise. Yay for George Bush! Yay for John Ashcroft! Who cares about the impoverished; at least I know those nasty old ballplayers aren't juicing!

Yep, poverty everywhere and the poor players are complaining about the owners potentially capping the millions that they earn every year. What a travesty!

Everybody who works for the government and most people who work in the private sector are given drug tests by their employer. Non-drug users such as myself don't have a problem with it. The only people who do are those who have something to hide.

These guys can take creatine or smoke whatever the hell they want behind closed doors. But I have a HUGE problem with them using ILLEGAL performance-enhancing drugs.

I'd rather watch the government step in than watch Selig sit there with his thumb up his ass because he's afraid of the players striking.

MarkEdward
02-23-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Kittle

We have no idea how steroids affect athletes? That's a flat-out lie. We have TONS of scientific research on how steroids affect the human body.
Only an idiot or a liar would argue that steroids don't improve an athlete's performance. I'm assuming that you're in the latter category.

As I stated before, I do understand the effects of steroids. However, I still don't see how they can help a hitter that much. Do steroids greatly improve hand-eye coordination, which is critical to a hitter's success?

Originally posted by Kittle

Yep, poverty everywhere and the poor players are complaining about the owners potentially capping the millions that they earn every year. What a travesty!

Well, I think you missed my point. I believe the government has other things to worry about aside from sports.

Also, for what it's worth, are you a communist? Don't take the question personally or as a derogatory comment; I tend to lean to the left on social and economical issues too.

Everybody who works for the government and most people who work in the private sector are given drug tests by their employer. Non-drug users such as myself don't have a problem with it. The only people who do are those who have something to hide.

Yeah, what's up with Article IV of the Constitution anyway? If you've got nothin' to hide, why shouldn't the police be able invade your privacy for no reason?

Damned civil liberties.

I'd rather watch the government step in than watch Selig sit there with his thumb up his ass because he's afraid of the players striking.

I think I'd rather have the government work on the problems I listed in my previous post.

Paulwny
02-23-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
As I stated before, I do understand the effects of steroids. However, I still don't see how they can help a hitter that much. Do steroids greatly improve hand-eye coordination, which is critical to a hitter's success?


Granted, steroids don't improve hand - eye coordination but, I assume anyone in mlb has above ave. hand-eye coordination. Steroids turn warning track power into hr power.

Kittle
02-23-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
As I stated before, I do understand the effects of steroids. However, I still don't see how they can help a hitter that much. Do steroids greatly improve hand-eye coordination, which is critical to a hitter's success?

You already know the answer to this one, so I'm not sure why I'm explaining it to you.

Players already have the skills to hit if they reach the majors. Using steroids increases their strength and stamina, resulting in enhanced performance. That enhancement can come in the form of running faster, swinging a bat faster, reocvering from muscle fatigue more quickly (which would be great for pitchers), etc.

This is the last time I'm answering the obvious for you.

So, are you finished playing devil's advocate, or would you like to continue this stupid game?

maurice
02-23-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
Everybody who works for the government and most people who work in the private sector are given drug tests by their employer. Non-drug users such as myself don't have a problem with it.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. I've had maybe ten different employers in my lifetime, some of them government agencies. Not a single one gave me a drug test.

I would have a serious problem with a request to pee in a cup, and I've never used illegal drugs. Absent evidence that an employee is influenced by drugs while they are working (e.g., a profesional athlete taking steroids or a junkie shooting up at lunch), an employer has absolutely no business giving drug tests to their employees.

I suspect that some other non-drug users might agree with me.

Paulwny
02-23-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. I've had maybe ten different employers in my lifetime, some of them government agencies. Not a single one gave me a drug test.





FEDS TO REVAMP DRUG TESTING

Employees' hair, saliva and sweat will be included in screenings

NEW YORK - The federal government is planning to overhaul its employee drug-testing program to include scrutiny of workers' hair, saliva and sweat, a shift that could spur more businesses to revise screening for millions of their own workers.

The planned changes, long awaited by the testing industry, reflect government efforts to be more precise in its drug screening and to outmaneuver a small but growing subset of workers who try to cheat on urine-based tests.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n097/a02.html

According to the article, there are 40million workplace drug tests each year by US employers.

ode to veeck
02-23-2004, 07:10 PM
Actually employers in the private sector have greatly increased their use of drug testing in the last 10-20 years. Most ofton, however, it is only given at the time of original employment offer, and not typically done on an ongoing basis

Paulwny
02-23-2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Actually employers in the private sector have greatly increased their use of drug testing in the last 10-20 years. Most ofton, however, it is only given at the time of original employment offer, and not typically done on an ongoing basis

Agree that many initial hires are drug tested but, 40 million is a huge number when you consider that this is outside of govt's, local, state and fed testing.
Larger corps are being pushed by insurance companies to perform random drug tests.

Kittle
02-23-2004, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. I've had maybe ten different employers in my lifetime, some of them government agencies. Not a single one gave me a drug test.

I would have a serious problem with a request to pee in a cup, and I've never used illegal drugs. Absent evidence that an employee is influenced by drugs while they are working (e.g., a profesional athlete taking steroids or a junkie shooting up at lunch), an employer has absolutely no business giving drug tests to their employees.

Actually, an employer has every right to request drug tests for their employees.

As was already posted, most employers implement the test after you accept their job offer. However, as long as it's in the contract that you sign, they can do it whenever they want.

While I might be somewhat annoyed with my employer if they implemented constant random drug testing at my workplace, professional athletes are getting paid hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year to put up with the annoyance. I'd trade places with them in a second.

MarkEdward
02-23-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
You already know the answer to this one, so I'm not sure why I'm explaining it to you.

Players already have the skills to hit if they reach the majors. Using steroids increases their strength and stamina, resulting in enhanced performance. That enhancement can come in the form of running faster, swinging a bat faster, reocvering from muscle fatigue more quickly (which would be great for pitchers), etc.

This is the last time I'm answering the obvious for you.

So, are you finished playing devil's advocate, or would you like to continue this stupid game?

Once again, I'd argue that hand-eye coordination is the most essential tool a hitter can have, and steroids do improve on this talent. If bat speed was so important, shouldn't we be seeing more bulky, muscle-bound athlete succeed at hitting a baseball? Right now, there are many of these "football types" playing in the minors who will have little chance to become good major league players. I can think of two off the top of my head: Brad Eldred and Walter Young.

I understand that steroids can help a player in some facets of the game. Steroids can probably turn a Dee Brown into Ron Coomer; I doubt they can turn a Neifi Perez into Barry Bonds.

Kittle
02-24-2004, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Once again, I'd argue that hand-eye coordination is the most essential tool a hitter can have, and steroids do improve on this talent. If bat speed was so important, shouldn't we be seeing more bulky, muscle-bound athlete succeed at hitting a baseball? Right now, there are many of these "football types" playing in the minors who will have little chance to become good major league players. I can think of two off the top of my head: Brad Eldred and Walter Young.

I understand that steroids can help a player in some facets of the game. Steroids can probably turn a Dee Brown into Ron Coomer; I doubt they can turn a Neifi Perez into Barry Bonds.

Well, of course you need to have a good swing, good hand-eye coordination, good strike zone judgement, etc. just to make it to the majors.

But we've already seen good major league hitters go from a medium build to Hulk Hogan over the course of their careers (Bonds and Sosa) and they're suddenly hitting 60+ HRs per season. Hell, Sosa looked like he was malnurished when he came into the league. McGwire, who has admitted to taking Andro (which stimulates testosterone production in the body), looked like a body builder by the time he broke Maris' record.

I imagine that guys like Don Mattingly and Darryl Strawberry, who had incredible hitting skills, could've benefitted similarly had they juiced as well.

poorme
02-24-2004, 08:41 AM
A recent Outside Magazine quoted a doctor as saying steriods can improve vision.

Kittle
02-24-2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by poorme
A recent Outside Magazine quoted a doctor as saying steriods can improve vision.

Those who argue that steroids can't significantly improve a hitter's performance are either lying or completely clueless.

Jerko
02-24-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
Those who argue that steroids can't significantly improve a hitter's performance are either lying or completely clueless.

You would not believe how many people I have argued with about this. Their big defense is "well they still have to hit the ball which makes it legit". That is bull. They ALREADY knew how to hit the ball before they started taking the steroids. They improve vision AND strength so there is no way that they don't improve performance. If they DID NOT improve performance, why would anybody take them? To make their lives shorter?

Kittle
02-24-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
You would not believe how many people I have argued with about this. Their big defense is "well they still have to hit the ball which makes it legit". That is bull. They ALREADY knew how to hit the ball before they started taking the steroids. They improve vision AND strength so there is no way that they don't improve performance. If they DID NOT improve performance, why would anybody take them? To make their lives shorter?

I'm amazed at the crap that people here argue simply for the sake of arguing.

I've known a couple people over the years through high school and amateur-level sports who've taken steroids both legally (doctor's prescription) and illegally. From what I've seen, there's absolutely no question that steroids have helped them in their sport.

One of my ex-roomates from grad school is an amateur triathlete. He slipped a disk in his back at one point a couple years ago and part of his rehab was steroid injections. After only two weeks of injections, his back was feeling a little better and he decided to participate in the swimming portion of a triathlon that he'd already signed up for 6 months prior (he couldn't get his money back). Apparently swimming is much easier on one's back than running or biking. Anyway, he ended up coming in SECOND out of over 300 people (many of whom were pros and semi-pros) in the swimming portion of the race... with a bad back. Granted, he wasn't fatigued from the running portion of the race, but he told me that he wasn't really tired at all after the swim. And that's from only TWO WEEKS worth of steroid use. I can't imagine how one's muscle mass and stamina increase after, say, TWO YEARS of use.

MarkEdward
02-24-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Kittle

But we've already seen good major league hitters go from a medium build to Hulk Hogan over the course of their careers (Bonds and Sosa) and they're suddenly hitting 60+ HRs per season.

I won't argue that Sosa and Bonds have been getting bigger throughout the years, but that doesn't mean they're taking steroids. As people get older (even non-athletes), they tend to get bigger no matter what. Heck, maybe Bonds changed his workout regimen. For example, before Bonds turned 33, he averaged about 35 stolen bases per season. Maybe he felt his speed was going, and wanted to compensate for losing that tool by beefing up and becoming more of a power hitter.

Also, it's not like Bonds suddenly became a power hitter overnight. Every year since 1990, his slugging average has been over .500. Prior to 2002, he averaged about 33 home runs per year. Since then, he's had seasons of 73, 46, and 45 home runs. One big outlier, and two above average years.

Kittle
02-24-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I won't argue that Sosa and Bonds have been getting bigger throughout the years, but that doesn't mean they're taking steroids.

I'm sure that there are MANY players (possibly Bonds included) that that hit a ton of HRs and don't juice. Luis Gonzalez comes to mind. Helly, Griffey doesn't even stretch, so it's hard to imagine that he juices.

But take a look at Sosa. He comes into the league in the late '80s looking like he'd been malnurished all his life. Fast forward to 1998 and he's built like Hulk Hogan and is breaking Maris' HR record. Fast forward again to 2003 and he's noticeably smaller (there are even reports that he's wearing a smaller cap), his power numbers are down, he's missing significant time with injuries, and he's using a corked bat. And this just happens to be the first season that MLB istesting for steroids. And keep in mind that Sammy had already to refused to take Rick Reilly's steroid test.

Given that evidence, I'd be willing to bet that Sammy juiced for years and stopped prior to last season.

Kittle
02-24-2004, 03:01 PM
Oops, editing error.