PDA

View Full Version : Parity In The League


mikehuff
04-06-2005, 08:34 AM
MLB and the NFL are different. In baseball there are a ton of teams that you know, even before the season starts, that have absolutely no chance to compete. In the NFL the teams are more even in comparison. On any given Sunday, any team can beat any team and there is a better chance for a new team to compete at a high level each year.
In Baseball the difference in team spending is too great between the highest payroll teams like the Yankees and the lowest like the Brewers. I would like to see this league even out more like the NFL and give every team a chance to compete.

How would you do this? A salary cap? Limit on team spending?

MRKARNO
04-06-2005, 10:32 AM
I think this is truly a load of crap to a certain degree. In each of the last 5 years, a different team has won the World Series title while in 3 of the last four years, the same team has won the Super Bowl.

But to another degree, the same kind of parity is impossible and the reason is that the best teams usually win, unlike in football when you have only a 16 game sample size, where there is less opportunity for the best teams to emerge as such. If you looked at the standings after 16 games last year for the MLB, teams like Detroit, Baltimore and Cincinatti might have been in the playoffs last year. 162 games means that less is left to chance and more is left to actual talent.

AZChiSoxFan
04-06-2005, 10:52 AM
I would like to see this league even out more like the NFL and give every team a chance to compete.



I used to agree with your statement, but in the last couple of years, I have totally lost interest in the NFL due to its "mandated parity." It seems that the formula is: 1) get way under the cap, 2) sign a bunch of high priced free agents by giving out huge bonuses, 3) hope you can win it all in the next year or two, 4) dump all your good players and accept the fact that you will be terrible for the next couple of seasons, 5) start the cycle all over.

I prefer the "free market" system of MLB over the "socialist" system of the NFL.

IMO, the economics of baseball become a crutch for teams like the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, and Reds and give them a built in excuse to not even try to field a decent team. The ironic thing about those four teams is that 3 of them have new stadiums and the 4th (KC) has a very nice stadium. They should be able to compete. If the Twins can do what they have done while playing in possibly the worst stadium in baseball, then the previously listed 4 teams should be able to compete as well.

Lip Man 1
04-06-2005, 12:43 PM
However one can make the claim right now that they can name the teams in MLB who'll be in the playoffs come October and stand a good chance of getting it right. You can't say that about the NFL because in part as Karno said you only play 16 games.


For example in the American League, barring a plane crash or natural disaster the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels are in. Plus whoever wins the Central. Not much left to the imagination is there?

Lip

MisterB
04-06-2005, 01:21 PM
I used to agree with your statement, but in the last couple of years, I have totally lost interest in the NFL due to its "mandated parity." It seems that the formula is: 1) get way under the cap, 2) sign a bunch of high priced free agents by giving out huge bonuses, 3) hope you can win it all in the next year or two, 4) dump all your good players and accept the fact that you will be terrible for the next couple of seasons, 5) start the cycle all over.

I prefer the "free market" system of MLB over the "socialist" system of the NFL.

IMO, the economics of baseball become a crutch for teams like the Royals, Brewers, Pirates, and Reds and give them a built in excuse to not even try to field a decent team. The ironic thing about those four teams is that 3 of them have new stadiums and the 4th (KC) has a very nice stadium. They should be able to compete. If the Twins can do what they have done while playing in possibly the worst stadium in baseball, then the previously listed 4 teams should be able to compete as well.

I don't see how that NFL cycle is any different than the MLB cycle of: 1) trade high-priced veterans for prospects, 2) sign a bunch of high priced free agents by giving out huge bonuses, 3) hope you can win it all in the next year or two, 4) dump all your good players and accept the fact that you will be terrible for the next couple of seasons, 5) start the cycle all over.

The only real difference I can see is that the NFL is more stable revenue-wise, so even dumping veterans and going young doesn't result in a 50% drop in attendance (and corresponding revenue) like baseball sees a lot, and therefore can rebuild more quickly (non-guaranteed contracts are a big help, too).

As for the new stadium issue, it was a sham and most people with half a brain could see it. Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, et al weren't suddenly going to generate Yankee-like revenues just because of a few luxury boxes.

AZChiSoxFan
04-06-2005, 07:01 PM
I don't see how that NFL cycle is any different than the MLB cycle of: 1) trade high-priced veterans for prospects, 2) sign a bunch of high priced free agents by giving out huge bonuses, 3) hope you can win it all in the next year or two, 4) dump all your good players and accept the fact that you will be terrible for the next couple of seasons, 5) start the cycle all over.

The only real difference I can see is that the NFL is more stable revenue-wise, so even dumping veterans and going young doesn't result in a 50% drop in attendance (and corresponding revenue) like baseball sees a lot, and therefore can rebuild more quickly (non-guaranteed contracts are a big help, too).

As for the new stadium issue, it was a sham and most people with half a brain could see it. Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, et al weren't suddenly going to generate Yankee-like revenues just because of a few luxury boxes.

1) the difference is that in MLB, you are not FORCED to go through the above mentioned cycle. I haven't seen the Yanks or Red Sox go through this cycle.

2) Regarding the stadiums, I was simply pointing out that with new/nice stadiums like those in KC, Pitt, Cincy, Milw, there's no reason those teams can't hire decent GM's and follow the Twins model. If anything, they would have a big advantage over Minn, due to having nice stadiums and the potential to draw large crowds if they could ever start winning. Minn can't even do that.

Stroker Ace
04-07-2005, 11:51 AM
A salary cap would be bad for the quality of the sport. A team will sign a high priced free agent, and won't have the cap room to sign other players to fill out their roster.

Spicoli
04-07-2005, 12:06 PM
I think an ignored problem with the way this 'works' in baseball has to do with the skyrocketing salaries. Many teams' payrolls are made up of a few very high priced guys surrounded by a bunch of mid-low wage earners (except for Yanks/Red Sox...). So if a team like the Pirates wants to compete on the free agent market, they have to shell out $100 Million for Beltran, which they probably could afford. BUT what if Beltran gets hurt? Then they are utterly ruined. So instead, they sign a bunch of mid-range guys and hope they can compete.


In sum, I think having these massive contracts for a single player, who may likely get injured, is what makes the cap appealing. There are a lot of millionaires getting paid for sitting on the bench or on their living room couch with a cast on.

Lip Man 1
04-07-2005, 12:34 PM
Spicoli:

So does that mean you are in favor of good teams having to cut or release players who can still perform because that's the only way they can stay under the cap?

Happens all the time in the NFL doesn't it? Ask 49'er, Cowboy and Viking fans if they liked the cap after it caused their good teams to have to be blown up in the 90's.

No thanks. If you want parity in MLB here's the answer...don't have a cap, get rip of the cheap owners like the Pirates who have admitted (The Sporting News) to using their 'revenue sharing' money on paying down debt instead of using it for what it was intended to be used for, improving the talent on the field.

Lip

MeanFish
04-07-2005, 12:41 PM
Maybe something that should also be decided is a maximum salary a player can make. Something reasonable for both the player and the owner.

ma-gaga
04-07-2005, 01:05 PM
Maybe something that should also be decided is a maximum salary a player can make. Something reasonable for both the player and the owner.

Nah.. Just get rid of the guarenteed contracts. Sure you signed a 6 year $105MM deal, but only the first 3 years and $25MM are guarenteed. That would make a lot of the salary problems disappear.

I hate the idea of a salary cap, because it GENERALLY means more profit for the owners and less for the players, BUT I don't like the Yankees having SO much of an advantage either. Maybe a "Yankee Cap" is necessary.

That, or drop two NEW teams into the New York area. Yes, expansion.

:gulp: