MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 8, 2006 14:04:40 GMT -5
Baseball doesn't need a cap. It needs contraction. Supply and demand. Take away the supply of jobs and the salaries will go down. A cap is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Sept 8, 2006 14:05:48 GMT -5
I understand what MSB is saying about being able to spend whatever you want, but if the Yankees franchise is so fucking good, shouldn't they be able to win when everyone has the same resourses?
You can't build a dynasty? What about the Pats winning 3 out of 4 SB's?
MSB hates the fact that teams dont' spend shit on their teams. How many NBA & NFL teams aren't tight up agaisn't the cap? NOT FUCKING MANY. EXPLAIN THAT!?
The reason NBA & NFL teams are all tight up against the cap? It's because they know they can compete if they make correct decisions. The fucking Oakland A's can make EVERY decision correct (like letting Giambi sign with the NYY for 7/120) & STILL not win it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 8, 2006 14:14:49 GMT -5
In life, not everyone has the same resources. You don't limit a team's ability to use the resources they built up. It's not easy to win a championship. You can point to Oakland, but they compete. The Yankees spend a lot of money, and haven't won since 2000. The Marlins can dump everything, build back up, and win it all twice. The Angels won with a lower level payroll at the time. It happens.
Payroll and winning it all are NOT 100 percent guaranteed.
The Yankees CHOOSE to put the money into their team. Teams like the Cubs, with GREATER resources than Steinbrenner, CHOOSE not to put the money in their team. That's their choice.
Again, there was no cap when there were 26 teams. There was also parity. The explosion of salaries began in the 1990s, when the Marlins and Rockies were created. Contraction is the only way to get parity, not some artificial cap.
It's as lame as picking a champion out of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Sept 8, 2006 14:20:53 GMT -5
I don't think four new teams (100 more jobs) created the salaries we have now. The Cubs don't put $ into their team? Don't they have $100 million in payroll? Shouldn't $100 million be enough? Christ. I'm thinking George's need to buy up all talent, along with isolated idoit moves by Boston, Texas, etc...Is the reason. I realize "in life" this doesn't apply, but this isn't life - this is entertainment. Who can argue with how the NFL is run? Teams that can't draft, can't coach & simply can't play - They suck. Teams that can draft, coach & play - win. Plain & simple. There are no excuses for being a shitty NFL team, but the Pirates have a legit beef in baseball.. While their NFL team are champs, Pitts baseball team would boe 500 years & still not win it all with this setup. It's not right. "pick out of a hat" ? I didn't know the Super Bowl winner was just the luck of the draw.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 8, 2006 14:29:48 GMT -5
Whether $100 million is enough depends on how well that team spends the $100 million.
And you're wrong. Baseball is a BUSINESS. And to artificially pump a team that doesn't deserve to win is just wrong. To stifle a team's efforts to make money, is wrong.
NFL games tend to sell out because there are only 8 of them. Baseball teams have 81 games to fill. If a team wants to spend money to get better to boost their attendance to make more money, that is their right.
The Pirates have NO beef. They can't draw? They can't make money? Their fault. They've won before. Without a salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Sept 8, 2006 14:37:47 GMT -5
That's my number one concern for salary cap/Floor. You can't get people to spend money wisely. Just because team A has a payroll of 100 million, could be they paid a guy like Gary Ward 15 million a year, and he sucked. Let the free market stand. As much as the teams bitch about the Yankees, they love it when they and the sux come to town.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 8, 2006 14:44:24 GMT -5
That was before free agency really really took off. the game was a lot different back then, and while a ton of MLB woners are scum, I'm sure a few would be taken over the top with a league where they can compete evenly.
It can't be like the NFL because it's very different, but it would help calm down terrible spending and it would even things out between the teams that want to win but can't compete. Just because they can't spend that money doesn't mean they are giving up. With the exception fo the Royals and Pirates who have terrible owners, most teams try to put out as much as they can to win.
I mean, why should a team be forced to break up a team because they can't pay them? Think about how good Oakland would be if they didn't ave to ship everyone out?
Again, this isn't a few supermarkets trying to put the others out of business. Sure, there are too many teams, and contraction would help, but it won't happen, and it shouldn't happen. It's not that bad where everyone ont he bottom of the payroll list is not winning, but it would help a few middle tier teams excel.
Also: with a max cap they should put in a min cap.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 8, 2006 14:52:16 GMT -5
Free agency took off in 1974. The Pirates also were competitive in the early 1990s. 3 straight division championships.
Spending is NOT the problem in baseball. It's midlevel teams spending poorly.
Why should players have to play for less than they can get because a team WON'T pay them? It's a two way street. Teams sign players for the minimum they can.
Contraction is a FAR better idea than a salary cap. They never should have brought in more than 26 teams. Why not make 100 teams and dilute the talent more? Then you'd FIRST start seeing higher payrolls.
In baseball, PLENTY of midlevel teams excel. Again, Marlins and Angels--recent champs. Oakland is competitive every year.
A cap is the worst thing possible for the game.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Sept 8, 2006 15:59:02 GMT -5
or we can do what they do with futbol and have the 2 tiers groups A and B
both groups have their own world series and playoffs but the 2 worst teams in team A and the best 2 Teams in group B switch leagues at the end of the year.. Gives each team(players coaches, ownership) an insentive to play hard day in day out... AND NO FUCKING EXCUSES
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Sept 8, 2006 16:03:55 GMT -5
Relegation is a great idea but it's pretty impossible to put into practice in MLB.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 8, 2006 17:35:52 GMT -5
It works in the fantasy baseball league.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Sept 8, 2006 17:36:29 GMT -5
LOL!
Hanley Ramirez- .283 BA, .347 OBP, 13 HR, 49 RBI, 10 3B, 44 SB, 104 R, $327,000 salary Mike Lowell- .286 BA, .340 OBP, 17 HR, 67 RBI, 66 R, $9,000,000 salary
Anibal Sanchez- 7-2, 2.89 ERA, .208 BAA, Salary $327,000 Josh Beckett- 14-10, 5.11 ERA, .246 BAA, $4,325,000 Salary
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 8, 2006 20:38:26 GMT -5
Balls, keep in mind that winning doesn't always bring in cash. Oakland has been in 1st for a while, look be a solid team and might win the west. They also draw really, really shitty. Low home draws = not much cash = getting rid of stars. Now imagine if there was a cap in place where giambi would not have been overspent on, and stayed in Oakland? Imagine if they didn't have to get rid of Tejada, Hudson and Mulder?
Rather than retract, why not relocate to an area with a better fanbase? I mean, even in 03 Florida drew SHIT.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 9, 2006 7:57:01 GMT -5
What that says is that maybe Oakland should move to a place where they can get more revenue. Maybe instead of moving just the shittiest teams, they should move teams that are good, but can't draw.
Grover the reason for contraction is really because there are just too many teams, and not enough top level players to fill the rosters. Relocation can help some teams, but if you don't cut the jobs, you still have the problem. You might need to do both.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Sept 9, 2006 10:01:27 GMT -5
Sing with me: Do you know the way to San Jose?
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Sept 10, 2006 5:02:17 GMT -5
Balls, do a little math. How exactly can the other parts of the country expect to draw even HALF of what the Yankees (or the Mets) can draw, when you'd have to dump the 3 smallest markets into the LA/Anaheim area to get close to the population of our area???
Using logic, Oakland *should* draw about a third of what the Yankees pull in, and Pittsburgh should get about A TENTH... if they were competitive teams. You simply cannot get people to the ballpark who don't exist.
Seriously, are you saying that people in middle America do not deserve to be fans of America's past time, that their team should be taken away from them, because there just aren't enough people and enough money in their areas??? Once the Yankees buy all the players, who exactly with they get to compete against in 162 contests, if all the other teams fold?
6 years ago, the population of the NY metropolitan area was over 21 million... compare that to the following metropolitan areas:
LA/Anaheim - 16.4 million Chicago - 9 million Baltimore/Washington - 7.6 million San Francisco/Oakland - 7 million Philadelphia - 6.2 million Boston - 5.8 million Detroit - 5.5 million Dallas (Arlington) - 5.2 million Houston - 4.7 million Atlanta - 4.1 million Miami - 3.9 million Seattle - 3.6 million Phoenix - 3.3 million Minneapolis/St. Paul - 3 million Cleveland - 3 million San Diego - 2.8 million St. Louis - 2.6 million Denver - 2.6 million Tampa/St. Petersberg - 2.4 million Pittsburgh - 2.4 million Cincinnati - 2 million Kansas City - 1.8 million Milwaukee - 1.7 million
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 10, 2006 7:44:42 GMT -5
Laura, you should never try talking logic. It really doesn't suit you. It's like me talking about beer. I'm just not qualified.
If a city can't draw fans, then they should not have a team. It's not a difficult concept. The vast majority of this country does not have a MLB team. They have minor league teams all over the place, little league, schools and more. Baseball is fine.
You talk about Pittsburgh or other smaller than NY cities, yet they manage to pack football stadiums. Yes, football has fewer games, but they manage to get people to show up. Any city that has the numbers to fill a football stadium can fill a baseball stadium.
The Pirates have been around for over 100 years. They have a brand new ballpark. And they still can't draw 2 million people. That's not because of population. It's because of the way the team is run.
And if people can't be bothered to go to their teams' stadiums, then no, they don't deserve a team. Maybe if the Pirates put some money into their team and got some players that were good enough to win, they would draw.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 11:22:20 GMT -5
But getting rid of teams left and right is not the solution. The Pirates have a terrible owner who won't spend money, won't pay players, and players don't want to go there and I'm sure no smart execs and scouts want to go there either. They, along with KC, are suffering from some of the worst owners in the game.
Dude it's a blue collar town, with the price of living staying the same and inflation rates rising, it's hard to make it to the ballpark and bring the kids, especially when you're seeing a team who's there because the owner wants to pocket cash and not put an effort into winning. Think about it; you're a dad with 2 kids and you take them and your wife to the game. you're going to shell out more cash than you care for to see that patchy team. It's not a stupid sports town at all. The Penguins have been having money problems and winning problems for a few years, and they can't get shit straight so everyone goes to see their minor-league team. If the Pens get their shit together, they would draw.
You can't just go "Oh, you don't draw this year, so you're gone" and get rid of 100 year old teams. Fans should not be punished for their owner sins. In some cases like Florida where you have a smart organization who can win cheap, has won cheap, and is willing to put up cash to compete, you can't fault the owners at all. in 2003 Florida drew SHIT. Why? Who wants to sit at a ball park day after day in 95 degree/125 degree humidity/constant drizzle every few seconds? They won the world series, put cash in to stay competitive, and they can't get the bigwigs to help fund a new stadium even though they will be paying for half of it. So, he bonked the payroll, will save cash, and he'll do what he can to move his team to a place that will draw better like San Antonio or Portland.
So, while I agree with you that they should not have expanded so much, I don't think contraction will solve anything aside from getting rid of teams that should be in the game like Pittsburgh and KC.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 11:25:59 GMT -5
oops, sorry for the double post
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 11, 2006 11:33:12 GMT -5
You wouldn't BE getting rid of teams left and right. There are just too many teams now. As teams fade, there are less jobs. With less jobs, there will be less demand for players. With less demand for players, salaries go down. Not only that, the quality of the worst players in the league goes up. This will force smaller teams to get better by default. You won't see every great player on 5-10 teams because there won't be room.
Fans SHOULD be punished for not supporting their teams. I understand the point about lousy owners, and they should be punished too, but just as fans shouldn't be punished for bad owners, they shouldn't be punished because of GOOD owners. If an owner DOES run his team well, and DOES spend to put out a competitive team every year, and DOES get good attendance and benefits, he should NOT have to be stifled because of shit teams that can't keep up.
Contraction is the best thing baseball could ever do.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 12:19:23 GMT -5
Not really. The Yanks will still be willing to pay players high salaries, and still will be willing to have a high payroll, and teams will still have to match big market teams dollar for dollar. Maybe some of the decent role players will help teams, but no big name will all of a sudden go to a teams or less since there are less teams.
And Balls, I agree mostly with the second paragraph, and that's why Florida should not be contracted as you say they should. They won in 03 and he upped the payroll as much as he could to stay in the race and no one came, and they won't build a ballpark for them so they can close the roof if it rains. So, why bother shelling out all these millions and seeing no profit? this isn't the asshole from 97 who fire saled the team, this is a group who have won, and want to win. They just need to move that team to a decent city who will draw.
And not many teams draw when they lose. the diehard fan is a minimun in all cities, even in NY, and when the Yanks sucked we didn't draw much. since we are winning we are making tons of cash, and there are tons of reasons for it.
There is so many thigns to why a team doesn't draw or make cash. You can't just think that a team winning will being everyone out. It's not so cut & dry.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 12:33:16 GMT -5
And who would you contract? The Marlins? In ten years they've won two championships and have been competitive time to time. Put them in a place that generates some cash and they will win a few more titles.
Arizona? In 8 years they have won 1 title and have been in the hunt most of the time. They are rebuilding, have some solid young players, and will be on top again soon.
Pittsburgh? They have a shit owner who cries about salaries and pockets cash. If you cry about a new Yankee Stadium how can you want to see this cornerstone franchise eliminated?
Oakland? One of the smarter teams in the league who could also benefit from a move to a better fanbase.
KC?
I mean, there really isn't a real reason to contract anyone (aside from you not wanting the Yankees to give in for revenue sharing, even though that's not effecting the Yanks very much and not keeping up from winning...), and the only way it will make a difference is if you contract a whole slew of teams, and there is no justification in that because they are producing and are competitive.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Sept 11, 2006 12:38:43 GMT -5
Sorry Pirates fans. Your owner sucks - he doesn't want to lose money to MAYBE field a .500 club, so your 100 year old franchise is gone.
Hey KC- hold onto those days of George Brett, Frank White, Bret Saberhagen cuz you owner sucks & your team is gone.
That simply isn't an option. I understand that MSB view on life is the rich should get richer & the poor should get poorer (aka his love affair with Ronald Reagan), but this is a sport. It's entertainment.
I relate MSB's way of thinking to this:
Yankees = Exxon
Exxon suck up every small company until they have no competition. Then we have $3 gas prices & they make record profits as our economy suffers. Same for the Yankees. They suck up every available free agent until teams simply give up.
|
|
|
Post by ronmossad on Sept 11, 2006 12:40:16 GMT -5
Uh...where are those population statistics from?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 11, 2006 13:02:57 GMT -5
You contract the teams making the least attendence. I don't care if the Marlins won championships. I don't care if they won 10 straight. They can't sustain a franchise in that area. So the first two teams that would go would be the two Florida teams. The executives will not exactly have trouble finding jobs.
And yes, Arizona, KC, Minnesota--there are plenty of teams that don't draw shit and can go. They never should have expanded to 30 teams in the first place. No reason to contract? How about teams unable to sustain franchises?
To say it's not an option is ridiculous. Of course it's an option. These teams can't make money, and they can't draw fans. Fuck them.
This isn't Exxon. There wouldn't be the loss of 20 teams. 26 teams. Not that complicated.
You start by contracting two, and take it from there. You wouldn't need to contract more than 4. And if a hard decision is made, last hired, first fired. The market can't sustain 30 teams. But it was fine with 26.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 13:31:52 GMT -5
Well if you contract the Twins and Arizona why would you leave the Reds, Brewers, Rockies, Padres, Rangers, Indians, Nationals?
And why would you contract the Twins and Arizona? Just to put money in the Yanks pockets? Are those two NOT competitive?
If your argument is getting rid of teams who don't draw, and putting Arizona and the Twins in the arugment, then you also have to put 15 other teams in the argument, because it's there's a slew of teams with attendace averages around the same number.
Please explain to me why it's a baseball tragedy to want more money buy building a new Yankee stadium but it wouldn't be a baseball tradegy seeing the Pirates, Reds, Indians and Orioles go?
Anything to help the Yankees I guess.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Sept 11, 2006 13:37:01 GMT -5
Why would they contract the Twins anyway since they just got the vote from the city to build them a new stadium. Dumb argument. Jw
|
|
|
Post by grover on Sept 11, 2006 13:39:37 GMT -5
Because maybe the Yanks can get Mauer, Santan and Liriano for $20 million more than what other teams would pay them.
Or, they could go to the Red sox and Mets. this is a good idea how? LOL
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Sept 11, 2006 14:07:51 GMT -5
It has NOTHING to do with the Yankees. There are 4 teams too many. You take the teams making the least money. What's dumb is thinking that a new stadium is actually going to change things for the Twins. It didn't work for the Pirates. If a place is not interested in baseball, it's not interested in baseball.
Teams that can't fill the seats are not going to be competitive on the field or financially. There's no question, there are a bunch of teams that belong in the argument, but you only have to cut out 4 of them. Once they are gone, salaries will go down and teams can keep their stars.
As for Yankee Stadium, the two are COMPLETELY unrelated issues. There are 4 teams too many in baseball. So no, it wouldn't be a tragedy to see 4 teams contracted.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Sept 11, 2006 15:46:27 GMT -5
Why would they contract the Twins anyway since they just got the vote from the city to build them a new stadium.
You think Balls would know that? If it does not directly involve the Yankees, he is not privvy to it.
LOL @ Balls talking about contraction. He is trying to make the Yankees job even easier. Like a $200 million payroll doesnt give them enough of a cakewalk as it is.
|
|