|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 15:33:06 GMT -5
I'll be that idiot. Here it is...my defense:
It's not MY money. Who cares?
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 24, 2008 15:46:06 GMT -5
Tom again a non factor..When is the last time they won? 2000..so why is a cap needed? In fact I think (not 100%) the Yankees were not the highest payroll for their first couple of championships in 96 & 98...............
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 24, 2008 15:56:43 GMT -5
Tom again a non factor..When is the last time they won? 2000..so why is a cap needed? They're buying their way into the playoffs every year. Lets even up the playing field and see if we can make it on talent, scouting, drafting, cobbling a team together alone, and not just buying the flags.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 16:15:05 GMT -5
It doesn't seem like the playing field needs to be evened up. What are you a communist? Why not just select the playoff teams alphabetically so everyone gets a chance?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 24, 2008 16:23:19 GMT -5
the level playing field works in the nfl, nba and hockey
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 16:44:34 GMT -5
It's just as wrong there. Why not just do a draft every year like fantasy baseball? That would be equal. Or make sure all the games end in a tie so that no one's feelings get hurt.
Since 2000, there have been 8 World Series' and 7 different teams have won championships. Sounds like there is no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 24, 2008 17:14:18 GMT -5
They do make it to the playoffs on talent, Tom. Maybe not on drafting and cultivating young talent, but they do make the playoffs based on talent.
The thing that bothers me is that if the Yankees go another 15 years without winning a World Series, on the 15th year someone will stand up from within the peanut gallery and say, "Ohhh here they go again, buying championships."
Enough already...they're not winning World Series, and they're not breaking any rules.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 24, 2008 17:25:38 GMT -5
And there is nothing wrong with the rules as they are--except the idea that the Yanks have to reward cheap teams.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 27, 2008 8:30:54 GMT -5
From today's Post and I agree 1000%.....
That payroll has helped create a roster that has done what used to be thought of as impossible, drawing four million annually to The Bronx, while also is helping to launch a network. That payroll has created tremendous wealth around the sport in luxury tax dollars, and also via attendance drawn in visiting stadiums. Meanwhile, the Marlins' highest-paid player in 2008 will be Kevin Gregg at $2.5 million and their total payroll is unlikely to exceed $20 million. That total is less than one-third of what the Marlins receive in revenue sharing/luxury tax (about $35 million) and from the central fund (around another $35 million), which covers, among other items, national TV and radio, the Internet and merchandising.
So before the Marlins sell a ticket, they get $70 million from the Commissioner's office. Again, what is more offensive to your senses: a team spending the money it takes in or a team not spending the money it takes in?
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 27, 2008 12:43:42 GMT -5
Amen. Cincinnati used to be one of the biggest offenders, as well, but it looks like the new ownership is changing things over there.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 27, 2008 13:16:56 GMT -5
And that is another reason the Marlins should be contracted.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 27, 2008 16:34:37 GMT -5
I agree. I'm willing to give the new Rays' ownership a shot, or I would have included them, too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 12:52:25 GMT -5
I mean, seriously Balls, you have a solid point here. Really, when it's all said and done, the net result of the Florida Marlins existence in Major League Baseball is a very considerable financial drain on the game.
This is even beyond communism. At least communism reduces it participants to the lowest financial common denominator. Here we have a baseball team allowed to be profitable, and an owner allowed to live a lavish existence off of the "welfare system" in baseball. Ridiculous.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 12:57:51 GMT -5
It's a big reason I am against the salary cap. It's unAmerican. If baseball can't sustain a profitable team in Florida, either that team needs to move or be contracted. The reason they can't sustain a profit is because they can't draw the money to stay in business. The luxury tax merely is a redistribution of the wealth--something very communist. And the worst part is that the owner can just pocket it. So the Yankees are making money for the Marlins' owners--not for baseball itself.
It's ridiculous.
The luxury tax in its current form is not for the betterment of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 13:10:01 GMT -5
Maybe if there were some sort of system in place that required the team to use those funds for player payroll....for example if the Florida Marlins were able somehow prove that when all of their committed payroll as well any potential deals they are pursuing would increase their payroll from that of the previous season, they would then be allowed to draw from a "luxury tax" fund in order to pursue free-agents they have their sights set on.
It's a buggy plan, but that's just a rough outline. I don't like the welfare system either but at least that's a step in assuring that teams use those funds for the reason that the luxury tax was created in the first place.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 13:29:08 GMT -5
That would make it at least a little better, though the principle is still very communist. But every single penny that a team gets from the luxury tax should be spent on payroll. If the Marlins have a $20 million payroll in 2007, and get $10 million in luxury tax, they would be forced to have a $30 million payroll or forfeit the money.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 13:36:32 GMT -5
"If the Marlins have a $20 million payroll in 2007, and get $10 million in luxury tax, they would be forced to have a $30 million payroll or forfeit the money."
I guess what I'm saying is that they shouldn't just get 10 million. They should only be able to get exactly what they need in order to increase upon their previous years' payroll, and they should ONLY get those funds when/if a deal is inked that puts them over the previous years' mark. For example, if Florida had a 20 million payroll, they cut the payroll to 15 million in the off-season, and then worked a deal for a 10 million dollar free-agent potentially increasing their payroll to 25 million, they would only get 5 million from the luxury fund...something along those lines. If they don't increase payroll, they get zip!
Like I said, it's buggy, but it could be worked out. This doesn't account for the fact that a lot of free agents just would not want to play there, but the specifics can be ironed out - in theory you are absolutely correct. Pocketing that money is malarky.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 28, 2008 13:40:51 GMT -5
No its not.
Just cause one team is driving up salaries, it does not mean other teams need to do so.
The luxury tax is a punishment to teams like the Yankees, who are the main source of fiscal trouble in regards to spending. You would think when the Yankees know they are buying Marlin ownership another yacht, they would put a limit on spending. As long as the Yankees are going to spend 10 times that of some other clubs, I dont care what those teams do with the money. Hell, rent out your Stadium and have a party for the fans for all I care.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 13:44:11 GMT -5
One team is NOT driving up salaries. This has been shown time and again. It's other teams that drive up salaries by increasing the market value of one particular player and there being a domino effect. There are other teams (PLURAL) that have more revenue and CHOOSE to spend it on their payrolls rather than pocket it, like the Marlins.
If you see the luxury tax as a punishment, then that's another weak argument. If any team should be punished, it's the Texas Rangers for that ARod deal. The idea that the Marlins should profit from their own incompetence is far more offensive than a team putting their revenue into their product.
If the Marlins can't compete, they should be contracted, not rewarded.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 28, 2008 14:02:09 GMT -5
"The luxury tax is a punishment to teams like the Yankees"
You may think that Tom, but I'm here to tell you that it would be a dark dark day for those teams like the Marlins that HAPPILY participate in the luxury tax welfare program if the Yankees suddenly reduced their payroll to 75 million.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 28, 2008 14:10:07 GMT -5
Baseball needs a salary cap.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 14:12:34 GMT -5
A salary cap is communist, and baseball has done fine without it. Baseball needs contraction far more.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 28, 2008 19:00:06 GMT -5
A cap wouldn't do much in Baseball, not for the communsit reasons you guys are saying, but because it has some of the worst owners in the game. Teams like the Pirates would just turn into the MLB version of the Clippers, even though they pretty much hold that title already.
That said, you guys that are against the cap are off base on a few issues. Teams shouldn't have to spend money if they don't want to. The Marlins want to stay in Florida, the city isn't helping, so they are going to look for a new place to go. Why should they spend millions on a team that will draw no one? No one here would do it, and neither are they. They are now going to see their options and try to relocate the team, and rightfully so.
You guys are also off base in thinking that the Yankees and Red Sox have nothing to do with crazy contracts and raising payrolls. The Yankees and Red Sox are making a killing and they are doing so by spending money, and some teams are taking to that style of management. The Mets, Angels, White Sox, Mariners, Cubs are all teams opening the pocket books in Yankees/Red Sox style hoping to get results. Other teams are using a hybrid spend cash on free agents/develop youth type of running a team such as the Tigers, Indians, Dodgers, which is becoming more popular and even the Yankees and Red Sox are starting to lean toward that line of thinking. Either way the idea of spendings money to make money has been displayed to perfection by the Red Sox and Yankees for the past decade. Sure the Yankees 'haven't won' anything since 2000 but you can't say that making the playoffs every single year and making it to the ALCS and World Series in that time isn't really the same as a team not making the playoffs. It's hardly 'not winning anything.'
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 19:15:25 GMT -5
By the same logic, a team should spend as much money as it wants to. The bottom line is that if they won't spend to compete, they shouldn't be in the league.
The Yanks do contribute, but not to the extent of other teams. Again, it's very rare they set the bar.
I agree with a lot of what you say about making the playoffs every year, but that's a result of keeping the right contracts, absorbing the bad ones, and being WILLING to spend the money to get that result. That's not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 28, 2008 20:18:43 GMT -5
I agree, a team should spend as much money as it wants to, because that is the way the rules are set. If the MLB went and ran things as the NFL did, I wouldn't mind either, but they do that because the Football players union is weak. They are also able to be as successful as they are because Football owners are a tight knit group and someone can't just walk up and buy team as you see in Baseball. This is why you don't see many lameduck franchises in the NFL other than Arizona. It's run totally different so the results may not be the same, so that's why my stance on the cap for baseball has changed a bit.
The Yankees absorb bad contracts because they can and don't miss a beat. Other teams don't have the luxury. If anything, most teams don't. The Yankees not setting every bar does not mean they don't have a hand in the bar being set. Again, teams going on spending sprees are emulating the Yankees and Red Sox.
And you guys are full of shit. The only reason you're against most of that stuff is because you don't want to see the Yankees scrap things and start over. A few seasons in last place are too much to stomach huh? You guys are not fooling anyone.
It's funny how when another team is successful it's 'Well they were in a weak division' or 'they went though the weak NL' and are pegged as undeserving even though they are supposedly playing on the same field as everyone else. Despite that, they are accused of taking advantage of something deemed unfair, even though, again, they are not breaking any rules, yet if the Yankees payroll is bought up as a kay to the Yankees success it's dismissed as a nonissue, Yankee hater blah blah blah, how-could-you-bring-it-up claptrap, they have no advantage over anyone, it's everyone else's fault the Yankees spend $200 Million.
If you guys are going to give heat on teams that are cheap, and rightfully so, you shouldn't pretend the Yankees are not culprits at the other end of the table.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 28, 2008 23:14:56 GMT -5
It's true that a big difference is the Yanks can absorb the bad contracts, but that's their choice.
If a team is going to be stupid and give a guy like ARod $25 million when the Yanks aren't even bidding against him, or Soriano $18 million, you can't blame the Yanks on that, because they don't do that. What they WILL do is turn around and offer one of their own players or another free agent a similar amount after, but they don't usually set the bar.
Why SHOULD the Yankees start over? Why should they change the rules to muzzle a team that is using its own revenue to improve its own product? That's what a successful business does.
And yeah, the NL is currently weak. Very weak. It won't always be that way, but it is now.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 29, 2008 9:08:23 GMT -5
If they imposed a cap watch how many teams either fold or try to relocate since they are no longer turning a profit dow to pocketing their welfare check.....
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 9:50:49 GMT -5
After watching this miserable product for years, I'm torn now on the cap issue.
I used to be heavily in favor of a cap. I think I still am, though I still think that only works if there is a salary floor. A league is well within their right to impose such a thing (even in the rules of basic business), because teams like the Yankees cannot exist without the other teams. And the argument that a cap would represent a communist model is inaccurate, because the league wouldn't be regulating what a club could own. Communism means equal worth for everyone. That wouldn't be the case with a cap. So forget that.
But I also realize that business organizations exist to make money for their members. And MLB has measures in place to give each club the opportunity to be profitable. And teams like the Pirates, Royals, Rays, et. al., do turn a healthy profit, regardless of their play on the field. So, from a business standpoint, there's really nothing wrong with the current model.
But that's the problem. Arguing that this is a business and that's why things should stay the way they are is accurate, but...I don't really want to think of baseball purely as a business. Naivete does not prevent me from realizing that big-time sports has always been a business pretty much from jump street. But those that argue the purely business angle (like Balls, which doesn't surprise me at all, and Captain, which kinda shocks me, frankly) really just don't get it.
Baseball is about more than that to me. It's clear that even the U.S. Congress doesn't view baseball as they would any other business (see: exemption, antitrust), and so that opens the door even further for MLB to impose restrictions that might not apply to the normal business world to which some of you keep comparing baseball. But beyond that...do you root for a business like you root for a baseball team? Sure...if you hold stock in a company and/or are in its employ, you "root" for that company to do well, because you'll see a financial return on your investment. An emotional return on your investment as a fan is far different. You could argue which is more important, but I know that if I invest in a company and they don't do well, I pull out and invest in something else.
I don't do that with my baseball team.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 10:04:37 GMT -5
I understand the point about how the league can't exist without other teams. But I also believe that the market, left alone, will account for that.
First, there are a finite number of jobs. So no matter what, the Yankees and Sox will only be able to house 50 active players, at any one time. There are obviously a lot more players than that, and they either will play for one of the other 28 teams, or be unemployed.
Let's say that the losing product forces some teams out of business. It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox will be the only 2 teams left standing. If that were the case, then their money will dry up too because they don't have opponents. So cap or not, there is no way all the teams will fold. If SOME of the teams fold, then the remaining players will either have to play for the lesser teams at less money, or retire. Teams folding will cut jobs, and shift the demand from the owners, who need talent, to the players who now need employment.
If 4 teams go, then there are 100 less jobs.
More talent, and less jobs, means lower salaries.
Baseball only has an antitrust exemption because it has always had it. The logic behind it makes no sense today, and Congress COULD remove that exemption at any time. They choose not to. It wouldn't have much of an effect because of something called the nonstatutory labor exemption which deals with collective bargaining, but it could go at the whim of Congress.
Baseball is a business, and the business is putting out a winning product.
Teams should not be rewarded with luxury tax money for failing to invest in their product. And teams that do want to invest should not be punished for doing so.
Salaries are higher than they should be not just because of stupid owners, but because there are too many jobs.
Baseball functioned for decades with just 16 teams. I'm not by any means suggesting going back to that because it's not necessary. The market can sustain more than that. But 30 teams is too much, as proven by the rise of salaries since 1993.
As a fan, I invest my time and energy as well as my money. And as a fan, I would be royally pissed if some outside source prevented my team from doing everything in its power to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong with spending money on your product to make it better.
There IS something wrong with stealing money from one team due to a luxury tax imposed by crying poverty, and not spending it on the team.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 10:07:34 GMT -5
You completely missed the point.
|
|