MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 10:12:55 GMT -5
Baseball is a competition. The people who play the game do so for money. Better players command better money. A team has a right to pay a premium for a player it wants. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 10:13:22 GMT -5
Still missing the point.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 29, 2008 10:26:30 GMT -5
Balls, you are a retard.
You also miss the point that the salary cap works fine in every other major sport aside from baseball.
I am sure any implemented cap would rightfully come with a floor. And I am sure bottom feeders would be more ripe to up the ante knowing it gives them a legit shot, when spending say 40 million now instead of 20 million simply has them within 25% of what the Yankees spend.
Teams are downtrodden, they know they can not compete with the disgusting amount of money the Yankees throw around.
Put a cap in place, and make teams like the Yankees decide how many players they can afford to overpay. Even out the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 29, 2008 10:29:47 GMT -5
Shame that there's no chance of a cap happening, thus arguing about it leads to what?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 10:31:27 GMT -5
Calling me a retard will not change that a salary cap is as unAmerican as anything. Who cares about other major sports? And you're wrong. It doesn't work.
In all sports, teams make mistakes. Take the Knicks for example. They're screwed for years in part because they can't use their resources to right their own ship. They have the money, but are forbidden from improving their product. That's a good thing?
Fuck the bottom feeders. Let teams that are struggling keel over and die like it happens in the real world. Where is the incentive to win when you have a cap? What's the point of investing in your product if you can't get the benefits?
Where's the incentive to invest in your product if the richer teams just hand you money even if you don't?
$40 million is not enough to cut it with a Major League Baseball team. If that's all you got, then get out of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 10:39:41 GMT -5
Gee, I thought the incentive to win was to be the best in the game.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 10:48:37 GMT -5
And that's taken away when you tie a team's hands. If a team can't win without a salary cap, they don't belong.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 10:51:26 GMT -5
Really? Teams in the NBA, NFL, and NHL have no incentive to be the best? How so?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 10:58:14 GMT -5
Nope. Look at the Knicks. They can't improve at all. How can they win? They still make their money, and can't really do anything to improve because their hands are tied. How is that good?
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 11:23:13 GMT -5
The Knicks have been trying to improve for the last few years. They did so via trades, which have been unsuccessful thus far. they have also been very aggressive in the draft. Dolan is like a young Steinbrenner who wants to win but pulls all the wrong moves to do so. they can;t do anything to improve because they are held bad by their bad mistakes. The Knicks are one of TWO teams who are a joke. The Clippers are the second. Everyone else rebuilds and becomes good again. TWO teams in a 30 team league. Compare that to how many bum MLB team there are.
The NHL had a work stoppage because of the way teams like the Rangers were run, which also happens to be the same owner as the Knicks. The Rangers had the highest payroll in the league and drove up the prices of players and hurt smaller market teams.
You may say who cares, let them fold, but you are speaking about sports you do not watch and of histories you do not know about. NHL fans are not like Baseball fans. NHL fans want to see classic match ups and teams with history. It's why you see teams in last place peppered among the top of the league in road attendance. Same goes for NFL fans who shell out quite a bit of money for their tickets, and willingly do so even if their team is shit.
My laundromat does not depend on other laundromats to survive. Starbucks does not depend on Dunkin' Donuts to survive. The Yankees DEPEND on their competition to survive.
The ONLY reason you are defending it is because it's the Yankees. As I said before, you've been critical of teams taking advantage of something such as winning a division or being in a weak league, even though those teams are not breaking any rules. Yet the Yankees are taking advantage of something that isn't breaking any rules, and it's something that shouldn't even be brought up. If someone says 'The only reason the Yankees win is because of payroll' it's a crime. That doesn't apply for some reason.
Now I'm not saying it's wrong, because it's not against the rules. I'm saying two things:
1. Don't talk about the inner workings of sports you don't watch, such as the NFL who have replaced the MLB as the most popular game in the US.
2. You guys are making hypocritical Yankee arguments again. If you don't care that the Yankees are spending otns of cash, and feel it's fine because it is within the rules, then you can't get all mad when non-Red Sox fans bring up payroll, and bring up the old 'they haven't won anything' line because we've been in the postseason every year, have made it to the ALCS and World Series and have been a model franchise for the past decade partly due to the spending.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 12:07:32 GMT -5
But the Knicks, trying or not, are limited because of the salary cap. You don't need to know the inner workings of basketball to know that if you have a cap, you are limited.
And baseball isn't the only team that over expanded. If a team has such a rich history, then its fans will support it.
The Yankees depend on competition to survive? True, to an extent. But they don't depend on 29 other teams. Baseball can lose 4 teams without batting an eye. That would be far better than a salary cap, and it would have the effect of lowering salaries in the long run.
The Yankees don't solely win because of payroll. That's ignorant. But no one has ever said that payroll means nothing. There is nothing hypocritical. Hypocritical would be a Red Sox fan bitching about the Yankees trying to buy championships.
It's not that the Yankees are taking advantage of anything. It is their money, and they are choosing to invest their money in their product. That isn't a loophole. That is their right. Taking advantage would be a team like the Marlins, that steals Yankee money and pockets it. That is far worse.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 12:13:39 GMT -5
I still haven't read anything to counter any of my major points.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 12:23:40 GMT -5
But the Yankees and Red Sox do win mostly because of payroll. The difference between the Yankees and other teams is that other teams build up, win, and then falter a bit due to players coming and going. The Yankees keep who they want and even get more players, keep going, keep making money, stay successful. To say that other teams spending has nothing to do with the Yankees or Red Sox being the top two franchises in Baseball for the past decade is burying your head in the sand. It's not ignorant, it's fact. If you don't think this is so look at how everyone panicked at the notion of Arod and Posada leaving, and how the lineup would suffer. Hey, no prob. Open up the pocketbooks and it's fixed. Need to fix the rotation? Hey, let's get Santana and give him $20 million a year. notice how the only problem with the trade is the prospects going to the Twins, and not the cash.
Wrong? No. But saying money has little to do with it is just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 12:24:18 GMT -5
I still haven't read anything to counter any of my major points. And you won't either. He's taking me on and ducking you out. I'm going to school now so let's see what is said.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 29, 2008 12:53:26 GMT -5
"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."
Grover, I understand this. Teams shouldn't have to spend money if they don't want to, but it is right that just by being cheap with money they DO have, automatically qualifies them for a welfare program? That's not right. If they don't want to reinvest their funds into improving their product, they shouldn't bitch and moan when the consumers don't buy it. It's like, if I opened a convenience store and decided not to carry any beer, I have every right to do that, but I have no right to cry when I go out of business because the stores that do carry beer are more successful and outsell me day after day.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 13:10:59 GMT -5
What major points? The biggest point made was the theory that baseball is different because teams need their competitors in ways other industries don't. But that assumes that a team would be able to spend itself into a monopoly, which in baseball is not possible. One of the reasons salaries are so high is because there isn't enough true talent to fill the jobs, making good players more valuable.
And yes, teams should have to spend money on their product. By agreeing to own a major league team, you are agreeing to compete in the big leagues. It means that there should be a commitment involved. If a team cannot carry out that commitment, then they deserve to falter and go under, without any help from MLB. It wouldn't take too many teams faltering to see cause salaries to lower.
Yes, money is an advantage, but so what? The Yanks and Sox have that money because they have in time invested in their teams and got the rewards for their success.
Other teams have the money to compete but historically have chosen not to. The Cubs have always had the money to compete with the top teams. They traditionally chose not to.
The Yankees had to open their pocket books up because they needed to keep the players that were best suited for them. ARod or Jorge leaving would have made the team worse. They chose to keep them, and as a result, will likely make more money, and that's the way it should be.
Teams like the Marlins are a disgrace to the game. Again, they cry poverty, yet don't spend the money they have on payroll. They don't draw, they don't spend, and they don't belong in the majors.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 13:25:16 GMT -5
So, nothing about:
- how even Congress sees that baseball is different than other businesses, thus the antitrust exemption
- an emotional investment in a sports team is different than a financial investment in a business
I just don't understand how a true dyed-in-the-wool sports fan can feel the way some of you feel. It's not about sport for you people. And that's a shame.
I'll take it a step further, too...you're really not "sports" fans.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 29, 2008 13:27:49 GMT -5
Looks like it's all gonna go pear shortly..
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Jan 29, 2008 13:30:31 GMT -5
Sorry, but the essence of sport has been lost on someone that argues exclusively on the business side of the fence. if the essence was ever there to begin with.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 13:51:40 GMT -5
The only reason the antitrust exemption exists is because of a really poorly decided Supreme Court case that has been recognized as limited only to baseball. No other sport has it and courts won't overturn that original case because they feel Congress should. If this case came up fresh, as if the original case never happened, it would go the opposite way.
If anything though, you are distinguishing baseball from all other sports, and therefore using all other sports as an example of why there should be a salary cap really doesn't make much sense.
As for the emotional investment, for that very reason, there should be no salary cap. Why should a team deprive its fans of the best product it can put out, so that some cheap and lazy team can compete?
If a team can't compete and has to contract, then it was not attracting the fan base anyway so that emotional investment is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 29, 2008 16:08:29 GMT -5
Unlike Balls, I am not going to deny that the Yankees have an unfair financial advantage.
I understand that "small market" teams are not called "small market" because they haven't done a proper job in cultivating a fan-base...they are small market teams because they play in small markets. They play in areas that are not as populated as NY, LA, Chicago, and therefore have less bodies living in an reasonable geographic proximity in which to convert into fans.
That's fine, but no salary cap is going to change geography. Even in sports with salary caps, the "sexier" cities always seem to have a financial advantage as well as a stronger lure for big time athletes. Look at basketball - do you think that the Utah Jazz would have ever been able to accommodate Shaq AND Kobe? Do you think that the Atlanta Hawks would have been sustain a lineup with Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Kevin Garnett?
I am not emphatically opposed to a salary cap as much as I am opposed to the current system in which teams are allowed to exploit the welfare system in baseball. The luxury tax is a good enough idea in theory, but teams are not using it as intended - to better their on-the-field-product. I understand the theory behind a salary cap - to promote parity in the game, however a salary cap implicitly puts a limit on the potential earning ability of any one given athlete...I don't think a player's union would agree to that at all, and frankly I'm astounded that the other sports unions did. But all in all, my axe to grind is against teams abusing the luxury tax, not against a salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 16:36:45 GMT -5
We're using other sports to show that if Baseball were to get a cap it would not hinder the league at all.
And MLB is a sport before it is a business, because take the sport aspect away and both sides die, but take the business aspect away and the sport still exists.
All I'm saying is that when you say 'The only reason this team won is because they were in this division' and argument along those lines, then you can't get all mad if some fan of a small marker team goes 'The only reason the Yankees win is because of payroll' because it's not that far from the truth.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 19:40:18 GMT -5
The Yankees do not have an UNFAIR financial advantage. They have an advantage due to their own efforts in making their team what it is today. They spent money to make money, and they should be commended for it.
Divisions change over time. So do leagues. Decent teams in the NL do have an advantage that can be likened to payroll in some way. I can see what you're saying. It's not the same as a team winning solely based on geography, but it is similar to a team that just lucks out because all the teams in their division suck. Sort of.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 29, 2008 19:55:50 GMT -5
It is a double edged sword..yes the Yanks have a finacial advantage over most teams but as Balls said that is because they have spent money to make money..I mean the Yanks were still in NY and in a big market in the late 80's and early 90's when they sucked.......They just made some smarter decisions with spending the money for the most part......The only difference now is that because of the Yanks and the Red Sox and handouts is no team is losing money (though the Yanks claim to..lol...maybe on paper) but Steinbrenners little investment is now worth over a billion dollars).......I also think baseball is a little different then the NFL (they have gambling as a hook and less games so every game means more from a TV ratings perspective and thus the mega TV deals they get.) and MLB wouldn't be a 6 billion a year revenue generator without the Yankees and the Sox and if there was a cap.....but that is just my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 20:09:29 GMT -5
So are you guys telling me that if the Tampa Bay Devil Rays spend as much as the Yankees did they would yield the same results in revenue? If so, show me how in good detail.
Because by saying the Yankees do not have an unfair financial advantage over other teams being that they are in the biggest market in the world, you are basically trying to say that places like Oakland, Tampa Bay and Kansas City are on par with New York financially, correct? Are you guys REALLY trying to tell me that ALL these teams are making as much as the Yankees, or are able to make as much as the Yankees, but aren't doing so?
I mean, really? REALLY?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 20:14:10 GMT -5
It would take a long time. The Yankees used to be routinely outdrawn by other teams. And if Kansas City, Oakland and Tampa Bay can't compete, they should not have put teams there. Fact is, they can compete, and choose NOT to spend the money. If you put out a winning product, you will increase the value of your team, and make more money. It's not an unfair advantage. And even if it were, tough. Life isn't fair. There are plenty of teams that have more money than the Steinbrenners, like the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 20:28:01 GMT -5
What would take time? For you to answer my question? Nice ducking of my question.
Typical.
How about this: if the Yankees can't compete unless they have an unfair financial advantage, then they deserve to join the Knicks and Rangers in last place.
You guys are missing the point when it comes to hard and soft caps: All teams are under the same rules, and it takes smarts and brains to make it work. If any this makes things MORE competitive, because a team can't just write a check and outbid everyone to get better. Now, you have to really be good at your craft.
But that also means that the Yanks would have to rebuild and Balls can't have that. It's not sports, it's a business and players play for cash and the Yankees play for revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 29, 2008 20:28:43 GMT -5
OK, come on....let's be realistic.
The Yankees DO have an unfair financial advantage. Whether they suck or not, the fact that they come from one of the most densely populated geographical areas in the country means that they have infinitely more potential fan $$$ to harvest. Not to mention the fact that transplants who are loyal or who could potentially be loyal to the Yankees are spread throughout the planet. You act is if George Steinbrenner could have run the Kansas City Royals the same way he ran the Yankees and he'd be exactly as financially successful as he is today. That is hogwash.
The Yankees can't be faulted for being the NEW YORK Yankees, but being the New York Yankees inherently gives them more exposure to more fans.
Look at the Knicks - they suck ass and they have an infinitely larger fan base and more money than the Hornets who are playing excellent basketball right now.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 29, 2008 20:30:40 GMT -5
Grover they chose not to compete because they make more money by losing and not caring....
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 20:30:49 GMT -5
I guess I'm taking umbrage at the word UNFAIR. It's not unfair.
That's life. Steinbrenner took a team worth $10 million in 1973 and made it worth $700 million or so today.
Maybe a team in KC wouldn't be worth that much, but if he ran the team that way elsewhere, it would be pretty big.
|
|