murcerfan - explain your quote from another thread
Dallas88
Posts: 746 ✭
in Sports Talk
the popularity of baseball will nosedive with a salary cap.
This is a classic arguement that we hear all the time, but we never hear any facts or reasons for this.
Please explain your rationale for this statement, other than you being a Yankee fan
Dal
0
Comments
The article you cited DOES NOT reveal PER CAPITA numbers......but I will....if you take New Yorks poulation and compare that to KC's population, and compare each to the number of fans it draws at home, KC has a BETTER per capita attendance than New York (KC has a better ratio of attendance to population)......so by your arguement, the KC fans support their home-team better.
FACT #2 - At the start of each major league season, you can realistically say that there are 1/2 to 3/4 of the teams in baseball that have "no realistic opportunity" to make the league championship series, let alone the world series.....this discrepancy is not due to a wonderful farm system or awesome recruiting (although the bigger teams do spend more on that)....it is simply due to a wide variance in payroll.
Furthermore, if a team (not player) salary-cap was instituted, you have to agree that it would bring the competitive balance to the game again. It is sheer common sense --- fans of a team will follow the team for a longer time, if they are in contention. I'm not saying it's correct or not, but that's the way life is.
I believe my friend, that I have debunked your first point.....care to try again?
Dal
Edited 'cause I can't spell reveal
A large percentage of the demographics in Florida is composed of retirees - many from the East Coast. These retirees already have their favorite teams (Yankees, red Sox, and others). Therefore, the Marlins will NOT be expected to draw a large attendance due to the fact that those with a large portion of the money (in Florida) are transplants from another area, with another team.....they don't WANT to see the Marlins, b/c they are not "their" team.
Therefore, as you mention the Marlins as a major market - I would disagree with you due to the fact that the area is saturated with transplants....the numbers are already skewed due to demographics.
Dal
Can you at least give me a reason you don't wanna "play" anymore?
I would be very appreciative!
Dal
I think you are an idiot looking for a fight.
I ask you again sir - bring me some information on why you think the "salary cap" will cause the popularity of baseball to nosedive!
C'mon murcer, bring your logic, intelligence, and common sense to this discussion (no fighting needed), and lets have a nice debate!
Dal
OK - so I am looking for a fight because I called you out on your "opinion"
I provide examples and data at why your point is incorrect, and your stance does more harm than good to baseball.
You provided a statement with no facts or proof.
You call me names.....like the stereotypical New York fan
Here you go mensa-murcer
Get real.
I think that Dallas88 makes a lot of sense - not just because I agree with him but because the reasoning that he presents is logical and clear.
Unfortunately, the business of baseball is like no other "free enterprise" business in our nation.
There is no other BUSINESS that needs the other businesses in the same industry, for competition, in order to survive....but baseball (sports) does.....example --- if the Yankees run 20 other teams into financial ruin, there will suddenly be no more baseball!....It actually BENEFITS the Yankees, in the long run, to have competitive balance in this great game.
That's one simple, but somewhat abstract point, that I think we as fans need to understand, when discussing the topics of baseball, revenue, and competitive balance (or imbalance).
I would really like to hear other, intelligent opinions on this subject.
<< <i>I would really like to hear other, intelligent opinions on this subject. >>
Then you've surely come to the right place ...
If anything, baseball will more popular with a cap. More fans can see their team sign a big name like Beltran, Arod, or the like because the Yankees and Red Sox do not have enough room.
Mfan linked some hard data on attendance and the revenue sharing contributions that the Yankees make to MLB that benefits all teams. You made a comment that you provide "examples and data" as to why he is incorrect, but you have not presented any data. You have only presented statements and opinions regarding demographics that are not supported with data. But one piece of data that you can put a calculator to on attendance, is that the Yankees draw 78% more fans at home than the Mets do. Same market?? Same demographic?? Why then??
I also found it curious that KC draws a significantly higher attendance, from a percentage standpoint, on the road than at home. So what does this say about the home fan base? Good thing they play in other cities where people show up to see them by accident.
The NY "metropolitan area" has a much more diverse demographic than Kansas City and Florida Marlins country. There are many, many more sources of sports/other entertainment to spend your money on. Within the per capita, whether it be NY state or the Metro area itself, on baseball alone, you have dollars shared between the Yankees, Mets, Sox and Phillies. If you take a map and draw a 60 mile radius from the Bronx, you will see. So you have to spend if you want to be number one.
Your comments about free enterprise are interesting. Are the Yankees running other teams into financial ruin, or is their success driving fans out to the ballpark all over the country so that the wealth can be shared, along with the millions they give back in revenue sharing and MLB taxes?
Finally, what is preventing Kansas City from making a major commitment to payroll in order to bring the best players to that city? If your per capita demographic holds any water, then they would be World Champion contenders, and the turnstiles would be cranking in order to offset the payroll.
Regards.
Thank you for your concerns. Let me reply to some of them.
You are correct, I used the phrase "and data" and I should not have. Neither I, nor can anyone claim to supply any data on "will a salary cap hurt baseball", because there IS no data as it has not been attempted in these economic times.
Mfan linked some hard data on attendance and the revenue sharing contributions that the Yankees make to MLB that benefits all teams
That he did - but attendance has NOTHING at all to do with a salary cap and baseball, or will it help or hurt baseball.
Revenue sharing is a different animal - it DOES help to equalize things a little, but in reality, it's a drop in the bucket for the teams that need an even greater amount of money to keep on pace with the "big markets" in terms of salary, scouting, farm system, etc etc....remember, revenue realized from revenue sharing does NOT have to be seen in player salaries - there are also the expenses I listed above.
Therefore, murcerfans data, although very nice and proper, does not lend credibility to his claim that "the popularity of baseball will nosedive with a salary cap."
But one piece of data that you can put a calculator to on attendance, is that the Yankees draw 78% more fans at home than the Mets do. Same market?? Same demographic?? Why then??
While I do not live in New York, I would assume that that the Yankees draw more fans due to their "big-name" and (as my cousin says) "cuties" they put on the field......they can afford the "cuties" because they have a HUGE multimedia contract that the Mets do not possess......therefore ----- more money from multimedia = more cuties = higher attendance.....period....I think that answers that point.
I also found it curious that KC draws a significantly higher attendance, from a percentage standpoint, on the road than at home. So what does this say about the home fan base? Good thing they play in other cities where people show up to see them by accident.
Interesting you bring this up - if you look at murcerfans tidy list he presents, there are other teams that "draw a higher attendance, on the road, than at home.".........Atlanta (no kidding?), Oakland (get outta here), Mets (as you pointed out), White Sox (in chicago?), Florida, Detroit, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Montreal......by my count that is 14 teams - almost HALF of the teams in MLB draw better "on the road" than at home.
So I guess it is a good thing that all these 14 teams play in other places so people will "show up to see them by accident".....by the way, in terms of "will a salary cap kill baseball", the figures of attendance mean nothing, so we can just toss each others argument out.
The NY "metropolitan area" has a much more diverse demographic than Kansas City and Florida Marlins country. There are many, many more sources of sports/other entertainment to spend your money on. Within the per capita, whether it be NY state or the Metro area itself, on baseball alone, you have dollars shared between the Yankees, Mets, Sox and Phillies. If you take a map and draw a 60 mile radius from the Bronx, you will see. So you have to spend if you want to be number one.
I agree with you about the diversity - no one comes to Missouri to study art, drama, and theater (OR THEATRE). But I am unsure what this has to do with the main point of our discussion.
Your comments about free enterprise are interesting. Are the Yankees running other teams into financial ruin, or is their success driving fans out to the ballpark all over the country so that the wealth can be shared, along with the millions they give back in revenue sharing and MLB taxes?
I agree, my comments about free enterprise are very interesting, however, I think you missed the point.
EXAMPLE - we have 2 companies - a) Wigets-r-us b) WeLuvWidgets
In the "free enterprise" system, as long as A) is meeting demand, profit, etc, then it doesn't matter very much what
If
But baseball does NOT work like that......the Yankees and Red Sox NEED all the other teams, or else baseball becomes no more....this is what I mean by baseball does not operate like other businesses in our system of free enterprise.
The Yankees are not driving other teams into financial ruin. They are merely playing by the rules that are already set-up in MLB.
Also - The amount of revenue realized from attendance PALES in comparison to the amount realized from their multimedia contracts.
Now you're gonna freak on this - I think that revenue sharing is a crock! Why should the Yankees and Steinbrenner have to give up money from his business and his other ventures, and give it to other teams that haven't been so lucky or fortunate?
They shouldn't have to, but the financial playing field SHOULD be equal between all the teams. A salary cap should be instituted, and the league should share ALL sources of revenue, as they do in football.
Finally, what is preventing Kansas City from making a major commitment to payroll in order to bring the best players to that city? If your per capita demographic holds any water, then they would be World Champion contenders, and the turnstiles would be cranking in order to offset the payroll.
This statement is just silly - I was totally with you until you went this direction.
Sure, the Royals could ask David Glass to increase payroll to the 80-90 million level....he would have to spend like 40 million of his own, personal (non-baseball-budget) money to do that. And that does not guarantee he could field a decent team with any guarantee of winning (METS).....so your're asking one team owner to stake 40-50 million out of his pocket, while another team owner simply uses the money from his extensive multimedia contracts to field a competitive team, thus using NONE of his personal money.
THAT is the real inequity in baseball and it is unfair for a majority of owners, franchises, and fans.
Your assertion that the Kansas City TURNSTILES will generate as much money as the Yankees Multimedia contract(s) is simply laughable, ain't never gonna happen in ANY city in MLB.......pay our guys more money--- get the payroll to 90 million ---- people will come out to see the team ---- all those people will offset the increase in players salaries.....it does not work like that - your example of the Mets illustrates that! They're in the same market as the Yanks --- but as I stated earlier, the Multimedia deal pushes the Yanks over the top when it comes to salary compensation.....the Mets do NOT have the same media deals!!!!!
How do we fix baseball?
1 - Institute a salary cap (the popularity will not nosedive)
2 - Institute a organizational cap (coaching, minor leagues, scouting, etc)
3 - Split all the revenue as they do in football
FINALLY - the main reason that the popularity of baseball will NOT nosedive with a salary cap ---- look at the NFL.
Dal
Nobody was whining about a cap when the Red Sox were after A-Rod. The Yankees didn't buy him, they traded for him. All the other teams in the league could have made Texas an offer. He's costing the Yanks 12 million this season. Sosa, Bonds,Ramirez, and other non-Yankees are making more in 2004.
The fact is that a salary cap is communism and Russia proved it doesn't work. Quit complaining about the Yankees, they haven't won a world series in this century. The Marlins and Diamondback(recent expansion teams) and Angels won the last three and the Twins, Mariners, and Athletics have been in the post season. Would it have been exciting to see The Marlins beat the Red Sox last year or beat the hated Yanks. George Steinbrenner is doing what the other owners should be doing and spending his money to put a winnning team on the field and not filling his pockets like the other owners of which many have more money than he does, some of them with the luxury tax money the he pays.
In case your wondering I am not a Yankees fan, I'm a lifelong Brewer fan. To prove my point mentioned above, the Brewers traded their best player (Richie Sexson) to the Diamondbacks for 6 guys whose combined salaries are more than A-Rod is to make this year. By the way, the Brewrs and the Rangers are doing better this season without spending more money. Don't bash Steinny for being a good businessman, question the management of your favorite team for being inadequate.
Oh and for you guys who say it works in football, The Pats have been to 3 of the last 7 Super Bowls
and the Cardinals still suck. Just admit that you like football more than baseball and will watch the mediocrity(parody) the NFL shovels at you and you'll feel better.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
This opening statement is plain wrong....go look at any labor negotiation agreement, or even as recently as the Blue Ribbon Panel, and you will see the issue of a salary cap has been "on the table" for a long, long time.
The fact that you open with the sentence above just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
The fact is that a salary cap is communism
There's some more nice logic to enlighten the thread. Can you explain to the board just HOW a salary cap is communistic (not communism).
George Steinbrenner is doing what the other owners should be doing and spending his money to put a winnning team on the field and not filling his pockets like the other owners of which many have more money than he does, some of them with the luxury tax money the he pays.
Would you site some proof that the other owners are "filling their pockets" with the revenue sharing money.
Steinbrenner is able to pay for more star players due to his multimedia contract deal ---- he does not have to use his "own" money to spend on his team..... no other team in baseball has an influx of money to spend on players like this.
Don't bash Steinny for being a good businessman, question the management of your favorite team for being inadequate.
I don't believe I am bashing "Steinny" at all, the Yanks are merely playing by baseball's rules (you would know this if you read my above post). How can we know if the management of any other team is adequate or not when they automatically begin the season 100 million dollars behind the Yankees.
The Marlins and Diamondback(recent expansion teams) and Angels won the last three and the Twins, Mariners, and Athletics have been in the post season
That's great, but here's the flaw in your arguement. The Yankees are there EVERY year. None of the teams you mentioned have been in contention EVERY year since the major escalation of player salaries.
Oh and for you guys who say it works in football, The Pats have been to 3 of the last 7 Super Bowls
and the Cardinals still suck. Just admit that you like football more than baseball and will watch the mediocrity(parody) the NFL shovels at you and you'll feel better.
You are using both ends of the football spectrum in your argument here....poor managemant and good management. I think we can all agree that the Cardinals are a poorly-run franchise, and the Pats are a well-run franchise. We can file that under "DUH". The statement of how a franchise is run has nothing to do with a salary cap discussion.
In case you haven't noticed, parody has helped draw more fans, and has helped to keep them interested in the NFL year after year. I think we can all also agree that the NFL is the most popular sport existing today....I feel it is mostly due to the fact that EVERY FAN knows that their team could "have a shot at the title", or at least stay competitive and interesting year after year.
BTW James, paragraphs help you to explain your points much better than one long paragraph with 8 ideas in it.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=40&threadid=262101&highlight_key=y&keyword1=steinbrenner
A couple of things. While I think a salary cap would benefit baseball, its already been shown that the players union will not go for it when it was unsuccessfully proposed during the lockout. Why? I believe because the owners weren't giving up anything in return. If there were also a salary floor proposed in addition to a salary cap that would require teams to remain above a certain level (i.e. Expos, Royals, Twins, etc.) then I think there would be a chance for real change.
Also, sharing of all revenue streams in baseball is very unrealistic and will not happen. You use the example of the NFL but it is a much different animal in that the media deals are all on a national level (TV, radio). In baseball, virutally all of the media deals are local and therefore impossible to share in the same fashion. There is an example that I use in the thread link above comparing the Yankees revenue streams to the Expos. The NFL doesn't have that kind of disparity and therefore is able to share a large portion of the total revenue. Plus, I don't think its fair to ask the Yankees to share their media revenues with other teams. Just as you don't believe the current revenue system is fair to the Yankees.
As the previous poster noted, its not apparently competitive balance as the last 3 champs are Florida, Anaheim and Arizona. No big market teams there.
And this equal playing field angle will never happen so there is no use in arguing about it. This is business, not everyone playing nicely in Pollyannaville.
And why should it be equal? I
n any business, the best rise to the top. And remember, there are 30 different owners with 30 different agendas and 30 different levels of business management. Some care about putting the best team on the field, some care about making a buck, some put their profit back into the team, some put their profit into their pocket. Even if they had the same amount of revenue and the same amount of expenses, there would be 30 different levels of on the field and financial success.
Just my 2 cents
I agree with the salary floor, and I think most teams would be fine with that (just my opinion)
Cubfan - thanks for your post! If I may reply:
As the previous poster noted, its not apparently competitive balance as the last 3 champs are Florida, Anaheim and Arizona. No big market teams there.
Very true, but the Yankees are there, and have been there, every year since their payroll has shot to the moon. Don't take the past 3 years as gospel. It's fine adn dandy, but it doesn't show that "there is no problem" as none of these teams are able to CONTINUALLY CHALLENGE for the postseason year after year as the Yanks have done due to their unprecedented spending spree.
And why should it be equal? In any business, the best rise to the top.
Good question! It is one that we hear asked alot! Let me apply a quote from a paper "Economics of Baseball" by Brian M. Bergen
The free enterprise argument – To borrow a phrase from Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good." The laws of America are setup foster free trade and enterprise. The idea of company A giving company B money so B can turn around and compete with A seems contrary to our idea of free enterprise. Some would argue that baseball teams are simply companies and should not have to subsidize teams that are suffering financial hardships. A recent op-ed piece in the New York Times reads, "Whether we like it or not, baseball is no longer a gentleman’s game. Rather, it is a competitive business and must be treated accordingly. In no other financial market is a strong company required to compensate a less fortunate one." (7) I feel that the author is missing the point. Unlike other markets, baseball needs competitors for its product to even exist. If the Acme Widget Company produces better and cheaper widgets faster than Widgets-R-Us, then Acme deserves to reap the rewards. The difference is that Acme doesn’t need Widgets-R-Us in the same way that the Yankees need the Twins. If the Yankees could force other teams into financial ruin they would have not competitors on the field. Without an opponent there would be no more baseball.
This paragraph explains it a bit better than I could.
Hope this helps!
Dal
When you have a team that is comfortably able to meet a $200MM payroll and a team that is struggling to meet one that is 1/10th of that, you bet there is a problem in baseball. Huge problem.
No one is saying that the revenue and the expenses have to be identical across the board. But you have to significantly decrease the gaps that have continued to widen over the last decade. If they continue at this rate, the baseball that we know and love will cease to exist.
Two scenarios in 20 years:
1) Do nothing to the current system resulting in an 8-12 team league because the gap continued to drasticallyt widen and other teams were financially incapable of "rising to the top".
2) Put something in place like a salary cap and floor, contracting 2-6 teams, and having a very strong and competitive 24-28 team league can grow back to where it used to be and where the NFL is now.
Take your pick.
How did the salaries of the Atlanta Braves compare to the Yankees when they won their umpteen division titles in a row? Did they just buy their way to winning 90 games every year or did they use a great farm system, reasonable salaries and talented management to win? I wouldnt exactly consider Atlanta to be a major market team.
If the point is to have someone different to win every year, they could just institute a rule that you can only win 1 pennant every 5 years
I guess I could see revenue sharing if there was also cost sharing as well. If someone needs a new stadium, then would all teams have to pitch in because it would be benefitting all of them? Nothing is equal here, not revenue, not expenses, not the fan base.
Im just not sure what we are trying to fix.
I think bags summarized it very well.
If baseball CONTINUES on this path, then baseball as we know it will change dramatically, I believe for the worst, because you will have less competition.
That's what needs fixing. Please read the BOLD paragraph that I posted, especially the last sentence, and I hope I can convince you that the economic structure in baseball is flawed, and must be addressed.
Dal
But, as that is a reduction of jobs, I cant see how the union would ever allow that. So I dont think that is very likely or realistic.
And as there are always a handful of cities without teams who are trying to get a team, it would just seem (as in the case of Montreal), the financially struggling teams will not fold, but will just be sold to new owners in a new town.
The situation you are worried about is not a new issue. Its been that way forever. Its an interesting discussion topic, but I really dont think (realistically) that there will be any substantial changes to the way it is in the near future.
Keith
The highest paid player in team sports this year will be Peyton Manning. Teams get around the cap with the signing bonuses. The list I saw had A-rod like at number 12.
I'm not arguing with anyone, I just feel people put too much stock into the perception of competitive balance in the pro sports leagues. If you were honest and went through the whole league at the beginning of the season and put an X next to the teams that you thought had a shot at the playoffs in all the pro sports , the percentage would not be that different.
There is a salary cap in basketball and the teams that have sucked the last ten years, generally still suck. The same can be said for football.
I agree that there are problems with baseball, the way that it markets itself, the lack of a popular commissioner, lousy national TV contract, the length of the games and others. A salary cap won't change that.
For some reason people are jealous of the money pro athletes make. I guess it is human nature, so they feel to there is a restriction to someone's earning power it will make the sport better.
I wish you all to work for a company that has a salary cap, maybe then the concept would seem unfair.
Capitalism works and the Yankees won't win the world series........just like the 30+ times they haven't in the last 40 years.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
In 2004 no one was complaining about pace of play , I wonder what the average length of a game was 14 years ago?
3 hours has been the average time for all pro sports that I have watched for the past 30-40 years.
ya right
it takes David Price 3 hours to pitch 3 innings especially if captain molasses is behind the plate