Home Sports Talk

Baseball guys - "Flushing the Talent Pool"

This thread goes along with the "baseball and salary cap thread". We all are in agreement (most likely), that the MLB players "union" is very strong, and will most likely never agree to a salary cap.

ASSUMING "baseball" would genuinely admit that it could have a better all-around economic model (not JUST a cap, but it would be part of a total economic overhaul), and ASSUMING the players union would not agree to the new economic plan, would you be in favor of the league letting the players strike?

Would it affect your interest in baseball to see a lower caliber of player in your uniform?

Would it affect the "casual fans" interest in baseball?

In essence, if the players did strike, we would be "flushing the talent pool" for the next few years, until the new crop of players arrived and gained some experience. But by this time, the new economic model should be in place.

Since I started the thread, I'll share my opinion.

I do understand that many fans would leave baseball, as what happened in '94. But I do feel, in the long run, for the financial health of the league, it would be a good thing.

I personally would not mind watching a league of lesser caliber players for a few years (no KC Royals jokes pleaseimage ), as I take a trip to Omaha for a couple days to watch the college World Series, and I routinely hit the T-Bones games (minor-league ball) in KC.

Just looking for opinions - not saying what's right or wrong here. I think many of us are on the same page in wanting our game to survive for our kids and grandkids, and we all like good competition. As was mentioned in the other thread, there are no easy answers, and this is probably one of the hardest questions baseball will need to address in the coming years.

Thanks guys

-dal-

Comments

  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭
    What problem are you trying to solve here? Baseball is fine.

    Teams can and do beat the Yankees every year.
  • yawie99yawie99 Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    Honestly, I don't agree at all with what seems to be one of your underlying assumptions: that the long-term vitality of Major League Baseball is somehow in trouble due to economic conditions. I suppose it's not inconceivable that some small market teams might one day bite the dust or end up moving from cities where they have long established roots, but I suppose that's the nature of business in general. So, no, I wouldn't accept replacement players for any length of time just to salvage a few franchises - especially if those franchises are imperiled because of mismanagement or the simple fact that their cities can't really sustain an MLB franchise.

    imageimageimageimageimageimage
  • What problem are you trying to solve here? Baseball is fine.

    Teams without a high dollar multimedia contract cannot keep their star players, as the larger revenue teams buy them with those unequal revenue streams.....period.

    That is fine? Well, that's your opinion. If your defense is that teams beat the Yankees every year, then you have TOTALLY missed the point of this post, and the problem with baseball's economic model.....which is very possible. Many people have a difficult time grasping the reality of baseball's current economic problems.

    That is fine for the Mets, Yankees, and Red Sox, and a handful more. But not for many of the small to medium revenue teams.

    Yawie - you don't have to agree with me. I would respectfully submit that your view is clouded due to your allegiance to a larger, more successful team. But let me ask you this.....

    So, no, I wouldn't accept replacement players for any length of time just to salvage a few franchises - especially if those franchises are imperiled because of mismanagement or the simple fact that their cities can't really sustain an MLB franchise.

    ....why do you think some cities CANNOT sustain an MLB franchise......lack of interest, some cities don't like baseball, tough to get to the games,........surely not EVERY team that has diffculty matching the dollars being tossed at the game's elite players, has been mismanaged.

  • kuhlmannkuhlmann Posts: 3,326 ✭✭
    i think gm's are starting to smarten up now. look at the marlins won the series so did the angels with low payrolls.

    look at players suck as david wright jose reyes miguel cabrera dontrelle willis. all make under 4 mill a year. all will probbaly be all stars this year.

    some teams will pay for the big names. but the big names put up same numbers as some young guys now also. scouting is where a team will start winning now.
  • Kuhl - I think you're 100% correct about the scouting thing. That makes sense that if a team can't buy players, they need to pay $$$ for the scouts with contacts, and with the eye for talent.

    However, my main point is not that lower-revenue teams winning or not winning, but the lower to mid-revenue teams have virtually no chance to RESIGN their "star" players at going market value once FA rolls around, and still field a competitive team.


  • yawie99yawie99 Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    I agree that it's not mismanagement in every case and I don't think I said that it was, but I'm sure good ol' fashioned bad decisionmaking is at least partly responsible for the hopeless state of affairs of at least some teams.

    I don't know why some mid-level markets are very successful while others are not. St. Louis does have a larger metro area than KC but the Cardinals hardly play in a major multimedia market. I'm guessing we barely crack the top 20 in terms of largest metro population. So I'd say that city size is only a relatively minor variable in terms of impact on team success on the field and in the ledger. Tradition, competition with other pro or big-time college teams, appeal/accessibility of the venue, and so on. There's a host of reasons. My point is that I'm not sure if the demise of a few of these moribund franchises is necessarily bad for the game. Bad for the cities and fans, for sure, but not for MLB.
    imageimageimageimageimageimage
  • Gotcha - but I would respectfully disagree that anything that is bad for current MLB cities and fans, is directly bad for baseball.....maybe not "game going away" bad, but if MLB found a reason to expand to a certain locality, why would they want to alienate that area of "fandom" that they hoped to create in the first place?

    Thanks for the clarification yawie

  • cardfan07cardfan07 Posts: 680 ✭✭
    Baseball (and other sports too) enjoys the protection that other businesses in this country don't get - if you can't compete, you go away. And I'm not talking about competing against people who break the law or do things unethically...just working with what they have. Can't fault any of the California, New York or Illinois teams for having larger fan bases, more marketing opportunities, more $$, etc...that's the way it is in regular life. One does have to wonder why places like Florida and Texas have trouble with these things. Some of the most populous cities are in these states. Yet they don't get the same $$ that teams in the other cities get.
    I don't think flushing of the talent pool would necessarily happen. Where would today's talent play? I don't know that they could play anywhere else in the world (maybe Japan) and get paid more than taking some consulting job here. And without MLB, how does the minor league system keep going? All that has to be paid from MLB teams operations.
    Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Tom Seaver, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock player collector
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    Actually the 'talent pool' is in Flushing NY this year!

    Steve
    Good for you.
  • LOL - very clever Steveimage
  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭


    << <i>However, my main point is not that lower-revenue teams winning or not winning, but the lower to mid-revenue teams have virtually no chance to RESIGN their "star" players at going market value once FA rolls around, and still field a competitive team. >>



    Every team excepting the Yankees loses players to free agency that they don't want to lose. The Twins have kept Hunter, Radke and chose to let others depart. Eventually they will have to try to move to a team built around Mauer, Morneau and Santana. It's the way the game works now.


  • Every team excepting the Yankees loses players to free agency that they don't want to lose.

    The word "excepting" in your sentence is the reason I say the economic model has problems. There should be no "excepting". This is not the definition of baseball being, as you stated, "fine". I suppose it's "good enough" for some people, but in my opinion, it's not.

    And yes, every team does lose a player or 2 to free agency. But what you are forgetting, sagard, is that while some teams may lose one or two players, other teams lose 4 and 5 players year after year, because the revenue stream from multimedia deals is not there. You are also forgetting that a major star has almost no chance of staying with a smaller-revenue team once he reaches free agency. I believe you are simplifying the issue of free agency by assuming that all teams lose equal numbers of players, which is not true.

    Hunter and Radke? Radke is something like a .500 W/L pitcher with close to a 4.25 ERA - not bad.

    Hunter? around a .270 avg with what 17-25 HR a year? - again not bad.

    Both are nice, solid players that any team would be happy with. But C'mon man. You cannot tell me that if one of the bigger market clubs REALLY wanted one of those guys, that they'd still be in Minnesota now.

    And THAT my friend is one aspect of what is wrong with the economics of the greatest game on earth, baseball!
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,643 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It has come to this with Me, I root for the Red Sox only because im from New England.. bottom line. I use MLB for fantasy baseball and thats it, there are no more heroes in baseball. Its all about MONEY, every baseball player is about what can the "bussiness" do for them, any player that says he plays for the love of the game is a liar worse than any Steroid user ever will be. Money goes to the big franchises who can pay the big bucks, the game was ruined a long time ago when they first made a player a millionare.
  • tkd7tkd7 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭


    << <i>Every team excepting the Yankees loses players to free agency that they don't want to lose.

    The word "excepting" in your sentence is the reason I say the economic model has problems. There should be no "excepting". This is not the definition of baseball being, as you stated, "fine". I suppose it's "good enough" for some people, but in my opinion, it's not.

    >>



    Dallas, I am trying to understand what your vision of what is the best for baseball. From my perspective it seems that you want to move from the current system where the better players have the opportunity to leverage the best deals for themselves to a system where better players only choice is geographic, since the money available to them will be roughly the same no mater where they go. One flaw I see is that the nature of sports says that there will be as many winning as losing teams. Winning teams will have the better management and scouting and will therefore make better judgements on who they keep and who they let go. That is true in the current or your future system. The higer revenue teams don't do all the winning right now.

    Is your goal that each team has a better chance to keep players that come up through their system so that fans can develop a better attachment to the players?

    In my opinion, I don't think the proposed system will create better competition than currently exists today. There are certainly teams that do not do well, but I think it is due to bad scouting and management as much as financial means. The Yankees of the mid 80s to mid 90s had the top payroll and didn't win anything due to poor management. The Yankees do not retain every player they want.

    Finally, I don't see a benefit to eliminating the top MLB talent as you suggest. Minor League and college baseball is available right now for all to see. If that is what you prefer, it is certainly there for you.

    Tom
  • Interesting opinions from all,

    Tom,

    I must not have made myself clear regarding "flushing" the talent pool. All I really meant was that for MLB to "break" the players union as it exists today, baseball will have to allow the players to strike. The strike would (just a guestimate) last 1-2 years, at which time, more than likely, MLB could use replacement players (lesser talent.......without Keanu Reeves, of courseimage

    Some of the MLB talent, may not return after a strike. Hence, we would lose some good players, and possibly fans. That's all I meant about flushing the talent pool. We naturally would lose some good players.

    I am trying to understand what your vision of what is the best for baseball. From my perspective it seems that you want to move from the current system where the better players have the opportunity to leverage the best deals for themselves to a system where better players only choice is geographic, since the money available to them will be roughly the same no mater where they go. One flaw I see is that the nature of sports says that there will be as many winning as losing teams. Winning teams will have the better management and scouting and will therefore make better judgements on who they keep and who they let go. That is true in the current or your future system. The higer revenue teams don't do all the winning right now.

    You have my point exactly right. However, I would respectfully disagree with a few of your points:

    1 - only choice is geographic, since the money available to them will be roughly the same no mater where they go

    I don't feel this would be the case. With a cap, a floor, and open books with or without revenue sharing, the Mets can pay (for example) Carlos Beltran 20 million a year. If the cap is (arbitrary example) $100 million, then they must fit 24 more players under the cap number. The Mets could say OK, but other teams could say NO WAY, we can't field a team with that chunk of payroll gone. This is a very basic example, but if extrapolated to other star players you can see how quickly the "salary numbers" would add up.

    Also, this has not been the case in football (I know, different sport), where teams must effectively allocate resources. I don't believe every team was offering Edgerrin James the same amount of dollars, as the Cardinals, to do his job at the Running Back position. Edgerrin's choice was not "limited" to geographical means. I suppose one could argue that baseball and football are different sports. However if the economics were instituted similarly, I can't really see how that plays in to the situation.

    2 - In my opinion, I don't think the proposed system will create better competition than currently exists today. There are certainly teams that do not do well, but I think it is due to bad scouting and management as much as financial means.

    Competition - well. My Royals really didn't need to keep Beltran, Dye (last years WS MVP), and Damon, did they image . Is it bad management and scouting that caused them to leave KC? I would disagree with you about a better system than exists today. Of course I have no evidence, as you can't accurately predict the future, as evidenced by my failing fantasy-baseball team. But anything is better than the latest dontrelle willis rumor of him leaving Florida, and the ESPN guys saying, "....well, I wonder which team will buy him..." - BTW, I believe the rumor is false.

    3 - The Yankees of the mid 80s to mid 90s had the top payroll and didn't win anything due to poor management. The Yankees do not
    retain every player they want.


    With all due respect, guess who had consistently the highest payroll in the 80's......yep, the Royals, funded out of Ewing Kauffman's own pocket.....of course, the discrepancy was not a great as exists today. Remember, they won the series in '85 with the highest payroll.

    Poor management - did Mr Steinbrenner (spelling?) suddenly become a superb owner and manager of the club in the 90's? I don't believe he had a baseball-related epiphany one evening...unless it was related to the sudden boom of cable-television, and multimedia networks, that suddenly bloated his baseball-related wallet.

    And before I continue, please LMK who the Yankees have "lost" to another team that they REALLY wanted to keep? I honestly can't think of anyone right now.....please don't mistake my ignorance to Yankee transactions as "challenging" you.


    EDITED - my HTML skills stink
  • theBobstheBobs Posts: 1,136 ✭✭


    << <i>And THAT my friend is one aspect of what is wrong with the economics of the greatest game on earth, baseball! >>



    And its the same thing that has been wrong with baseball for 120+ years. If anything, a minimum salary floor is needed. The overspending hasn't helped the Yanks in the last 6 years. 6 different teams have won the World Series in the last 6 years. That hasn't happened in football since the 60s (if my memory is correct)...
    Where have you gone Dave Vargha
    CU turns its lonely eyes to you
    What's the you say, Mrs Robinson
    Vargha bucks have left and gone away?

    hey hey hey
    hey hey hey
  • tkd7tkd7 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭


    << <i>Interesting opinions from all,

    Also, this has not been the case in football (I know, different sport), where teams must effectively allocate resources. I don't believe every team was offering Edgerrin James the same amount of dollars, as the Cardinals, to do his job at the Running Back position. Edgerrin's choice was not "limited" to geographical means. I suppose one could argue that baseball and football are different sports. However if the economics were instituted similarly, I can't really see how that plays in to the situation.

    Competition - well. My Royals really didn't need to keep Beltran, Dye (last years WS MVP), and Damon, did they image . Is it bad management and scouting that caused them to leave KC? I would disagree with you about a better system than exists today. Of course I have no evidence, as you can't accurately predict the future, as evidenced by my failing fantasy-baseball team. But anything is better than the latest dontrelle willis rumor of him leaving Florida, and the ESPN guys saying, "....well, I wonder which team will buy him..." - BTW, I believe the rumor is false.

    Poor management - did Mr Steinbrenner (spelling?) suddenly become a superb owner and manager of the club in the 90's? I don't believe he had a baseball-related epiphany one evening...unless it was related to the sudden boom of cable-television, and multimedia networks, that suddenly bloated his baseball-related wallet.

    And before I continue, please LMK who the Yankees have "lost" to another team that they REALLY wanted to keep? I honestly can't think of anyone right now.....please don't mistake my ignorance to Yankee transactions as "challenging" you.


    EDITED - my HTML skills stink >>



    HI Dallas,
    Not sure I can address all your points, but I will try.

    First off, the Yankees lost Andy Pettite to the Astros. I'm pretty sure the Yankees wanted to keep him, but he moved to Houston to play closer to his family. He is the one homegrown Yankee of the recent World Series teams that left on his own. But you are right, the others (Jeter, Posada, Williams, Rivera, et.al.) all stayed. I believe Williams took less money from the Yankees than the Red Sox to stay about 10 years ago, but I'm not certain.

    Was it bad scouting that caused the former Royals to leave? Obviously not, but it could be said that it was poor scouting that failed to sustain the success of developing those types of players. The A's and Twins have found a way to do it.

    Yes, James did not get the same offers from teams and it was likely a combination of salary and the other team's roster, but the net effect of the transaction is the same. Sure, the Colts walked away from James because of "cap restrictions". Damon walked away from Royals because the Royals had "cap restrictions", namely their own self imposed cap.

    I am a Yankee fan, so I see things from the other side of the fence, and I certainly appreciate that Derek Jeter will be a Yankee as long as both parties see fit. I'm sure it is frustrating to see your Royals leave to other places, but I'm not sure that things would change in another system. It will be equally frustrating to see your team lose a player because of "cap restrictions".

    Thanks for the healthy debate.
  • AxtellAxtell Posts: 10,037 ✭✭
    Baseball needs both a floor and a cap, with real revenue sharing.

    The yankees and the red sox's of the world aren't necessarily trying any harder to win - they just have more resources on hand to cover up more mistakes, so they are able to compete and win even with a big contract of a stinker on their team.

    The royals, for example, make a mistake like that and they are done for. So I can understand the management mindset of the smaller market teams who don't want to gamble on a big name, big dollar free agent.

    There will be those who say it's a 'welfare' system and of course it is. But it's not as if the small market teams of the world aren't trying any harder. Would it be financially responsible as a team owner to spend, say, $80 million over $40 million, when you are going up against teams with $130 - $200 million payrolls?

    It's a dilemma for sure - but I feel if you implement a floor when you put a cap in, the players overall would make more money. You'd just not have as many $20 million / year guys.
  • tkd7tkd7 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭


    << <i>

    There will be those who say it's a 'welfare' system and of course it is. But it's not as if the small market teams of the world aren't trying any harder. Would it be financially responsible as a team owner to spend, say, $80 million over $40 million, when you are going up against teams with $130 - $200 million payrolls?

    >>



    It looks like your question will be answered. The Blue Jays payroll last year was $45 million. They added some high salary contracts to their payroll this year. Their current payroll is $72 million. Time will tell if that was a wise move. The White Sox also increased their payroll by $27 million this year, to $102 million.

    Florida had the biggest drop in payroll from '05 to '06 of $45 million. The Yankees had the next biggest drop at $10 million. At $198 million, the Yankees payroll is $78 million above the next highest team, the Red Sox.

    Of last years playoff teams, the Padres had the lowest payroll at $63 million and were ranked 16 in terms of payroll. Based on that data, you had a 50% chance of making the playoffs if your payroll was a minimum of $63 million. Of those teams in the top 16 of payroll that didn't make the playoffs, the Mariners finished the furthest from the playoffs at 26 games behind the wild card with the number 8 payroll of $88 million.

    So the conclusion is that the more money you spend, the more likely you are to make the playoffs, but it isn't assured. The situation looks the worst for Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and Toronto, as those teams play in the AL East with the two highest payroll teams. As Axtell says, the more you pay, the better your chances.

    If revenue sharing were implemented, I think there must be some system in place to ensure that franchises are still viable. If a salary floor is implemented, an income floor should be implemented as well. A franchise should have a minimum income through attendance + media rights. If a city like Miami can't add sufficient value to MLB, there should be a way for MLB to move the franchise to a new location that will be a more supportive home, similar to the move from Montreal to Washington.


  • sagardsagard Posts: 1,899 ✭✭✭
    I hate the Yanks but I'm not willing to concede that they have a hopeless unfair advantage. They play in the biggest market, have the most successful history and a owner who is hell bent on winning. So much so it sometimes blinds him. They should have some privileges. The baseball playoffs are now three short series and it takes a lot of things to go right to win the series.

    I don't like salary caps. I'm against the notion completely. I don't feel like a team who drafts and brings a player to the big leagues deserves any entitlement to keep him for his whole career. Players or really anyone in any field after they demonstrate their ablities and have the experience deserve the chance to find their best deal.

    If some owners want to spend/overpay for some players, so be it. Let them. I would like an even distribution of local TV revenues. It takes two teams to play a game and have a broadcast, the split should be 50/50 between the home team and the league.





Sign In or Register to comment.