<< <i>the Florida Marlins, KC Royals, Minnesota Twins, Oakland Athletics, Baltimore Orioles, and Cincinnati Reds (among others) have won one or more WS titles since the Phillies won their last. So I don't think it is MLB that is a farce. NYY have spent more than a billion dollars in salary since 2000 and haven't won one WS title. The highest-paid team doesn't always win the WS. >>
'''
exactly!
because the marlins have won 2 world series in the last 10 years, ANY TEAM THINKS THEY CAN WIN REGARDLESS OF SALARY...
the marlins winning may have set back baseball in a big way, as we are further away from a salary cap then ever
<< <i>That has nothing to do with this and you know it. It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. You're never going to get me to knock baseball - it's a great summer sport and I love the game. But unless there is a salary cap, which is so badly needed, and it's so obvious, then there's going to be situations whereby some teams have no realistic chance of getting into the playoffs. >>
It does have a little something to do with it - I'm not saying it accounts for all of the huge discrepancy in baseball, but to get a high-priced free agent to come in you have to make them the best offer possible and with the cost of living in the NY area and the high state and local taxes a 5 million dollar offer isn't the same as a 5 million dollar offer somewhere else...
When the owners of the "small market" teams start using all of the revenue sharing money they get to improve their teams and not line their pockets, then we'll see if there's a need for a salary cap. I won't hold my breath, though.
I'm not sure a salary cap is the answer. Look at the NFL. Despite the cap, the Bills have managed to miss the playoffs in this millenium. Still, the fans sell out the stadium and the team gets a sweetheart deal form the county. In return, in 5 years we won't have a team in Buffalo.
Some owners want to win, some only want to make obscene amounts of money. It stinks when your team has one of the latter! >>
are you saying Ralph Wilson is only in it to make money??? come on man,that cant be further from the truth...he is a true OLD school owner and puts FOOTBALL, not Money first...have you ever met theman, because i have and he is bordering on sainthood!
who do you think buys the leftover tickets sunday morning so there will be no local blackout???????????????????????????????????
<< <i>Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that. Likewise the NFL has without a doubt gained in popularity from 20 years ago. >>
the issue isn't really popularity. The issue is how much do baseball consumers spend compared to 20 years ago. In the 1980s they spent a lot and players like Brett were still being exploited to a certain extent simply because the market for baseball talent was so new. Now people give the sport even more of their money
A salary cap does not equal competitiveness, it simply changes which teams are allowed to be competitive. The Royals have had more winning seasons than the Arizona Cardinals this decade, and teams like the Lions and Clippers have been just as dreadful. The Spurs have made the NBA Finals more than any baseball team has made the World Series this year. And the 90s Bulls or this decades Patriots have been even more dominant. . .
To argue that a salary cap would create competitiveness is simply argueing that you wish to change which teams will be most competitive, nothing else
<< <i>Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that. Likewise the NFL has without a doubt gained in popularity from 20 years ago. >>
the issue isn't really popularity. The issue is how much do baseball consumers spend compared to 20 years ago. In the 1980s they spent a lot and players like Brett were still being exploited to a certain extent simply because the market for baseball talent was so new. Now people give the sport even more of their money
A salary cap does not equal competitiveness, it simply changes which teams are allowed to be competitive. The Royals have had more winning seasons than the Arizona Cardinals this decade, and teams like the Lions and Clippers have been just as dreadful. The Spurs have made the NBA Finals more than any baseball team has made the World Series this year. And the 90s Bulls or this decades Patriots have been even more dominant. . .
To argue that a salary cap would create competitiveness is simply argueing that you wish to change which teams will be most competitive, nothing else >>
No, it argues that competitiveness becomes more a function of front-office competence, and less a function of factors (i.e., market size) which are beyond the control of the franchise.
<< <i>So you agree that when front offices like the Lions and Clippers exist, the salary cap does not make the league more competitive than the MLB system? >>
Absolutely a league with a salary cap is more competitive than a league using the MLB system. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Obviously no league can control for front office incompetence-- which plays a significant role in the historically poor performance of certain professional franchises-- but they can control for other factors that create a competitive disadvantage for some teams, amongst which are salary disparities.
Do you agree that there is a correlation between a player's salary and his ability? Further, do you agree that there is a correlation between a player's ability and the performance of his team? If so, then you must agree that there is a correlation between team salary and performance. It's not the ONLY factor that has a direct causal effect on team performance (front office buffoonery would clearly be another), but it is one factor-- and, more importantly, it's a factor which can be controlled by the league.
<<< To argue that a salary cap would create competitiveness is simply argueing that you wish to change which teams will be most competitive, nothing else >>>
A salary cap wouldn't suddenly make stupidly managed teams suddenly smart - they would likely still be losers, but it couldn't help but make the league more competitive. At the very least, and I mean the very least, a well designed salary cap such as in the NFL, would allow teams to at least keep one or two of their star players...which also increases local fan interest in their team, and I think loyalty as well. For example I attended a number of Phillies games just to watch Steve Carlton pitch, games which I may not have attended otherwise.
I mentioned Carlos Beltran for KC - How in the world could having Carlos Beltran on KC not make KC more competitive? He was originally with KC and KC deserves to keep him - it just isn't fair to KC to lose a superstar like this for no good reason that couldn't be prevented with a salary cap. I mean come on now, isn't this clearly obvious? But NY fans, and perhaps some Red Sox fans don't want to see the obvious.
You are right that a salary cap would increase competitiveness. The important questions, then become, to what degree? Based on the NBA and NFL it seems minimally, those sports still have a lot seperating the top franchises from the bottom ones, while baseball still does see the Indians, Rockies and Diamondbacks all make the playoffs last year. Carlos Beltran would help the Royals hugely, but then perhaps the Mets are in the same position as the Knicks.
Then we must ask if that small amount of increase in competitiveness is really worth such a questionable buisness practice. In 2006 the Yankees made more than enough to fund their entire payroll plus the entire payroll of the second best AL team before a single ticket or concession was sold. When so much money is being generated by these teams, to take that away from the players and give even more profits to management is absolutely not the way to increase competition
<< <i>You are right that a salary cap would increase competitiveness. The important questions, then become, to what degree? Based on the NBA and NFL it seems minimally, those sports still have a lot seperating the top franchises from the bottom ones, while baseball still does see the Indians, Rockies and Diamondbacks all make the playoffs last year. Carlos Beltran would help the Royals hugely, but then perhaps the Mets are in the same position as the Knicks.
Then we must ask if that small amount of increase in competitiveness is really worth such a questionable buisness practice. In 2006 the Yankees made more than enough to fund their entire payroll plus the entire payroll of the second best AL team before a single ticket or concession was sold. When so much money is being generated by these teams, to take that away from the players and give even more profits to management is absolutely not the way to increase competition >>
That is, indeed, the question. By what factor would a cap increase competitiveness? To be frank, I have no idea. I'm sure it would help, but I don't know by how much. It could be that it would help very little, and that front office acumen is responsible for an overwhelming majority of team's on field success (or lack thereof).
One thing, however, that you have to very careful about is arguing that because teams X,Y and Z have been successful, and they are mid-market teams, then the salary issue is moot. With a big enough initial sample size you're always going to get some curious results. When we draw from 20-some-odd teams that have salaries in the middle-to-low range, it's almost a certainty that a few of them will put together very good seasons. In other words, if you distribute MLB teams into two groups, one group that holds, say, the five teams with the highest payrolls, and the other group that contains the other 25 or so teams, then the number of post-season bids, WS titles, etc. etc. between the two groups will probably be about even. But anyone can see that this fact does not, in any way, argue for the notion that salary is irrelevant.
Also, I don't follow your last sentence. Why would the size of gross profits have any effect on whether or not a salary cap would be a good idea? Are you saying that if big market teams only averaged 'X' amount of profit per year than a salary cap would be fine, but since they average '3X' in profit it wouldn't be? If so, I don't see how the size of this margin is relevant.
Never have I said the salary issue is moot, simply that it can account for only a fraction of competitive imbalance, and those examples do a perfect job of proving that
The issue of profits is important, because it determines if a salary cap should even be permissible. Money not spent on players because of a salary cap is money that goes to management. For management to artificially keep salaries below what labor has already bargained for is absolutely wrong.
<< <i>Never have I said the salary issue is moot, simply that it can account for only a fraction of competitive imbalance, and those examples do a perfect job of proving that
The issue of profits is important, because it determines if a salary cap should even be permissible. Money not spent on players because of a salary cap is money that goes to management. For management to artificially keep salaries below what labor has already bargained for is absolutely wrong. >>
It may be wrong from an efficiency standpoint, but taking this kind of normative position is completely irrelevant when we're talking about what would improve the overall entertainment value of MLB.
Also, while it's indisputable that salaries can only account for a fraction of the imbalance, the real question is the size of that fraction.
Interesting questions and ideas pointed out. For sure, the ebb and flow of all the teams would be different...and frankly, I think that makes sports leagues overall more interesting...which means better entertainment, more popularity, and in the end game I believe would result in increased profit for the teams resulting in a healthier league, and creating a more enjoyable game for all.
Comments
Steve, you in my view were beginning to cross the line between trash talk and "internet tough guy" talk
Wrong again Steve, not true. If you can dish it out I'd expect for you to take it.
Steve
Steve
<< <i>the Florida Marlins, KC Royals, Minnesota Twins, Oakland Athletics, Baltimore Orioles, and Cincinnati Reds (among others) have won one or more WS titles since the Phillies won their last. So I don't think it is MLB that is a farce. NYY have spent more than a billion dollars in salary since 2000 and haven't won one WS title. The highest-paid team doesn't always win the WS. >>
'''
exactly!
because the marlins have won 2 world series in the last 10 years, ANY TEAM THINKS THEY CAN WIN REGARDLESS OF SALARY...
the marlins winning may have set back baseball in a big way, as we are further away from a salary cap then ever
<< <i>
<< <i>That has nothing to do with this and you know it. It's the lack of a salary cap which makes MLB the farce that it is as far as allowing all teams to be competitive. You're never going to get me to knock baseball - it's a great summer sport and I love the game. But unless there is a salary cap, which is so badly needed, and it's so obvious, then there's going to be situations whereby some teams have no realistic chance of getting into the playoffs. >>
It does have a little something to do with it - I'm not saying it accounts for all of the huge discrepancy in baseball, but to get a high-priced free agent to come in you have to make them the best offer possible and with the cost of living in the NY area and the high state and local taxes a 5 million dollar offer isn't the same as a 5 million dollar offer somewhere else...
When the owners of the "small market" teams start using all of the revenue sharing money they get to improve their teams and not line their pockets, then we'll see if there's a need for a salary cap. I won't hold my breath, though.
I'm not sure a salary cap is the answer. Look at the NFL. Despite the cap, the Bills have managed to miss the playoffs in this millenium. Still, the fans sell out the stadium and the team gets a sweetheart deal form the county. In return, in 5 years we won't have a team in Buffalo.
Some owners want to win, some only want to make obscene amounts of money. It stinks when your team has one of the latter! >>
are you saying Ralph Wilson is only in it to make money??? come on man,that cant be further from the truth...he is a true OLD school owner and puts FOOTBALL, not Money first...have you ever met theman, because i have and he is bordering on sainthood!
who do you think buys the leftover tickets sunday morning so there will be no local blackout???????????????????????????????????
Stevek has always been ok with me. FWIW. I agree with Grote15.
<< <i>Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that. Likewise the NFL has without a doubt gained in popularity from 20 years ago. >>
the issue isn't really popularity. The issue is how much do baseball consumers spend compared to 20 years ago. In the 1980s they spent a lot and players like Brett were still being exploited to a certain extent simply because the market for baseball talent was so new. Now people give the sport even more of their money
A salary cap does not equal competitiveness, it simply changes which teams are allowed to be competitive. The Royals have had more winning seasons than the Arizona Cardinals this decade, and teams like the Lions and Clippers have been just as dreadful. The Spurs have made the NBA Finals more than any baseball team has made the World Series this year. And the 90s Bulls or this decades Patriots have been even more dominant. . .
To argue that a salary cap would create competitiveness is simply argueing that you wish to change which teams will be most competitive, nothing else
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's take say 20 years ago - if you think MLB is more popular now than 20 years ago, then you might be the only person on earth who believes that. Likewise the NFL has without a doubt gained in popularity from 20 years ago. >>
the issue isn't really popularity. The issue is how much do baseball consumers spend compared to 20 years ago. In the 1980s they spent a lot and players like Brett were still being exploited to a certain extent simply because the market for baseball talent was so new. Now people give the sport even more of their money
A salary cap does not equal competitiveness, it simply changes which teams are allowed to be competitive. The Royals have had more winning seasons than the Arizona Cardinals this decade, and teams like the Lions and Clippers have been just as dreadful. The Spurs have made the NBA Finals more than any baseball team has made the World Series this year. And the 90s Bulls or this decades Patriots have been even more dominant. . .
To argue that a salary cap would create competitiveness is simply argueing that you wish to change which teams will be most competitive, nothing else >>
No, it argues that competitiveness becomes more a function of front-office competence, and less a function of factors (i.e., market size) which are beyond the control of the franchise.
<< <i>So you agree that when front offices like the Lions and Clippers exist, the salary cap does not make the league more competitive than the MLB system? >>
Absolutely a league with a salary cap is more competitive than a league using the MLB system. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Obviously no league can control for front office incompetence-- which plays a significant role in the historically poor performance of certain professional franchises-- but they can control for other factors that create a competitive disadvantage for some teams, amongst which are salary disparities.
Do you agree that there is a correlation between a player's salary and his ability? Further, do you agree that there is a correlation between a player's ability and the performance of his team? If so, then you must agree that there is a correlation between team salary and performance. It's not the ONLY factor that has a direct causal effect on team performance (front office buffoonery would clearly be another), but it is one factor-- and, more importantly, it's a factor which can be controlled by the league.
A salary cap wouldn't suddenly make stupidly managed teams suddenly smart - they would likely still be losers, but it couldn't help but make the league more competitive. At the very least, and I mean the very least, a well designed salary cap such as in the NFL, would allow teams to at least keep one or two of their star players...which also increases local fan interest in their team, and I think loyalty as well. For example I attended a number of Phillies games just to watch Steve Carlton pitch, games which I may not have attended otherwise.
I mentioned Carlos Beltran for KC - How in the world could having Carlos Beltran on KC not make KC more competitive? He was originally with KC and KC deserves to keep him - it just isn't fair to KC to lose a superstar like this for no good reason that couldn't be prevented with a salary cap. I mean come on now, isn't this clearly obvious? But NY fans, and perhaps some Red Sox fans don't want to see the obvious.
Then we must ask if that small amount of increase in competitiveness is really worth such a questionable buisness practice. In 2006 the Yankees made more than enough to fund their entire payroll plus the entire payroll of the second best AL team before a single ticket or concession was sold. When so much money is being generated by these teams, to take that away from the players and give even more profits to management is absolutely not the way to increase competition
<< <i>You are right that a salary cap would increase competitiveness. The important questions, then become, to what degree? Based on the NBA and NFL it seems minimally, those sports still have a lot seperating the top franchises from the bottom ones, while baseball still does see the Indians, Rockies and Diamondbacks all make the playoffs last year. Carlos Beltran would help the Royals hugely, but then perhaps the Mets are in the same position as the Knicks.
Then we must ask if that small amount of increase in competitiveness is really worth such a questionable buisness practice. In 2006 the Yankees made more than enough to fund their entire payroll plus the entire payroll of the second best AL team before a single ticket or concession was sold. When so much money is being generated by these teams, to take that away from the players and give even more profits to management is absolutely not the way to increase competition >>
That is, indeed, the question. By what factor would a cap increase competitiveness? To be frank, I have no idea. I'm sure it would help, but I don't know by how much. It could be that it would help very little, and that front office acumen is responsible for an overwhelming majority of team's on field success (or lack thereof).
One thing, however, that you have to very careful about is arguing that because teams X,Y and Z have been successful, and they are mid-market teams, then the salary issue is moot. With a big enough initial sample size you're always going to get some curious results. When we draw from 20-some-odd teams that have salaries in the middle-to-low range, it's almost a certainty that a few of them will put together very good seasons. In other words, if you distribute MLB teams into two groups, one group that holds, say, the five teams with the highest payrolls, and the other group that contains the other 25 or so teams, then the number of post-season bids, WS titles, etc. etc. between the two groups will probably be about even. But anyone can see that this fact does not, in any way, argue for the notion that salary is irrelevant.
Also, I don't follow your last sentence. Why would the size of gross profits have any effect on whether or not a salary cap would be a good idea? Are you saying that if big market teams only averaged 'X' amount of profit per year than a salary cap would be fine, but since they average '3X' in profit it wouldn't be? If so, I don't see how the size of this margin is relevant.
The issue of profits is important, because it determines if a salary cap should even be permissible. Money not spent on players because of a salary cap is money that goes to management. For management to artificially keep salaries below what labor has already bargained for is absolutely wrong.
Parity is GOOD! Mediocrity reins! WE could rotate who gets into the playoffs every year too.
We can call it the Stevek Plan.
Gotta allow the Pittsburghs and Kansas City fans of the sports world to feel good about themselves.
While we are at it lets cap the salaries of everyone. School teachers, nurses, Policeman, the self employed, etc.
Steve
<< <i>Never have I said the salary issue is moot, simply that it can account for only a fraction of competitive imbalance, and those examples do a perfect job of proving that
The issue of profits is important, because it determines if a salary cap should even be permissible. Money not spent on players because of a salary cap is money that goes to management. For management to artificially keep salaries below what labor has already bargained for is absolutely wrong. >>
It may be wrong from an efficiency standpoint, but taking this kind of normative position is completely irrelevant when we're talking about what would improve the overall entertainment value of MLB.
Also, while it's indisputable that salaries can only account for a fraction of the imbalance, the real question is the size of that fraction.
Say the Big Bad Mets off Beltran 20 mil a yr. Make Kansas city match it. Then if he still wants to leave say he can't.
The courts will love it.
Steve
If they can't match the Mets dollar for dollar they don't belong in the league.
Downsize baby down size.
Steve