| 0 |
Subject: Baseball Economics
Posted by: Bandos
- [531153296] Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 18:03
As promised here is thread for all to use to criticize or praise the way baseball functions vis-a-vis money. Maybe we can keep the other hot stove threads to being more about the relative stengths of the players, at least more (as price does absolutely relate directly with value).
Disclaimer: I am very proud follower of the 2004 World Champion Boston Red Sox!
Issue 1: Isn't Baseball just operating under the prevalent economic system in this country; Capitalism?
I will shoot the first shot - a reitieration of what I claimed in the Unit to Yankees? thread. "Baseball is a monopoly, not truly capitalistic. As long as teams can block other teams from moving into nyc(or boston for that matter), certain teams have an unfair competitive advantage. Move a team to boston, 1 to northern nj and 2 more to nyc and all that anti-capitalist monopolistic advantage would disappear."
To expand a bit, baseball controls so much of the economics of the game, including team placement and movement, that to say it is based on capitalism v. socialism is misleading, though not totally inaccurate as below:
I have also come to believe that certain teams just market themselves better for reasons I have yet to sort out. Minnesota, Oakland and other small market teams drew well in the 80's when they were good - why don't they draw now when they are consistently winning divisions and in the offs? Are the Yankees, Sox, Cardinals etc better at marketing, as well as having higher payrolls.
So, like the USA, baseball is a mixed economic bag. (for pity sake, the "union" wants unfeterred spending and the "owners" want a salary cap - that should tell you something right there) Though big market teams that could support more teams can hardly claim that they don't have an "unfair" advantage by Baseball being a monopoly. If an advantage is "unfair" it is inherently uncapitalistic (ie not free market, but predetermined)
Issue #2: Spending doenst guarantee winning, or does it?
Every year the statistics show that the bigger spenders DO win more. Period. Are there teams that spend big anf don't win, of course. And small market teams that do win, of course. Yet 66% of teams over 100 million made the offs and only 17% below did. It is an absolute advantage - just ask a Sox fan :)
Issue #3: The Yankees are in league of their own, or are they?
This is the new trend by non-Sox fans to lump them together. Well, my arguments were much more solid before they signed Varitek and went over the salary tax threshold AGAIN :(rrrggghhh! Nonetheless, this is ludicrous. The Yankees are in a league of their own. look at it visually:
Estimated 2005 Payrolls in millions
220 NYY
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140 BoSox
130 Anaheim, LA, Mets
120
100
90
80
70
60
50 KC
The Sox in 2004 were one of three teams to pay luxury tax - they paid 3, anaheim paid 1, the NYY, 25 mil. The above gaps are similar. No other team can have 50-60 million worth of payroll just sitting there not doing anything or stinking. They are in their own league. The argument can be made that the Sox are closer to KC than the Yanks (I don't think it is a strong argument but it is there...)
The Red Sox, to use an example I am familiar with, are not free from criticism. They, like the NYY, are profitable above the Luxury tax (apparently) and do indeed spend. Is it a coincidence that they also began to spend wisely the past two years when made the ALCS and when they won it all - no. Only Manny and BYKim were bad contracts (and still are) to the tune of 10-13 million a year *depending how you value Manny, I put him at 12-14 mil per year, not 20). that 10-13 mil would cripple a small market team.
Simply, 29 teams have a budget and one does not, at least yet.
Issue #4: Is the disparity bad for the game?
Apparently not: The game is much more profitable, ratings are up. The US loves to see the underdog (though now that label does not apply to the sox) finally win. (and now probably cant wait to root against the Sox and their obnoxious, 2004 WS champion winning garments, smug attitudes etc). A powerful Yankees team, dynasty or not, is apparently good for baseball NOW while a Cap is great for football.
Issue #5: Should Baseball adopt a salary Cap?
Along with a salary floor and more revenue sharing, absolutely. This money must be spent on the team, and not get siphoned off to the pockets of the owners. I think in the long run that 1/2 the teams in baseball having no chance on opening day will eventually really hurt the sport - no evidence, just gut feeling that we want winners in this country.
Well, that is it for now. I hope I didnt rub anyone the wrong way. Ths was not meant to be argumentative (notice the decided lack exclamation marks and using anothers quote to semantically dress them down) and I hope that reasoned opinions, though different, can rise above bickering.
Bandos, former Yankee "hater" now Sox "Apologist"
2004 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox (sorry, I like how that looks :)
|
| 1 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 20:05
|
Great first posting.
"Isn't Baseball just operating under the prevalent economic system in this country; Capitalism?"
Within it's own monopolistic universe it is absolutely a capitalist system. There is no limititations as to how profitable or unprofitable (other than the 60/40 debt to equity ratio) an organization can be. Each team is run either by a large corporation, an individual or a group of investors just like how corporations work in the real world.
Just like the real world there are teams that will stop at nothing to win (Yankees), those that are content with being very profitable, spend just enough to fill the park by having some marketable players and mediocre (My beloved Cubs.) results, and then those run by complete and utter morons who pay no attention to either the bottom line (D-Backs), strategy (Mariners), or their fans (White Sox).
Just like our modified capitalistic system those teams that are successful (as defined by having a high payroll) are subject to a luxury tax. Essentially, the MLB system is punishing the Steinbrenners and BoSox for having a superior product.
"Spending doenst guarantee winning, or does it?"
It most certainly does not. I respect your statistics, but I believe those are based on chance as opposed to actual happenings. When the A's were in their heyday with Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, and Zito; they were capable of beating anybody at anytime, they just didn't do it.
The Oakland A's are a good example. Billy Beane is the guru of gurus and I think he knows something about Hudson and Mulder.
If spending equalled winning, then why haven't the Yankees won the World Series every year? If Beane had the Yankees budget in Oakland, he would assemble the greatest team of all time within 3-4 years.
Cashman not winning in New York is absolute proof that he has no business being in any post in professional baseball. To reiterate my point, give a guy like Beane or Jim Hendry almost 200 million per year to play with and you'll see something spectacular happen.
"The Yankees are in league of their own, or are they?"
No they are not. Think of it like a role playing game. Each caste or character type has its own special qualities. In baseball, there are the economic powerhouses (NY, Boston), the developmental geniusous (Oakland, Minnesota), and then the crafty GMs who can make magic trades (Cubs).
They have to play by the same rules everybody else does. If Team X doesn't have the budget, then they have to focus on minor league development and then either trade for veterans or stockpile enough talent. The Yankees have it easier because they can buy any player at anytime, but that has shown over the last four years that it does not translate to immediate or effective results.
"Is the disparity bad for the game?"
No doubt. That blame lay solely with the owners because they fail to either hire a competent GM, develop a grade "A" farm system, or spend the money.
"Should Baseball adopt a salary Cap?"
Only if it adopts a salary floor and considers cutting some teams first. I would prefer chopping off 4-5 teams, wait a few years and see how it plays out. If there is still a huge gap, then a cap must be implemented.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 20:26
|
The system is as close to capitalistic as Soviet owned car companies. That is, only on the surface, and only because it's propped up with the money of taxpayers.
No other industry has an anti-trust exemption that baseball holds. And no other industry (though auto companies come close) can hold municipalities hostage, by invoking "city pride" as a negotiating point in having taxpayers fund the building and maintainence of their places of business.
There have been some good threads on the economics of baseball here in the past (this small one by Madman is all I can find right now). And I do think we're entering a period in which many of the core bricks holding up baseball are being shaken: Steroid testing by the MLBPA, a commissioner no longer representing just the owners, anti-trust exemption, revenue sharing, the perception of the Yankees simply buying their way into the playoffs each year all need to be addressed, very soon, and well.
Baseball enjoys the popularity it does mostly because of momentum. It's not something that will last forever.
pd
|
| 3 | MadDOG
ID: 15040116
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 20:31
|
Get rid of Donald Fehr and baseball's small market teams will have a chance.
|
| 4 | Da Bomb
ID: 311261218
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 20:44
|
Of course spending doesn't "guarantee" winning. Nothing in life is guaranteed. But does spending give you a far better chance of winning? Definitely. Just because the Yankees have the largest payroll doesn't mean they should win every year. Say, for example, the Yankees have a 40% chance of winning the World Series in 2005. Then say the Sox have a 35% chance, Dodgers 25%, and so on and so forth. In this example, the Yankees have the best chance out of every other team, but they actually have a better chance of not winning. This is because although they have a higher percentage than every other team, they still have a 60% chance of not winning.
The Yankees have gotten into the playoffs every year. What would be the real shock is if they didn’t. Sometimes strange things happen in short playoff series. A ball bounces the wrong way; a manager makes a bad decision, whatever the case may be.
|
| 5 | Filthy Rich
ID: 315411012
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 22:26
|
I think the way the luxury tax works, it doesn't really scare off teams from spending over it. They get penalized but still have a great chance to make the playoffs where anything can happen. However, I wonder if the amount paid into the luxury tax was only redistributed to teams in their own division, how much that would effect the spending habits. In that scenario, the team overspending would be paying money to their main competition which would lead to lesser chance of even making the playoffs. They would then be forced to either lower their spending, or give money to the teams they play the most and are competing to make the playoffs against.
|
| 6 | barilko6
ID: 551022715
Sat, Jan 01, 2005, 23:40
|
There are so many misconceptions regarding businesses in our societies.
In regards to post 2, big businesses always get various concessions to make their presence in a community more feasible. Tax breaks, legal kickbacks, property concessions, these are all the norm, but are much less known about then when you take the ballparks into consideration. A large company, when it moves to a new area, will see all sorts of perks, concessions, tax breaks, etc, as will already established businesses, so long as the municipalities deem that business to be advantageous to the area.
That being said, a level playing field is definately needed within baseball. If you look at the NFL, any team can become competitive within 3 years if they want. (Sorry Arizona Cardinal fans, but maybe your time will come)
As for post 1, salary caps will definately provide a more levelized playing field. Sure there are exceptions to the norm, but in the end the larger based payroll teams will come out on top. If you are going to play poker and one player brings $100,000 and another brings $5,000...well I can tell you who is at a distinct advantage, and who at the end of it all has the greater probability of coming out on top. Sure Oakland and Minnesota have come across very nicely, but they are just 2 of a long list of hopefuls that got lucky for a spell of time...and they haven't come out on top either.
In a business world its fair for those that want to spend whatever they want to do so to ensure that their businesses succeed, which is what the large market teams are doing, but when you have a collective effort in place with 30 teams, there needs to be a cost-based structure in place to create an equality among the teams, much like the NFL has. A maximum cap, a minimum cap, and tighter revenue sharing--for the good of the league.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 00:06
|
Tax breaks are certainly the norm, but not billion dollar breaks (like the proposed West Side Stadium in NYC), or municipalities paying construction costs of buildings with no chance of making the money back for the taxpayers.
|
| 8 | Da Bomb
ID: 311261218
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 00:50
|
I find it pretty ironic than a Sox fan would want a salary cap. Is the reasoning for this just to “get back” at the Yanks, or would you rather have a more level playing field than see your favorite team win? If it’s the latter that’s pretty honorable.
|
| 9 | dgrooves
ID: 18911319
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 08:46
|
"Spending doenst guarantee winning, or does it?"
It most certainly does not. I respect your statistics, but I believe those are based on chance as opposed to actual happenings. When the A's were in their heyday with Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder, and Zito; they were capable of beating anybody at anytime, they just didn't do it.
So is this supposed to be ironic? Bandos gives statistics and you say they're not "actual happenings". Then you use hypotheical outcomes to back up your view.
Nothing can be truly guarunteed, but I do believe there is a positive correlation between payroll and total wins/playoff appearances.
|
| 10 | Khahan
ID: 31854515
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 09:25
|
Dgrooves, one thing you'll notice about post 2, its that Cosmos seems to equate winning with being the World Series Champion:
If spending equalled winning, then why haven't the Yankees won the World Series every year? If Beane had the Yankees budget in Oakland, he would assemble the greatest team of all time within 3-4 years.
That's a fine way of measuring winning, Cosmos, nothing wrong with it. I just think its a different definition than what others are using.
I think there are 4 ways to define winning (and some of them overlap):
1. Winning the world series. Everybody else is a loser. Boston
2. Making it into the playoffs. NY, Oak
3. Being competitive for the playoffs: Angels, Cubs
4. Simply having a .500+ record
All 4 definitions are viable, however I think for purposes of this discussion, 1 and 2 are too restrictive. 4 leaves the door open for a bit of mediocrity (82-80 can hardly be considered competitive, but they are 'winning' team by overall record). 3, to me is the best, but then again, my team is usually competitive for the playoffs.
I think for purposes of this discussion, definition 4 is the best to use. Yes, it may leave the door open to call a team like the Chicago WhiteSox and Florida Marlins (in 2004 both were 83-79) winners. But we need a definition that can be the most flexible. Technically, we are putting the Red Sox and Marlins in the same category as winners. But as baseball fans, we all know the difference. :)
Now, as to how to fix baseball economics:
1. Get rid of Bud: We need a commish who can stand up and represent the owners, the players, the umps, the marketing etc. He's seen as untrustworthy when it comes to finance (reference his handling of the Senate investigation the other year into baseball econimics).
2. Contraction: This IS a good idea, despite what the players union says. It may not be a direct economic solution, but it will be a step towards fixing larger problems in baseball (unattractive, unpopular, unprofitable, poorly run teams for example).
3. Break the players union. This goes right along with deposing Bud. The players union is in the way of every major, positive economic reform effort in baseball. I don't begrudge the players the money they make. But its one thing to have a union fighting over $20/hour vs $22.50/hour. Its entirely different to have them fighting over $3mil per year vs $2.5mil/ year (or in A-rod's anectodal case: $25mil/year vs $23mil/year).
4. A salary cap instituted with a salary floor.
There are others things which can be done that will help impact the $$ issues i baseball. But those are the 4 biggest I see at the moment.
|
| 11 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 09:56
|
dgrooves: "Nothing can be truly guarunteed, but I do believe there is a positive correlation between payroll and total wins/playoff appearances."
Of course there is a correlation. In sports, there are too many more powerful variables than just opening a checkbook. If money were strictly the factor, why did the Yankees commit The Great Choke in Games 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the BoSox? Why couldn't they win one game out of four if money equates to winning?
Baltimore dumped a boatload of money on Javy and Tejada. Where did that get them?
Seattle has spent money on Sexson and Beltre, but without top flight or above average starting pitching do you see them getting to the big dance?
I can't recall the exact year (10 years ago?), but remember the Miami Dolphins team that stockpiled former first round picks, paid them decently and it was lauded by the football media? Where did that team go?
How much money has Snyder spent in Washington? What does he have to show for it?
Khahan: Feel free to use any definition of "winning" that you want. It probably relates to whatever team you root for. A Yankees fan doesn't win unless its the World Series. A Cubs fan wins just by finding a good parking spot and a decent postgame barstool at Murphy's after the game.
I'm a Cubs fan so I suppose I should just be happy with a pretty ballpark, Sammy's hop, and a good neighborhood. :)
That's the general view I have of sports. Winning is considered winning, what Tom Beringer so correctly put in Major League, "the whole *bleeping* thing".
Even though 82 wins is above .500, you can't consider that winning. I'm sorry, but the standards have to be higher than that.
Take the Cubs this year. They didn't win anything. Sure they were above .500, but they were supposed to go to the World Series. They had all the ducks in a row in building that team (sans a true leadoff hitter), exercised a demon in bringing back Maddux, and made a great trade with Derrick Lee, but they still couldn't do it. The Cubs have spent money, developed their own players (Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Patterson), and have a top notch GM, but they still have some kind of bad mojo about them.
I'll stop the angry Cubs fan rant now. :)
|
| 12 | MadDOG
ID: 15040116
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 10:07
|
DONALD FEHR MUST GO!!!!!!
Talk to any baseball fan who lives in a small market town. To them DONALD FEHR IS SATAN!!
|
| 13 | Bandos
ID: 531153296
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 11:16
|
Bomb -
Even with a say 65-130 million range, the Sox would still do well. However, as honorable or foolish (depending on your point of view) as it is, I want a cap for the good of baseball.
Rich -
I like the idea of giving money to your direct competition - how about realignment based on salary? A yanks, Sox, Mets, Anaheim, LA division?
|
| 14 | Bandos
ID: 531153296
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 11:24
|
Cosmo -
As I pointed out in the initial thread, there is no guarantee and no one is claiming that money is the ONLY factor. The fact remains, I would be willing to bet an entire paycheck the yanks make the playoff solely based on their payroll (and the all stars who come with it) and i bet you would too. Is their ANY other team you could say that about? Not my Sox...
|
| 15 | Khahan
ID: 31854515
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 11:24
|
Cosmos, the reason I said we need a definition like that is because it IS flexible. No, 82 games won on the season for the Cubs or Red Sox or Yankees would not be winning.
But what if the Brewers came out in 2005 and won 82 games? Guess what...that would be a huge step and considered winning for them.
We're not talking about just the top teams here. We're not talking about the small market or the middle market or the successful despite. We're talking about baseball in general. The mere fact that 'winning only counts if you win the WS' makes that too narrow of a definition for this debate. Its perfectly valid for many other discussions, but not for this one.
We need to move away from the anectodal, "Yeah, well this one team managed to do it," or "This team failed despite..." and look at baseball as a whole.
Actually, measuring economics of baseball by winning is like waiting until after the trial to figure out if OJ was innocent or guilty. Its can often act as a false criteria.
I think the true measurement of parity in baseball economics is when the Pittsburgh Pirates, Milwaukee Brewers or Tampa Bay Devil Rays actually have a shot at 'legitmately' entering the bidding for Carlos Beltran. They might be the underdogs in the bidding war, but they could legitamately enter.
Right now, the underdogs in the Beltran Sweepstakes are simply any team in the top 10 financially that hasn't overcommitted to other players.
|
| 16 | barilko6
ID: 551022715
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 13:06
|
A cap is definately something that is needed.
If you look at the 4 major professional sports (Are we still considering hockey as a major sport?!?), is it a coincidence that the 2 that are doing well are the 2 that have hard caps in place?
Baseball and hockey with all of their problems would be best served to sit down with the leaders of the NBA and NFL and learn a thing of two. A cap can work for both the players and the owners...and maybe for us fans too!
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 13:49
|
What helps those sports is that there are fewer free agents in the NBA and NFL than in MLB. More FAs mean that the prices start going up.
I don't have any idea how to drive down the numbers of FAs (though I'll think on it), but the player market in MLB is different from the others, which contributes to the problem.
|
| 19 | Khahan
ID: 2884979
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 14:46
|
Perm Dude, perfect solution to the number of FA: Reduce the number of teams (contraction). This will reduce the number of jobs which will reduce the number of viable players.
Also, reduce the rosters by 1 or 2. Get rid of these 1 and 2 hitter specialists and these 1 inning middle relievers:
"Hey, I'm the best 7th inning pitcher in the game. I want $3mil a year..." and "Well, HE got $3mil a year and he only pitches one inning per game. I want $6mil per year because I might pitch 2 innings in some closing situations."
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 15:09
|
That's not exactly perfect! The union would never go for it. And no union would.
|
| 21 | Khahan
ID: 31854515
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 15:58
|
Ok, maybe its not perfect...but its a good start.
As for the union, see post 10, point 3 under how to fix. :)
|
| 22 | Cosmo's Cod Piece
ID: 481152817
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 16:59
|
Bandos: "I would be willing to bet an entire paycheck the yanks make the playoff solely based on their payroll"
I would as well. Do you mean payroll in terms of busting out the checkbook for anyone they want or the financial flexibility to retain their own talent or both?
The Yankees have developed their own talent that has played prominently in their playoff runs. If I'm wrong on any of these please call me out because I think these are all home grown Yankees.
Jeter, Rivera, Pettite, Bernie Williams, Posada, have all played significant roles in their playoffs. Soriano was used in the A-Rod deal. Yes, the Yankees try to buy their pennants as opposed to developing talent as a general strategy, but they have produced some very high quality major leaguers.
"Is their ANY other team you could say that about? Not my Sox..."
BoSox? I think you could. They bought Pedro, Damon, and Manny Ramirez. They are by no means as bad as the Yankees, but I don't think the BoSox are a shining beacon of fiscal restraint.
Khahan: "I think the true measurement of parity in baseball economics is when the Pittsburgh Pirates, Milwaukee Brewers or Tampa Bay Devil Rays actually have a shot at 'legitmately' entering the bidding for Carlos Beltran. They might be the underdogs in the bidding war, but they could legitamately enter."
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. What you typed is probably an underlying problem in the owners thinking.
The true measurement of parity is when the GMs/Owners of those teams realize that its better for the team to buy 5, 5mil players as opposed to 1, 25 mil player.
That's one reason I hope the Cubs don't get Beltran. If they do have the bank to spend on him, I'd rather have them spread it out on a guy like Maggs, get a closer and some top shelf middle relief.
The owners have brought this upon themselves. I'd truly like to see how they'd fare in fantasy baseball. I'd bet that some of those puds would buy Bonds and Pujols with their initial cap of 50 mil and then field a bunch of idiots around them.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 17:25
|
I simply don't agree that busting the union is a good thing. Evidence #1 for that: Bud Selig. Think the owners, left in control of everything, would make the right decisions? They are in control of the commissioner, and look what we've got. I don't trust the owners one bit.
The owners have brought this upon themselves. Absolutely.
|
| 24 | Bandos
ID: 531153296
Sun, Jan 02, 2005, 17:45
|
I never claimed the Sox were any kind of beacon of fiscal restraint. Read my post carefully. What I meant was that I wouldn't bet MY paycheck on the BoSox, but would on the Yanks, solely due to payroll.
As far as the Yanks: Yes, it is ability to sign new guys AND keep home grown ones. How many of the Sox' own top tier free agents have they signed recently: No one over 10 mil a year. Pedro, Nomar (traded but was gonna walk after he turned down 4/60), Mo, Clemens, Boggs, Lowe(offered 3/27) all walked. Tek would have had the Sox not overpaid by 1 year and 2 mil per. They would have stayed had the Sox offered the absurd contracts they got elsewhere, but the Sox couldn't absorb or afford that payroll hit. In contrast, the Yankees have the ability to offer an extra 2-4 million above market value AND a extra year or 3 to their homegrown guys. The only guy they didnt offer well above market was Pettite and he left.
Not to nit pick but Pedro, Schill were traded for, Damon, Foulke, Tek, Clement and Renteria signed for 10 mil or under. The only 10+ FA signed in the History of the Sox is Manny and they DO realize that that kind of contract is an albatross as the waivers incident shows.
Their is a difference between the Sox and about 24 other teams, they can sign the 5-8 mil guys and take the chance on the Wade Millers - those other treams can't and are forced into the 2-5 million players who are a real crapshoot.
|
| 25 | Filthy Rich
ID: 35119816
Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 04:48
|
13- I had also thought about a scenario involving realignment of sorts. I was thinking that something like they do in the premier soccer with tiers would be excellent.
An upper tier where the best teams would play and have to perform to keep from dropping to the lower tier. Wouldn't be restricted to the highest spending teams, cause there are some hapless high spenders, and some successful low spenders. Also these teams wouldn't get to feast on playing the bottom dwellers all the time, the games would all be against top competition. There would also be a lower tier league where the bottom dwellers could compete for a chance at being in the upper tier the following year. Almost every team would have a fair shot at winning something and could add some excitement to it for some of the teams that never even get to sniff the playoffs. Main problem I see however, is that it could turn into another minor league where the lower tier would be left without star players and lose some major fanbase.
|
| 26 | Khahan
ID: 2884979
Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 09:30
|
Perm Dude, 23:
I agree with you, leaving Bud in power with a weak union is a bad idea. That's why my very first point was to get rid of Bud.
Of course, the other, less drastic option than 'breaking the union' would be to get rid of Gene Orza and replace him with somebody who is able to see the big picture of baseball and look past individual player pay.
|
| 27 | biliruben
ID: 41046317
Mon, Jan 03, 2005, 20:36
|
Just stumbled across this dated data.
Look at Toronto and Oakland's salaries in 1992. Bizarro.
|
| 28 | barilko6
ID: 421150249
Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 10:17
|
That was back in the day when the Jays were bringing in 54,000 fans per game though. With their average of 25,000 nowadays, its almost parallelled with inflation of the budget.
|
| 29 | StomoDotCom
ID: 12039416
Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 18:18
|
The realignment based on salary is an interesting idea, but it would never work. I mean having low spenders who usually tend to be the poorest of performing teams, won't exactly attract much attention if they play each other 15 times a year. I mean who would pay to see the Brewers play the Pirates? Even free hotdogs wouldn't bring me to the ball park. Where as yeah one would say seeing the Yanks playing the Angels will sell out, but you know what, the Yanks will sell out anywhere they go, whether @home, in Anaheim, or in even Tokyo. The Yankees have establihsed their reputation as that of winners, and people pay to see their teams play them; it simple.
However the salary cap is a bit more realistic. At first it's interesting, because I am a Met fan; And having the 4th highest payroll in the league, and still missing the playoffs last couple of season is tough. But the truth is there needs to be some control; teams need to be on an equal playing field. Filthy Rich I understand your idea as in pro soccer, but it's like sending a team back to the minors. And I'm still not to sure, but maybe a salary cap is the best thing for baseball. Not only will it give teams a chance to compete before the Free Agency signings and outrageous contracts do them in from the start, but it will also make owners spend wiser. When there's a cap, I'm pretty sure owners will be more careful with how much money they throw around. And so what if the Players Union cries over spilled milk?
That's the problem, players are making too much money, even for normal sports standards. And who knows, it might be too late alredy to put in a salary cap without the players taking their bank accounts and retiring at the age of 30. But something has to be done, for the fan's sake. Rating going up doesn't mean anything. For all we know, they could just mean more people want to see the Yankees lose?
That's why I saw the ALCS atleast. The fans have endured enough. In the midst of the entire steroid scandal, with strikes in the past and one that loomed not too long ago, how much more are the fans going to take? Maybe some fans are happy, and as a Met fan I may have to complain, but I can only imagine the Tiger fans; a slowly improving team, with an insane debt. Ouch.
Something needs to be done to let teams be on the same playing field. It will not only bring order to the game, but will bring more fans back. The rich shouldn't be getting richer with the poorer getting poorer...the league should protect all the teams, not just the easily marketable ones. If the NBA, NFL, (and the NHL when not on strike) can all successfully operate with a salary cap, and still bring the tremendous excitement everywhere they go, why can't it work for MLB?
|
| 30 | StomoDotCom
ID: 12039416
Tue, Jan 04, 2005, 19:29
|
pardon. forget nhl, got kinda tongue twisted
|
| 31 | Caper
Donor
ID: 1535108
Wed, Jan 05, 2005, 07:08
|
What I mind about this is that it is artificially supported by the anti-trust exemption. The Yankees and Mets are in the best market and I cannot go and set up a team to compete with them. If that were allowed to happen then the playing field may be leveled some. If that were not allowed to happen then the richs need to be divided more evenly around the league. This can be done in 2 ways, IMHO. The first is to share revenue. Go with the basic presumption that money generated is by the existance of the league as a whole and good market teams need the smaller market teams in order to generate the $$$$. The other idea is to allow the owners to pocket the $$$$ generated in these larger markets but only spend what any other team can afford to spend, a hard salary cap. This may be more palatable to the owners, but the players would not like it.
Having rambled on this far I am left with the issues, 1. the anti-trust exemption protects the big market teams from natural competition, 2. the lack of revenue sharing means that these teams have more money generated than the small market teams, 3. the lack of a salary cap means that these teams can use this advantage, gained through an exemption of the competition laws, to keep the small market teams down.
To a weak-minded man like me, it sure looks like the roof has to fall in at some time. If I were to come to a conclusion it would have to be that baseball is being screwed up by owners and the commish. The basic principals of capitalism would create more competition, basic sharing of revenue generated as a league would create more competition or basic spending controls would create more competition. The refusal to tackle any of these issues means that the problem will persist.
The Yankees are the symptom of the problem. The cause of the problem, IMHO, is the lack of any mechanism to ensure a level competitive playing field. As stated above, this is a bastardization of capitalism that is threatening baseball in many markets in NA.
|
| 32 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 14:00
|
Three MLB Players make more than the entire Marlins roster.What do Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and Derek Jeter have in common? All will earn more money this season than the entire Marlins' 25-man roster.
The roster won't be set until month's end, but based on the team's 40-man salary figures the outlay won't top $19 million.
|
| 33 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249
Thu, Mar 09, 2006, 15:56
|
Plus this... rumors that Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis are on the trading block. Do they know how to throw a firesale down in FLA or what?!
|
| 34 | Perm Dude in Austin
ID: 14255716
Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 09:43
|
I believe that the roster problem has been true about MLB stars and the Tampa Bay team for quite some time as well.
|
| 35 | electroman
ID: 511252218
Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 13:50
|
The jerk in Florida is holding the city hostage. He didn't get a stadium, so he doesn't believe that Miami deserves a team. He bolted from Montreal the second they thought of wiping them out with the Twins. How does the New Jersey Marlins sound?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|